The next phase of the Arizona aftermath: New laws
The anti-tea party and -Palin gabfest following the shootings in Tucson, Ariz., seems to be dying down, and we’re moving on to the policy prescription phase. Some ideas are plainly farcical, such as U.S. Rep. Bob Brady’s idea to ban the use of some symbols in reference to elected officials, and U.S. Rep. Peter King’s idea to ban the possession of firearms with a 1,000-foot radius of our ever-moving members of Congress (will the Ministry of Truth alert us to all of their comings and goings so that we can stay out of the way?). You can always count on members of Congress to look after themselves first.
Then there are the ideas that are entirely predictable: the call for tighter gun restrictions.
As a matter of principle, I think any law we enact as a response to a particular event ought to have, at the very least, a clear indication that it would have stood a good chance of preventing said event. And when it comes to mass murders such as the one in Tucson, the unique characteristics of these atrocities make them extremely difficult to avoid by fiat.
At Reason.com, Jacob Sullum explains:
At a press conference on Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik decried Arizona’s permissive gun laws. “I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want,” he said, “and that’s almost where we are.” Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, echoed Dupnik’s concern, saying Arizona “has almost no gun laws.”
The logic here may be even harder to follow than the reasoning that links the Tucson murders to Sarah Palin. A man bent on assassinating a member of Congress, a man who thinks nothing of gunning down a 9-year-old girl, is not likely to have compunctions about carrying a firearm without a permit.
In retrospect, it may seem obvious that someone like [Jared] Loughner never should have been able to own a gun in the first place. “Why are crazy people allowed to buy weapons in this country?” wondered Time columnist Joe Klein. Helmke complained that “we make it too easy for dangerous and irresponsible people to get guns in this country.” They noted that Loughner was suspended from college for disrupting classes with strange comments and that one of his fellow students called him “very disturbed.”
But Loughner was never “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution,” which would have disqualified him from buying a gun under federal law, and his behavior in school, though off-putting, was not violent. There is no reliable way of predicting which tiny percentage of the country’s many oddballs and malcontents will convert weird ideas into homicidal actions. That reality may be scary, but it is not nearly as scary as a legal regime that strips citizens of their Second Amendment rights based on the opinions they express.
I think that’s right. A man who holds a grudge against another person for three-plus years, over the flimsiest of insults, and is calculating enough to purchase a gun two months ahead of time is going to be very hard to stop with restrictions on gun ownership. As Sullum notes, we already have laws intended to prevent the truly mentally ill from buying guns (it’s also worth noting that we have laws against buying all kinds of goods and services, from marijuana to prostitution, that are illegal and yet readily available). Could we go farther? Maybe. But it’s pretty much impossible to prevent a Loughner from buying guns by adding restrictions related to the mentally ill, if the guy is never officially diagnosed and classified as mentally ill. (Let’s acknowledge here that we probably don’t yet know everything about Loughner on this score.)
Similarly thorny are the calls for returning to some form of institutionalization. I’ve heard arguments that a great number of our homeless would not be on the streets if institutionalization were in greater use, and I suppose it just might be possible that a guy like Loughner or the Virginia Tech shooter could have been placed in a mental institution before he killed — although the VT shooter’s medical records don’t necessarily confirm that notion.
But I would venture to guess that any person in the news business — and probably government — who’s had occasion to take phone calls from a publicly listed number has encountered plenty of people on the other end of the line who are not just wacky-sounding but who probably are suffering from some sort of mental illness. How many of them go on to commit violent crimes? If it were even a statistically significant number, I think we’d hear about a lot more Tucson-like tragedies. Back to Sullum:
Even worse is a legal regime that imprisons eccentrics on the off chance that they will commit murder someday. [Time's Joe] Klein regretted that “we no longer lock up the mentally ill,” while University of Maryland political scientist William Galston said civil commitment rules should be changed to “shift the balance in favor of protecting the community.” Such a shift inevitably would mean locking up more people who pose no real threat to others.
A few decades ago, we decided the balance had gotten out of whack in favor of institutionalizing too many people. Perhaps we’ve gone too far in the other direction, but any move to reverse that decision should be made with great care and deliberation — and any new restrictions based on medical diagnoses, not the voicing of strange thoughts and opinions.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
69 comments Add your comment
Jefferson
January 12th, 2011
10:36 am
Lack of direct parental supervision, the internet, video games and instant gradifications has its downsides…a 12 gauge shotgun can protect your family but handguns are made for killin’. The 21st century progress.
StJ
January 12th, 2011
10:40 am
Never let a good crisis go to waste, according to Democrats.
joeliberal
January 12th, 2011
10:48 am
SARAH is mighty quiet these days. Maybe she feels guilty
buildmomosques
January 12th, 2011
10:51 am
Sarah can kiss her 2012 bid for the presidency goodbye. I doubt if she can be elected for governor in Alaska right now.
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
10:55 am
Fox News producer Virginia Grace has been reaching out to members of Congress to try to get them to sign on to the pledge denouncing violence that Glenn Beck unveiled on the air yesterday.
The full text of Beck’s letter is here.
To Whom it May Concern,
Following the tragedies in Arizona, Glenn Beck has put out a challenge to all Americans to denounce violence (please see below). He would like to invite all members of Congress to participate in this challenge. He would like to publicize the list of participating members tonight on our show as a message of unity. I am hoping assemble a list of members wishing to participate today by 3 PM EST (our show airs live at 5 PM EST). Please let me know if you are interested. Should you have any questions, my direct line is [redacted].
Thanks so much,
Virginia Grace
Does Beck and this network have no shame. They want to “publisize the list of participating members on our show.” Is this a joke? Who out there DOESN’T denounce violence? Think about how ridiculous it is to list members of Congress who are saying – we don’t like violence. Who does? And they blame Democrats for using this tragedy in a political manner? What would you call this? Can’t you just see all the FOX executives and Beck sitting around a table trying to figure out a way to use this and they come up with this self-promoting idea? Pitiful
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
10:57 am
And let’s not forget to mention the Limbaugh comment that the killer has “the full support of the Democrat party.” And so it continues………
buildmomosques
January 12th, 2011
10:58 am
@Partisay
i bet u won’t hear KYLE denounce that lying delusional drunk.
Dirty Dawg
January 12th, 2011
11:15 am
Hey Stj, you’re comment about Democrats not letting a crisis go to waste, would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that it wasn’t the Democrats that used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq…and all that that disaster has cost us, and them.
get out much?
January 12th, 2011
11:15 am
I wonder why anyone would feel the need to have a 30 shot clip for self defense.
Tychus Findlay
January 12th, 2011
11:18 am
Criminals and soon-to-be-criminals will always find a way to obtain weapons, tightening gun laws will only impact law-abiding citizens. If anything, we need more guns.
buildmomosques
January 12th, 2011
11:19 am
why does the PARTY OF GOD [GOP] hate so juch…all their rhetoric is about god and guns…lol…
Joel Edge
January 12th, 2011
11:23 am
“Perhaps we’ve gone too far in the other direction”
That’s putting it mildly.
Tweets that mention The next phase of the Arizona aftermath: New laws | Kyle Wingfield -- Topsy.com
January 12th, 2011
11:28 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by davekehnast. davekehnast said: The next phase of the Arizona aftermath: New laws: At a press conference on Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Claren… http://bit.ly/i6L1Mp [...]
Kyle Wingfield
January 12th, 2011
11:28 am
Palin released a video today commenting on the shooting and its aftermath in the commentariat. We’ve heard enough from the commenter asking about SARAH without actually paying attention to what’s going on.
Joel Edge
January 12th, 2011
11:28 am
buildmomosques@11:19
“wheres SARAH…shes mighty quiet these days..”
Why should she? If she says nothing, she’s attacked. If she speaks, she’s attacked. What’s the point? Either way, the attack dogs of outrage will find something.
Michael H. Smith
January 12th, 2011
11:29 am
As a matter of principle, I think any law we enact as a response to a particular event ought to have, at the very least, a clear indication that it would have stood a good chance of preventing said event. And when it comes to mass murders such as the one in Tucson, the unique characteristics of these atrocities make them extremely difficult to avoid by fiat.
I agree with you completely, though, the effort should be made to cautiously examine what can be done, if by law, to offer a future remedy now absent. I have to admit my unsettled state of conflicting thoughts as they make arguments against each other as to what course of legislative action or actions could be deemed appropriate in measure and necessity without being a fiat of folly.
More later my friends.
Freedom no matter the cost!
January 12th, 2011
11:33 am
A lot of people would have no problem saying that Sarah Palin is mentally ill and should be institutionalized. They’d do it with a straight face and enjoy the show as she’s locked up.
There are also a lot of people who have a real problem with freedom and all it entails.
The two groups overlap quite a bit.
CJ
January 12th, 2011
11:41 am
Jacob Sullum: “That reality may be scary, but it is not nearly as scary as a legal regime that strips citizens of their Second Amendment rights based on the opinions they express.”
Strips citizens of their Second Amendment rights? I call b.s.
I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That is, I’m a strong supporter of the National Guard. But for the record, and I know that it’s politically incorrect to even suggest this, the framers never gave individuals the right to own a gun unless, of course, part of a “well regulated” militia (people who falsely claim to revere the Constitution have decided that language in the first half of the Second Amendment is irrelevant).
Now if I stipulate to the fact that all the gun safety laws in the world wouldn’t have prevented Loughner from carrying out this massacre (I don’t), can we at least agree that making the sale of Glock magazine extensions that hold 30 rounds of ammo illegal again, as they were until the Republican-led congress allowed Clinton’s assault weapon ban expire, might have reduced the severity of it?
Yes, it’s possible that, even if illegal, Loughner might have sought high and low for that capacity of rounds. But it’s also possible that he would have taken what was available to him legally, and at best, his killing spree might have been limited to fewer deaths and injuries.
I don’t think anybody believes that gun safety laws will stop such massacres entirely. The intention is to reduce both the frequency and severity of them.
The major proposal that I’ve seen being pushed the most in the wake of this tragedy doesn’t seek to reinstate the common sense assault weapons ban from the 90’s–or even close the ridiculous gun show loophole regarding background checks that the Virginia Tech shooter, who was flagged as being mentally ill, exploited. It simply seeks to limit the size of the magazine or number of rounds that a person can have in their assault weapon at any one time. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
But then again, I don’t work for these guys:
http://www.topglock.com/category/1676-Glock_High_Cap_Magazines.aspx
Tucson Escorts: The next phase of the Arizona aftermath: New laws | The Low Down On Tucson Escorts.
January 12th, 2011
12:00 pm
[...] See the full article from “Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)” [...]
Road Scholar
January 12th, 2011
12:03 pm
get out much?: Yeah, those deer are loaded with weapons and ammo!
Michael H. Smith
January 12th, 2011
12:04 pm
Kyle Wingfield
January 12th, 2011
11:28 am
Furthermore speaking for myself, though, I’ve called time afta time for calm and tempering of our discourse at this time, as even Kyle has called many months ago for civility, I’ve had enough of these cross-hair comments.
To the particular person or persons making this attempt, the leftest liberals are no less guilty of hate, viciousness or violence in their speech or actions than those on the right, in this tit for tat childish nonsense that only ardent hacks and nutcases should enjoy, especially at this moment when there should efforts of unifying to heal wounds, for surely enough has been destroyed already by the infliction of them.
We have serious issues to discussion, lets do it in a serious and civil manner, please.
godless heathen
January 12th, 2011
12:10 pm
Why don’t we make it illegal to shoot congresspersons, ntm innocent folks who might be nearby? Oh wait, it already is illegal. Maybe more laws aren’t the answer. Maybe people like Sheriff Bozo down there in Arizona should start paying attention to what’s going on in the community.
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
12:20 pm
leftest liberals are no less guilty of hate, viciousness or violence in their speech or actions than those on the right
But who contols radio? Who has the strongest voice on cable TV? If you have 10 people on one side of the fence spewing hate and 2 on the other spewing hate, who is spreading the most hate?
Nice try….
Dabir Dalton
January 12th, 2011
12:22 pm
Kyle our society does indeed have institutions for the mentally {politically} ill and irrationally insane they are called Congress and State Legislatures and in every election the voters commit the psychopaths who run for public office.
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
12:22 pm
And it sounded like Sheriff “Bozo”, as you call him, knows exactly what is going on in his community.
get out much?
January 12th, 2011
12:26 pm
Road Scholar: Well, if a Glock pistol is your weapon of choice for hunting deer, I guess you will need 30 shots …
CJ
January 12th, 2011
12:28 pm
January 11, 2011: “A South Carolina gun and accessories company is selling semi-automatic rifle components inscribed with ‘You lie’ – a tribute to the infamous words of 2nd District Republican Congressman Joe Wilson when he shouted at President Barack Obama during a congressional speech about national health care reform in the fall of 2009.”
http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11861101110850039
Nice.
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 12th, 2011
12:37 pm
And when it comes to mass murders such as the one in Tucson, the unique characteristics of these atrocities make them extremely difficult to avoid by fiat.
While we need to look at these things and see if there is something we can do better, the simple fact is, if a person is hellbent on evil and destruction, and doesn’t care what the consequences are, there’s not a lot that can be done to stop them.
Rockerbabe
January 12th, 2011
12:45 pm
When noted politicans and radio gasbags continue to call individuals who disagree with them, all sorts of degoratory names and imply these people are unAmerican for holding a differing pov, then what does one expect? Afterall, even if something is a lie, if it is repeated louding, frequently and with some degree of certainty by supposedly respecteable people, “in the know”, some of their listeners will decide to take things into their own hands and harm does occur. Their rhetoric does insite disrespect for those with differing pov.
This business of blaming the perp entirely for the act of violence is disingenious. Marketers and advertising agents know that the constant drumbeat of buy this and buy that [even if you do not need this or that], does induce customers to buy those products. All one has to do is take kids shopping and the kidds want the parents to buy all of the junk they see in TV commercials. Advertising works, if it didn’t then why would companies spend that much money to sell they wares?
Politicans and radio gasbags are not different than say, cereal manufacturers. They advertise they pov and they use words to demonize their opponents. Every now and then, some poor smuck takes them to heart and someone gets killed. And yes, I do blame Palin, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, Cane, etc. Them portray they opponents as evil, treasoneous, child-snatchers who are out to take away their “right” to get rich or attain politican power and influence at everyone elese’s expense.
Shame on them; they need to change their ways. Speech does matter, it matters a lot! If these supposed “leaders” on the right, cannot show some respect for others, then they do not belong on the airwaves or in public office.
Michael H. Smith
January 12th, 2011
12:46 pm
Okay, CJ and Partisay try reading this and report back.
Left Writes Narrative of Blame in Blood Against Conservative Enemies
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/left-writes-narrative-of-blame-in-blood-against-conservative-enemies/
I stand by my earlier statement, it is time for the childish nonsense to stop on the left and on the right, both sides are guilty as charged.
CJ
January 12th, 2011
12:50 pm
In “AZ shooting: The blame game is part of the problem” (January 10, 2011), Kyle wrote: “The rush from some precincts to blame the shooting on the tea party or Sarah Palin was disgusting. Everyone who self-righteously did so in the name of civility in politics needs to understand that their blood libels make them part of the problem.”
Blood libels? I had never heard that phrase before and didn’t attach any specific meaning to it.
But today Sarah Palin’s ghostwriters released a video in which she said, in part, “…within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
I’ve always believed that the political pundits among the right, who frequently use the exact same language to make the exact same points, are reading from the same playbook, and seeing the phrase “blood libel” repeated today only reinforces that sense.
It turns out that this phrase has a specific connotation. Historically, it referred to the lie that Jews were killing Christian children as part of some blood ritual. Today, however, “blood libel” is used to express some kind of suffering of an oppressed minority. In other words, what I didn’t realize the other day, is that this phrase was some kind of metaphor that the right could grab onto to reinforce their sense of oppression by the big bad left.
These guys have really mastered the art of self-pity.
Wise Just Moderate
January 12th, 2011
1:02 pm
Wow Kyle are you that high up in the Conservative establishment or do they send their talking points out to every swinging Richard? Maybe you should be a presidential contender, it took Palin two whole extra days to get a video produced where she uses the “blood libel” orchestration. I’m impressed either way dude.
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
1:06 pm
Nice try Smith.
As I said before, who dominates the airwaves? Nobody listens to liberal talk radio. That’s what Hannity & Limbaugh says. Who dominates cable TV? Is Olberman part of the problem? Of course he is. That’s a no brainer. But for those on the right to say their hatgemongers have NOTHING to do with the way some people act is totally dishonest.
I liked the list in that article of those on the left saying hateful things. Most of those things were unknown, because they are just not out there doing those things on a daily basis. Now think how easy it would be to list things said by those on the right. That’s my point. You are right that both sides are guilty as charged. But for you to insinuate they are equally as guilty is just plain wrong.
Of course the Grandaddy of all uncivil things was Joe Wilson’s “YOU LIE”. Of course, he was branded a hero by those on the right.
Michael H. Smith
January 12th, 2011
1:06 pm
Is that the best you have for an answer, CJ?
Thanks for proving my claim against the game of tit for tat correct.
Game over.
someothername
January 12th, 2011
1:09 pm
I’m handicapped, elderly and disabled, when my home is invaded by 5 home invaders, how many bullets do I need in a magazine to survive against 5 home invaders, keeping in mind I can’t reload fast with only one hand which is arthritic? Especially at a time adrenaline takes control during the invasion causing my hand to shake, and I’m trying to “bob and weave and duck for cover”, as fast as an old man can, (I guess I’ll hit the floor, hope I don’t break a hip)
Which are those “magic bullets” that are always one-shot-stops?
Where can I get “Smart Bullets” the army has, with the “built-in guidance system”so each of the bullets in reduced capacity magazine finds the exact spot on each attacker regardless of my hand shaking and them moving?
Isn’t reducing elderly disabled people’s magazine capacity a violation of “equal protection under the law” in favor of 4 or 5 home invaders, to the detriment of the elderly disabled person?
Who do I contact to file an Americans with Disabilities complaint against legislators trying to assure my death in my own home by causing me to call a “time out” for 5 minutes while I reload … do robber respect “time outs” Do I have to make that “T” sign with my hands like they do in sports? I hope not, I only have 1 hand, it’s arthritic and I can’t do the T-sign
Can you prove a NEED and PURPOSE acceptable to everyone for the OPTIONS you WANTED in your car? Do you NEED the ice cream in your freezer? THEN why are you legislating based on me proving a need and purpose?
I suspect If people can’t get hi capacity PEZ dispensers, they’ll just carry more, like Charles Whitman carried more guns
Why not pass a law against murder if laws stop criminal behavior?
NOT every wacko uses this or that gun or magazine or knife.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of these crazies trying to kill others wears shoes They help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and sometimes are used in escapes. Ban shoes
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
1:16 pm
5 home invaders? At one time?!?!
Is that the best you could come with to make a point that 30 shot magazines should be available to everyone? Just get you an AK…that way if 10, 15 or even 20 home invaders decided to all come in at one time, you would be safe! Or how about just getting some gernades. I know that would cause some damage but hey…if you are going to be blowing off 30 rounds in your house, there’s going to be some damage anyway.
A Hearty Cheese Sauce
January 12th, 2011
1:17 pm
If someone wants to take out another person via gun, knife, ball-bat, they are gonna do it and not amount of stupid, silly laws can stop it.
The congressional idiots are worth a used piece of fanny wiping paper.
Kyle Wingfield
January 12th, 2011
1:24 pm
Yeah, who knew Sarah was such a fan? Or maybe she saw it in the WSJ op-ed Glenn Reynolds wrote. OTOH, Jonah Goldberg — who I could’ve sworn was at last month’s Meeting of the Secret Cabal — says he doesn’t like using “blood libel” in this case. Or is he just trying to provide cover for the Cabal…?
One thing this episode has done is reveal that some people are incapable or unwilling of recognizing coincidence. On the bright side, at least we now know what “CJ” stands for: Conspiracy Junkie!
carlosgvv
January 12th, 2011
1:32 pm
“You can always count on members of Congress to look after themselves first”.
Nothing you have ever written or will write in the future will be truer than this. If all Americans truly understood this then politics would be much clearer.
CJ
January 12th, 2011
1:36 pm
Whoops. Apparently Jewish organizations aren’t please about Palin’s use of the phrase “blood libel” either.
National Jewish Democratic Council–
“Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a ‘blood libel’ against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries…”
J Street–
“We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term ‘blood libel’ brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”
Jewish Funds for Justice–
We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin’s decision to characterize as a ‘blood libel’ the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term ‘blood libel’ is not a synonym for ‘false accusation.’ …Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.”
Not surprisingly, Kyle and Palin aren’t the only ones who have recently used this phrase in this context. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit (see Kyle’s “blogroll” in the right margin of the page) and none other than Andrew Breitbart at BigGovernment.com (a site that Kyle links to from time to time) used the phrase in recent days as well.
Maybe a new playbook is in order.
CJ
January 12th, 2011
1:37 pm
Kyle: “Jonah Goldberg — who I could’ve sworn was at last month’s Meeting of the Secret Cabal — says he doesn’t like using ‘blood libel’ in this case. Or is he just trying to provide cover for the Cabal…?”
Or is he Jewish?
Michael H. Smith
January 12th, 2011
1:41 pm
I could see tighter restriction via special permits to own certain guns and ammunition. However, it would be delusional to think such before mentioned tighter restrictions would stop the illegal flow of any certain type of gun from being obtained by the wrong persons in our society.
It may be easier to stop the flow of wrong people obtaining access to our free society, than it is to keep them from ever getting a gun, if the right balance could be achieved in institutionalizing them.
Ban the wrong people, not gun rights? Doubt we can ever have the absolute answer and have our absolute free society too. Somewhere there has to be a balance of rights to protect each of us from all the wrongs.
My internal conflict continues, Kyle.
Partisay
January 12th, 2011
1:55 pm
Don’t pick on Sarah. Remember when Katie asked her what newspapers she read? How dare she “ambush” Sarah with such a trick question!
@@
January 12th, 2011
1:58 pm
Ronald Reagan talking about Democrats in Congress:
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
Everything’s a target with dems.
I’ve advocated that once diagnosed, the mentally ill should be implanted with time release meds. Someone responded that the ACLU would take offense. No doubt their cry would be to let their crazy folks go about living as they so choose.
Maybe we should ship the mentally ill to the ACLU. They can dig deep into their collective conscience in order to house and care for ‘em.
Michael H. Smith
January 12th, 2011
2:10 pm
@@, I’m beginning to wonder if Ronald Reagan wasn’t the reincarnation of Will Rogers. Then again, no doubt remains the mentally ill would fit in perfectly with their ACLU brethren.
Jefferson
January 12th, 2011
2:22 pm
Palin is no governor, she’s a quitter governor. She is also in someone’s crosshairs I would guess with all the nut jobs out there…
A Hearty Cheese Sauce
January 12th, 2011
2:32 pm
Palin is a great person and wonderful Mom and you haters are just jealous.
JDW
January 12th, 2011
2:34 pm
The simple fact is that the US leads the “civilized” world in gun violence. Guns are plentiful, easy to obtain and used in the commission of crimes in far greater numbers here than anywhere else in the world that purports to be a stable society.
Could stricter gun controls have prevented the most recent tragedy? Maybe or maybe not. They could have made obtaining a gun more difficult creating opportunities for the perpetrator to have made a mistake leading to capture. You can say with certainty that the presence of guns in the hands of the Arizona populace did nothing to protect anyone from the event.
The real question for our society is are we willing to continue to pay the price in annual bloodshed for the unfettered access to guns? Would it really hurt our society to have anyone wishing to purchase a gun wait for say 90 days while they undergo a basic background check, appropriate gun education, and a mental assessment?
Kyle you lived abroad as did I, how many gun related killings occurred while you were there? I was in the UK for three years and can’t recall a single one…the first in Atlanta in 2011 occurred less than one hour into the year.
What is it we are gaining?
Peter
January 12th, 2011
2:35 pm
KEEP Them STUPID…The “Real” Republican Motto !
@@
January 12th, 2011
2:36 pm
For those lefties who are STILL suffering from PDS….give it a rest! You’re beginning to sound as deranged as Loughner!!!!
I watched an interview with her communications director last night. Super nice guy! Smart! Not one mention of blame. Said that her Arizona office remains open to hear constituents ’cause that’s what Congresswoman Gifford expects.
Congresswoman Gifford is doing exceptionally well considering. All indications are that she’ll be able to breathe on her own. She has mobility and the swelling in her brain has subsided. She responds non-verbally to commands.
These are all promising signs.