The shooter is ultimately responsible for the events that transpired, but I do think that Congresswoman Giffords' words to Trey Grayson from the night before the shooting should give all on both sides of the aisle reason to reconsider how we portray our positions and disagreements.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/giffords-email-need-to-tone-our-rhetoric-and-partisanship-down/

 

Dear Trey,

Congratulations! Wow! This is a fantastic position and a perfect fit for you. As a State Senator I participated in the 3-week State and Local leader's program and have never forgotten it. Hard to forget Marty Linksky.

After you get settled, I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.

Mark and I will come visit after you get settled. Again, congratulations. This is truly an incredible opportunity that will lead to wonderful things.

Best,

G

So you're saying there is no reasonable limit to place on the clip size? We all(or many of us) agree that we should have the right to own a gun and have it for protection. However, what's "enough" for protection? Do I need a 30-clip to protect myself?

 

This guy bought everything he used legally.

 

I am not saying anything. I asked a question. What is a good number? If he had a 20 round clip would that have made a difference? What about a 10 round clip, or 5? My point is you can make all the laws you want. It doesn't change the fact that if I want to do what this guy did no law will stop me. Like RTS said the knee jerk reaction is to start passing laws and ban everything. What does that solve? The fact remains this was a tragedy cased by an unstable person and no matter how many laws we have this type of stuff will happen. That's the cold reality of it all.

The psycotic fringe will always find a reason to kill whether it's a book like Mark David Chapman or their neighbor's dog like David Berkowitz. Crazy is unpredictable and you never know what will set some people off.

 

I believe that was my point. I guess I failed to note that all I can be responsible for is me. It's because someone may use my speech as an excuse so I do everything I can to avoid allowing my passion to runaway with my speech. I'm not perfect at it but I try hard in my profession. I wish everyone else approached their speech in the same way. :thumb:

Here's a beautifully written retropsective.

 

Holding Giffords' Hand

 

Never too late to take someone’s hand.

 

None of the politics, just the reflection on the lives cut short, and the humanity of the victims.

Hatz, I don't know that I disagree with you BUT I find it reprehesible that there are people that are trying to use this tragedy for political gain. The sherrif started his rant before there was even a chance to know what this whack job's motivations might be and continued it today on GMA.

 

I agree. :thumb:

 

I too wish rhetoric on both sides would ratchet down.

Though the events that transpired are horrible and tragic, the heroism that came about allows me to turn my focus to admiration for certain individuals.

 

For Dorwin Stoddard, the hero who pushed his wife to the ground and put his body over top of hers to protect her from the bullets...and lost his life.

 

For the man that used a chair to bring the gunman to the ground, the man who had a gunshot wound to the scalp who laid on top of him and the woman that pushed the supplemental ammo clip out of reach of the gunman.

 

The stories of the acts of these individuals help me move beyond the grief that I have been feeling over the event and my negative feeling for the shooter and, instead, remind me of the good in people.

Update - Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is breathing on her own, one of the doctors treating her said Tuesday.

 

Dr. Michael Lemole, the chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center in Tucson, said at a news conference that the congresswoman is still following simple commands, although she remains on a ventilator to protect against complications such as pneumonia.

 

Lemole said earlier there was no change in her condition overnight. "As frustrating as that may sound, that's a good thing," Lemole told Matt Lauer on TODAY Tuesday.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018273/ns/health-health_care

Here's a beautifully written retropsective.

 

Holding Giffords' Hand

 

 

 

None of the politics, just the reflection on the lives cut short, and the humanity of the victims.

 

Just beautiful. I feel remiss in forgetting to add Congresswoman Giffords' aide, Hernandez, as a hero in the situation, certainly one to be admired.

So you're saying there is no reasonable limit to place on the clip size? We all(or many of us) agree that we should have the right to own a gun and have it for protection. However, what's "enough" for protection? Do I need a 30-clip to protect myself?

 

This guy bought everything he used legally.

 

I just read editorials in LHL from today. Interestingly they go after the old 'clip limit' item.

 

30 rounds - does sound extreme. I had a recent conversation regarding purchasing a .40 cal pistol with 11 round capacity. When I indicated that is less than some 9mm high cap pistols have up to 15 the person said - "if you need more than 11 with a .40 in a situation, that is a situation you probably should not be in." And that comes from a strong gun advocate. But clip capacity is not really an issue. Need more, just bring more guns. And, a trained person can change out a clip in 2 seconds or less.

 

There has yet to be a parallel drawn to the Fort Hood massacre but the parallels are astounding. Both shooters were 'on the radar'. Authorities, authorities responsible for protection of the masses, knew there were problems. Yet they did nothing. They ignored the overt and open threats and signals of trouble. We seem to want the government to protect us by passing freedom limiting laws. But the functions of government that have the responsibility and the knowledge of these shooters before hand do nothing when there are clear red flags.

 

The Sheriff of Tuscon blamed Limbaugh for this. That was interesting. He had numerous complaints and notifications on the shooter before hand. He did nothing except tell those reporting the situation to ignore it. See here and here.

 

Additionally, why was there no security at this open, publicized event? Thousand of people a day are now going through detailed, "enhanced" screening to get on airplanes. Every government office now has metal detectors. Yet no formal security or police/sheriff assigned to an event with a Congresswoman and Federal judge? It seems basic process and common sense were on leave that day.

 

There is blame to go around here. Limiting round capacity is merely a feel good action. And, sorry to use this analogy, but there is no silver bullet to fixing deranged individuals. Especially ones who present the red flags to have them ignored by authorities. Like in Tuscon, like at Foot Hood.

I just read editorials in LHL from today. Interestingly they go after the old 'clip limit' item.

 

30 rounds - does sound extreme. I had a recent conversation regarding purchasing a .40 cal pistol with 11 round capacity. When I indicated that is less than some 9mm high cap pistols have up to 15 the person said - "if you need more than 11 with a .40 in a situation, that is a situation you probably should not be in." And that comes from a strong gun advocate. But clip capacity is not really an issue. Need more, just bring more guns. And, a trained person can change out a clip in 2 seconds or less.

 

There has yet to be a parallel drawn to the Fort Hood massacre but the parallels are astounding. Both shooters were 'on the radar'. Authorities, authorities responsible for protection of the masses, knew there were problems. Yet they did nothing. They ignored the overt and open threats and signals of trouble. We seem to want the government to protect us by passing freedom limiting laws. But the functions of government that have the responsibility and the knowledge of these shooters before hand do nothing when there are clear red flags.

 

The Sheriff of Tuscon blamed Limbaugh for this. That was interesting. He had numerous complaints and notifications on the shooter before hand. He did nothing except tell those reporting the situation to ignore it. See here and here.

 

Additionally, why was there no security at this open, publicized event? Thousand of people a day are now going through detailed, "enhanced" screening to get on airplanes. Every government office now has metal detectors. Yet no formal security or police/sheriff assigned to an event with a Congresswoman and Federal judge? It seems basic process and common sense were on leave that day.

 

There is blame to go around here. Limiting round capacity is merely a feel good action. And, sorry to use this analogy, but there is no silver bullet to fixing deranged individuals. Especially ones who present the red flags to have them ignored by authorities. Like in Tuscon, like at Foot Hood.

:thumb:

It's not the guns fault or the gun laws fault. It's his, period.

 

You knew it was going to go there, though. It always does. Knee-jerk reactions when guns are involved are always quick to surface. Saw a lot of it in the media yesterday.

 

I think we all agree on whose fault it is and most are not blaming the gun. However, it's seems reasonable to many of us to ask if there is a point where there is "too much" gun. Does the average citizen need a 30 clip? Is it excessive? It's been mentioned that had he had, say, a 10 clip not as many people would have been shot. You see no validity to that?

 

What is "too much?"

I am not saying anything. I asked a question. What is a good number? If he had a 20 round clip would that have made a difference? What about a 10 round clip, or 5? My point is you can make all the laws you want. It doesn't change the fact that if I want to do what this guy did no law will stop me. Like RTS said the knee jerk reaction is to start passing laws and ban everything. What does that solve? The fact remains this was a tragedy cased by an unstable person and no matter how many laws we have this type of stuff will happen. That's the cold reality of it all.

 

I'll ask you the same question. What is "too much" for the average law-abiding citizen? Remember that this guy didn't get anything on the black market. He was completely above board. So I would argue that in this case the injuries and deaths could have been less had there been reasonable limits placed upon the citizenry.

I'll ask you the same question. What is "too much" for the average law-abiding citizen? Remember that this guy didn't get anything on the black market. He was completely above board. So I would argue that in this case the injuries and deaths could have been less had there been reasonable limits placed upon the citizenry.

 

 

There are legitimate self defense reasons for high capacity - if you live in LA. Well explained by Dr. Hupp in her testimony to congress. 4:12 mark is starting point. But still, 30 rounds is a lot.

I'll ask you the same question. What is "too much" for the average law-abiding citizen? Remember that this guy didn't get anything on the black market. He was completely above board. So I would argue that in this case the injuries and deaths could have been less had there been reasonable limits placed upon the citizenry.

One 30 round clip or two 15 round clips or three 10 round clips... it doesn't matter all that much. Even a basic amount of training and practice allowing for skilled magazine ejection and replacement would render this point moot.

 

One of the points no one seems to grasp is that some of the worst mass shootings have come in countries with the strictest gun laws. I can and will prove this, with links but do not have time at the moment to dig them up.

 

The whole point of gun laws is that they are only effective with those willing to abide by them. Criminals are criminals because they have no regard for laws. They will get guns, bullets and oversized mags just as easily as drug users can go out and find pot, cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs.

 

But unlike drug users who primarily harm themselves, if only criminals and law enforcement have guns, who will be able to stand against the criminals until the police arrive?

One 30 round clip or two 15 round clips or three 10 round clips... it doesn't matter all that much. Even a basic amount of training and practice allowing for skilled magazine ejection and replacement would render this point moot.

 

One of the points no one seems to grasp is that some of the worst mass shootings have come in countries with the strictest gun laws. I can and will prove this, with links but do not have time at the moment to dig them up.

 

The whole point of gun laws is that they are only effective with those willing to abide by them. Criminals are criminals because they have no regard for laws. They will get guns, bullets and oversized mags just as easily as drug users can go out and find pot, cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs.

 

But unlike drug users who primarily harm themselves, if only criminals and law enforcement have guns, who will be able to stand against the criminals until the police arrive?

 

Your last line would be appropriate if anyone was arguing against the right to bear arms. Maybe I missed it in here but I don't think the vast majority are making that argument.