So....If he had 2 9mm's with 15 round clips with 1 in each hand, what would have been the difference? Do tell.

 

I guess it would be no different if he had 5 with 6 clips.

Update - TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — One of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' doctors declared Tuesday she has "a 101 percent chance of surviving," as she made more progress, moving both arms and breathing on her own for the first time — just three days after a bullet shot through her brain. Doctors emphasize she is in for a long recovery, and her neurosurgeon repeated his cautionary phrase of "she's holding her own."

 

But there was no denying what was clearly good news.

 

Giffords, a three-time Democrat, remains in critical condition at Tucson's University Medical Center where she was operated on Saturday after being shot during a meeting with constituents outside a Safeway supermarket. The attack killed six and injured 14 others. Six remained hospitalized.

 

Doctors previously reported Giffords raised two fingers of her left hand and gave a thumbs-up when responding to verbal commands. Now they say she is moving her arms.

 

Although her condition has remained virtually unchanged the past few days, doctors were hopeful.

 

"She has a 101 percent chance of surviving," said trauma chief Dr. Peter Rhee said. "She will not die. She does not have that permission from me."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hUiy_nqYDsy4pRXoZyZ8xoPuewWw?docId=945a4ad468bc4149837a2033b8e772fc

Of course no one can ever say it would completely stop the chance of an incident.

 

If that's our benchmark we should have no laws at all.

 

 

Then again, if our benchmark is that we should have no one ever killed by a gun; die of cancer; killed in a car accident; die from a medical complication, etc. then we'll need so many laws that no one alive will have any liberties at all.

Of course no one can ever say it would completely stop the chance of an incident.

 

If that's our benchmark we should have no laws at all.

Not only would it not comletetly stop the chance but it would have zero impact. When something like this happens it seems to be the knee jerk reaction to find blame. The reality is all the gun laws in the world won't stop people like this from killing if they get it in their head to. This guy would have done just as much damage with a 15 round clip as the 30.

If he indeed really said that, that's as obscene a thing ... as I've read in a while; including 99.4% of rap lyrics.

Limbaugh is obscene ...

Limbaugh is obscene ...

 

No more so than the people (including a poster in this thread) that is trying to lay the blame at the feet of Sarah Palin and other's on the right.

Limbaugh is obscene ...

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I could rattle off a list on leftwingers (Maher, Olberman, Maddow, Schulz, et al) that I believe are every bit as verbose, vitriolic and obscene as you think Limbaugh is. The "enlightened" electorate of Minnesota elected one a Senator. The reason that Limbaugh is the focus of so much ire from the left is because he actually has an audience.

Then again, if our benchmark is that we should have no one ever killed by a gun; die of cancer; killed in a car accident; die from a medical complication, etc. then we'll need so many laws that no one alive will have any liberties at all.

 

Correct. The solution is the "in between."

Not only would it not comletetly stop the chance but it would have zero impact. When something like this happens it seems to be the knee jerk reaction to find blame. The reality is all the gun laws in the world won't stop people like this from killing if they get it in their head to. This guy would have done just as much damage with a 15 round clip as the 30.

 

I'm not assigning blame other than to a crazy guy.

 

However, when you have situations like this and you don't evaluate it entirely and look at ways that "might" have an impact in the future you've wasted an opportunity and failed to do your job.

 

Lastly, you're guessing when you say he would have done as much damage with a smaller clip. He got tackled while replacing his clip. If he had a smaller clip and had to replace it after fewer shots who's to say that he would not have been subdued and less people would have been hurt.

 

Your belief that nothing can/could have an impact would lead us to simply allow every type of known weapon since we can't do anything about it. I don't buy that argument.

No more so than the people (including a poster in this thread) that is trying to lay the blame at the feet of Sarah Palin and other's on the right.

 

What's obscene to me is the fact that those on the right no matter how level headed they may be refuse to acknowledge that that the dehumanization, demonization and overt hints at violence(2nd ammendment remedies, crosshair maps, threats of secession, taking an assualt rifle to a health care debate, etc) can cause a certain unstable percentage of the population to act out in violence. It is not ok for anyone to do this but it happens far more on the right than the left and it needs to stop. The obscene thing is the attempt to whitewash it from the right. There is a reason that Sarah Palin for the first time in over 2 years went 4 days without making a public statement or updating her facebook page.

What's obscene to me is the fact that those on the right no matter how level headed they may be refuse to acknowledge that that the dehumanization, demonization and overt hints at violence(2nd ammendment remedies, crosshair maps, threats of secession, taking an assualt rifle to a health care debate, etc) can cause a certain unstable percentage of the population to act out in violence. It is not ok for anyone to do this but it happens far more on the right than the left and it needs to stop. The obscene thing is the attempt to whitewash it from the right. There is a reason that Sarah Palin for the first time in over 2 years went 4 days without making a public statement or updating her facebook page.

 

Go ahead, keep on blaming everyone under the sun (only if they lean to the right of course) other than the deranged loser that did this. It only makes you look worse and worse. :thumb:

Go ahead, keep on blaming everyone under the sun (only if they lean to the right of course) other than the deranged loser that did this. It only makes you look worse and worse. :thumb:

 

Your condesending posts tend to annoy me from time to time not to mention the inaccuracies found in them. First find me one post where I blamed someone other than the "deranged loser", second continue to act as if the inflamatory language can't provide a spark to other deranged losers it only makes you look more and more like a sheep for not being able to speak out against people who are being irresponsible because you agree with them on the majority of political issues. Why do you think countries at war use propoganda that dehumanizes and demonizes the enemy? Does it make them harder to kill?? :thumb:

You're entitled to your opinion. I could rattle off a list on leftwingers (Maher, Olberman, Maddow, Schulz, et al) that I believe are every bit as verbose, vitriolic and obscene as you think Limbaugh is. The "enlightened" electorate of Minnesota elected one a Senator. The reason that Limbaugh is the focus of so much ire from the left is because he actually has an audience.

Have any of those you mentioned actually accused the other side of being "thankful" for such a tragedy because it suited their political aims? Actually, some could accuse Limbaugh of feeling that way, given comments like that.

No more so than the people (including a poster in this thread) that is trying to lay the blame at the feet of Sarah Palin and other's on the right.

If you really feel that is the case, name the poster ...

I'm not assigning blame other than to a crazy guy.

 

However, when you have situations like this and you don't evaluate it entirely and look at ways that "might" have an impact in the future you've wasted an opportunity and failed to do your job.

 

Lastly, you're guessing when you say he would have done as much damage with a smaller clip. He got tackled while replacing his clip. If he had a smaller clip and had to replace it after fewer shots who's to say that he would not have been subdued and less people would have been hurt.

 

Your belief that nothing can/could have an impact would lead us to simply allow every type of known weapon since we can't do anything about it. I don't buy that argument.

The difference between a fumbling kook with a gun and a trained kook with a gun is evident in comparing the AZ shooting with the Fort Hood shooting. Even though the Fort Hood shooter was surrounded by highly trained warriors, his training permitted him to shoot at will, swapping out quality 20 and 30 round mags allowing him to fire off over 200 rounds before he encountered other armed soldiers that could shoot back and stop him. Dozens of trained soldiers were not able to stop him without firearms. The AZ nut was tackled by average citizens.

 

In the hours of endless coverage I recall hearing that the AZ shooter's replacement magazine malfunctioned, the kook had already popped the spent magazine and inserted a new one. Had it not been for the malfunction of the second magazine, (which leads me to believe I can guess the manufacturer) there may have been more carnage. Because the spare mag choked, he was able to be tackled and pinned allowing a lady in her 60s to pull the mag away from him. In all gruesome sincerity, a pair of quality 15 - 20 round mags that don't choke and fit flush with the base of the grip negating anyone's ability to grab an extended mag tube and pull it away would have been more effective.

 

As far as evaluating the circumstances to look at ways that "might" have an impact in the future and avoid wasting an opportunity to do our job... I strongly suspect that a close look at the Pima County Sheriff doing all the finger pointing is in order. It is apparent that his office was aware of this troubled soul and had many encounters with him long before the shooting. Why was this basket-case allowed to buy a gun, much less roam the streets at will?

 

When we were kids, the old rule of "The one that smelt it dealt it" applies here. This Sheriff was on TV pointing fingers with no facts to substantiate his claims within hours of the horrid event. This one doesn't pass the smell test.