The shooter has been identified as Jared Loughner:
Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is in an intensive care unit following surgery for a gunshot wound in the head at close range, the University of Arizona hospital announced Saturday afternoon.
Spokesman Peter Rhee said Giffords is optimistic about the congresswoman’s recovery.
State Sen. Linda Lopez, a close friend of Giffords’, told Fox News that the three-term congresswoman was shot in the temple and the bullet exited through her forehead. Lopez said Giffords was responding to commands and she was confident that she will survive surgery but is not sure what Giffords’ long term prognosis is.
At least 19 people were shot at Giffords’ “Your Corner” event held outside a Safeway grocery store in Tucson, including three members of the Democratic congresswoman’s staff in Arizona. Five have died, including one of Giffords’ aides, and nine are in critical condition at the University of Arizona Medical Center.
My prayers are with all the families effected by this horrible tragedy.
Within minutes of the shooting the liberal nimrods came out in force on twitter and their favorite web haunts to proclaim the Tea Party and Sarah Palin guilty for supposedly pushing this nutcase into shooting the Democrat Congresswoman.
Listening to FOX News, State Senator Linda Lopez told Sheppard Smith she heard the shooter served in the military in Afghanistan. Lopez also talked about the ‘horrible signs’ at Tea Party rallies during the last election.
Within minutes of the shooting:
TeaBagsAreForCups (214 posts)
Sat Jan-08-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Looking forward to learning his moniker at the cesspool…… The “Free” Republic.
RimJob will be establishing a memorial contribution account in his name during the current FReepathon.
“Woo hoo!”
Twitter within minutes of the shooting:
@SarahPalinUSA will u be happy when everyone on Your target list is shot dead? Don’t u know there’s crazy people that take things literally?
@McCainBlogette I hope your Dad is happy with the hateful rhetoric he helped perpetuate now. Sarah P’s ‘target’ list is on his hands too.
@markos HAPPY NOW FUCKING TEA BAGGERS?SHE WAS ON PALIN’S “TARGET” LIST. HER BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS FOX, BECK AND PALIN!#foxnews #beck #palin
@StaffaRoadTrip She was on Palin’s “target list”. She’s got blood on her hands. Happy now, tea partiers?
Palin six people are dead at shooting of Congresswoman Giffords one of your targets. I hope you are happy.
And on CNN:
AZ Daily Star political cartoonist David Fitzsimmons on @CNN: “The right has been stoking the fires of heated anger and rage” in AZ.
And from our own comments our resident lefty nimrod John Ryan:
there are a lot of nuts out there. And it is real easy for them to get guns capable of killing many people. And it doesn’t take much talk using words like “traitor” or “destroying our country” to set them off. In any school in the USA if a child makes a list marked “hit list” he is going to be in big trouble. When a politician does he/she gets cheers. The Federal Judge that was killed had received many many death threats. And they were not coming from the left.
The Myspace page of the suspect, Jared Loughner, was taken down minutes ago but a screenshot of the pictures has been put up on twitter (not sure if it’s real yet):
He also apparently has a youtube channel with five video’s he made….after viewing them you understand the man is a NUT. He writes (much of it barely coherent) about mindcontrol, brainwashing, a “new currency”, “conscience dreaming”, and oddly enough government control of grammar structure. The youtube channel is here but it will be taken down soon so I downloaded the video’s:
He’s a nut, a Schizo. On his Youtube page check out what he likes!
The Communist Manifesto?
This is a tragedy and NOT the time to point fingers at one party or another, especially considering this guy doesn’t appear to affiliated with either but instead believed the government was controlling his mind.
UPDATE
Picture of the suspect:
See author page
@Aye:
You don’t even need printing expertise to know this.
If you break down your color-printed paper products for recycling you have no doubt seen these same registration marks on everything from cereal boxes to cat food boxes.
Here’s a joke T-shirt called ”Close Enough.”
LOL!
http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/product/16308140/view/1/type/png/width/280/height/280
The blogger who posted it notes:
I used to work as a four-color proof maker in a digital prepress facility. These are registration marks slightly out of registration. Makes me laugh.
http://www.abjectwankery.com/2010/04/close-enough/
Notice it dates before the shooting.
You are correct, Aye. The left ran out of steam, but rest assured they are only regrouping.
Once more I will ask B-Rob to answer my questions in post number 101.
The New York Times wrote what I considered to be a relatively thoughtful article about whether the right to bear arms meant that there should be a right to bear Glocks with 30 round clips. I think that they made a good point about a concealed weapon being much more useful for offense than for defense. Here’s the comment that I posted, in response:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?permid=28#comment28
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“relatively thoughtful”? More like embarrassingly misinformed.
The Glock was not an assault weapon under the 1994 Crime Act and it’s AWB subsection. All semi-automatics are “easy to fire”. 9mm are not known for their stopping power, which is why the military put our soldiers back into .45s, but they can be lethal at close range and a well placed shot. Then again, so can a knife.
And it’s a “magazine”, not clip, and the term is rounds not “bullets”. Even had he been unable to purchase a firearm legally, he’d still find a way to purchase one on the black market. Criminals do not operate in the legal world, but in the shadow world of crime. Laws have never stopped a criminal from committing a crime. Period.
Had Loughner ever been charged with his sundry misdemeanors and antics, had the university put him on a watch list, had any of the neighbors so “afraid” of him and his family ever notified the police, this would not have happened.
The NYTs churned out crap by an idiot. The only thing more annoying to read than such liberal goulash is liberal goulash about weaponry by a pundit clearly clueless to not only the AWB, but guns in general.
What could possibly be said? The desperation on this site for the killer to be “liberal” is just unseemly. And your newfound smug satisfaction because you and Dr. Watson, er, John, think you’ve solved the crime is beyond absurd (the crime is being liberal, right? – anything else is apparently extraneous.) In three days you and your cohorts have gone from pathetically playing the victims of this atrocity to assuming the mantle of heroes, meanwhile basically ignoring the real victims the entire time. Congratulations on proving to yourself – via Twitter of all things – what you were always going to believe anyway.
TOM tone down your RHETORIC, we all keeping clos eyes on the victims but we respect their will
not to be disturbed,
Tom the POS strikes again. Almost no one here declared him to be a liberal until a lot more info came out, but you know that. As it is you defended those who instantly tried to blame the right. Your real problem is that we are pointing out what dishonest hypocrites you are. Again, not even one of the leftists posting here has declared what their fellow leftists did as wrong. It’s because the left approves of it. Stop pretending you don’t approve Tom, we know you do.
Playing victim? You mean being slandered by hatemongers like yourself all for political gain means we can’t defend ourselves? I’m sure you’d like that, but we don’t have to take your smears lying down.
No, the ones ignoring the victims are leftists like yourself while you try to advance yout agenda of personal destruction since you couldn’t win at the ballot box. Now that the facts have come out you and your cronies are now trying to say the right incited him and have renewed your calls for gun control. Yeah, but we’re ignoring the victims (roll eyes). Google projection you moron since you clearly don’t know what it is or means. BTW, yes you are doing it as you have been the whole time.
You are here to defend your fellow leftist scum by attacking relentlessly. It what your kind does. It keeps you from looking into yourself and running the risk of seeing how wrong you are. That would would just cause you to crumble mentally. Like I have said before, we understand you better than you do.
@mata (#114): I re-read Gail Collins’s article. Your criticism is over-wrought. You are seriously criticizing her for using the term “bullets,” rather than “rounds?” “Magazine,” rather than “clip.” She’s writing for a mass audience, who’s only knowledge of 9 mms is “NCIS” and “CSI.” She uses language with a meaning which is clear for this audience. And the military doesn’t use 9 mms? An ex-Navy person like you should know that the official sidearm of Navy Seals is a Sig Sauer P226.
Her central point was that semi-automatic handguns with 30 bullet clips can kill a whole lot of people in a very short period of time. If the guy had one in each hand, he could have hit 30 or 40, rather than “only” 20. Could a 22 year old white boy with his background really obtain a semi-automatic with a 30 bullet clip on the “black market?” Where, precisely, is the “black market?” How much would it take to purchase a 30 round Glock on the “black market,” since you know so much about it?
It was an entirely reasonable, thoughtful article, which raised a very legitimate point.
I would have been very interested to see a well reasoned argument for why a 10 round clip (e.g. the California limit) is not sufficient in a 9 mm handgun, for reasons of either sport or personal protection.
I haven’t made up my mind on this issue. But we are having increasing problems with deranged white teenagers and early 20 somethings killing a whole lot of people in a very short time, with large magazine small caliber handguns. This is a real problem and I think it deserves some thoughtful consideration. These people aren’t “criminals,” in the classical sense. They are unbalanced sociopaths. I do think that more needs to be done to keep these people far away from hyper-lethal weapons.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Quite easily.
Dude, seriously? It’s the street…you know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody. It happens all the time. White, black, brown, yellow….doesn’t matter what color you are or where you’re from. Where do you think these “white boys” get their drugs from?
Talk about naive.
Larry, when one tackles writing about guns or gun laws, it would be nice to know if a gun is considered an assault weapon under the 1994 legislation or not.
Clips and magazines are two different critters. You might want to start using the correct nomenclature yourself, or risk the same criticism. Especially after you’ve been informed.
The US military service pistols in the field started reverting back a couple of years ago when they figured out the 9mms weren’t cutting the mustard. That does not mean that 9mms do not exist. The point being that 9mm are not the body stopping power of the .45. Takes more shots, better aim.
It was an article by an idiot, who did no research about her subject. She’s got most people who have even the slightest idea about weapons laughing their butts off, and she’s joined by Sen. Lautenberg who’s just as clueless. So much for a media who educates and informs. Maybe they should revert to ebonics and 8th grade grammer to speak to “the mass audience”, eh?
I disagree. Psychopaths are criminals when they commit criminal acts. Before they do that, they are psychopaths that should be removed from civil society… especially when there are law enforcement officers, university professors and neighbors who notice. Magazines are not the problem. They are just a convenient power grab.
That’s a racist joke you’re making, right? Surely you’re not that dense. Or am I wrong?
The Glock is not illegal, but can be purchased both in gun shops and on the black market. In the latter case, likely to be stolen. The magazine, not clip, can also be purchased both thru the dealer and on the black market. Loughner purchased both legally, thru a gun dealer. Would he have been able to had he been detained for his drug charges? Or put thru the mental tests the university demanded as a prerequisite for his return? Not as likely. Still could buy it on the black market tho. Just takes cash.
You’ll be able to find your local market in back street alleys, the back rooms of unethical pawn shops, or other places where stolen goods are sold.
@Tom:
Still clinging bitterly, eh?
The crime in this situation is being crazy. Crazy has no ideology.
What’s amusing is the way that the Leftists dashed out immediately, immediately, to begin pointing fingers, casting aspersions, and heaping blame…practically before the first ambulances arrived on the scene.
The Leftists desperately, desperately needed this guy to be a right wing Tea Party type. They were salivating at the possibility. They wove the narratives, and told the tales, and created what they were hoping against hope would be a plausible scenario.
Then the threads began to unravel.
One by one by one the mirages in the desert faded away leaving them with nothing but dashed hopes.
You, Tom, are a perfect example of what is wrong with the Left. You had a perfect opportunity to decry the blame game that your side of the aisle has been engaged in since Saturday. You had the perfect opportunity to rise above…yet you passed it up.
The story that you too desperately wanted to be true has fallen to the floor in a million tiny pieces.
Now, standing bare in your bitter, naked partisanship, all you can do is continue to lash out like the sad, small little man that you’ve repeatedly proven yourself to be.
Too bad things didn’t work out for you Tom.
Now, forgive me while I point and laugh at you. Again.
Mata, if the article jibes with Larry’s views he considers it “thoughtful.” A while back he suggested Kaiser’s site as a source of info on Obamacare also calling their views “thoughtful” (IIRC). Being in said industry I have access to it and can tell you they lean anywhere from a little to the left in their articles to far left. Unsurprising, I know.
Larry, your ignorance of firearms is staggering. With a gun in each hand he could have hit 30 or 40 people? Larry, have you ever even fired a handgun? Little hint, with one in each hand he would have missed more people than he hit with a single gun.
Secondly, you think because he’s white he couldn’t get a gun illegally? Yet you still don’t get why I call you delusional.
Third, the correct term is magazine. That is what was used in the Glock. When I see reporters getting basic firearms info wrong it tells me they probably don’t have clue as to what they are talking about. Gail clearly doesn’t.
Fourth, based on the actions of criminals you want to limit the law abiding to reduced capacity magazines? You are truly a leftist Larry, devoid of common sense or reasoning ability.
It was tried before and failed. Here’s what happened, criminals and civilians moved to bigger caliber guns. Plus, thanks to all the high capacity magazines already on the market there was no shortage of them. The cost went up, that’s it.
Fifth, hyper lethal? Handguns are hardly hyper lethal. There are many more people running around out there who have been shot than are dead. Really, try educating yourself before posting next time.
Gave you both answers in my latest post. And I haven’t seen a 9mm drop one of the metal pop ups we used in stages yet… not enough fire power.
Why… ready to relegate everyone to BB guns, Larry?
@Hard Right, I wasn’t even going to broach the insanity of two fisted gunning and the recoil. If ya can’t get the guy to even use the correct term for a gun component, after being told, what chance have you to to convince the types who’ve never done much shooting what it’s like to be accurate with fast triggering plus recoil with even one hand, let alone two?
Hang, I don’t know how much this kid shot before buying the gun in October, but when you have a crowd, you’re bound to hit someone. I doubt he was sniper material.
@mata: I disagree that it is easy for white teenagers and white 20 somethings to access the “black market.” This is the demographic (well, the VA Tech shooter was an Asian, but similar considerations apply) which has been involved in these senseless massacres. Why are suburban whites and Asians different from blacks? Many members of the latter demographic do grow up in neighborhoods with a prolific illicit gun culture. The former generally do not.
You are so obsessed with discrediting the writer over trivialities (“bullets” versus “rounds;” “magazine” versus “clip,” c’mon).
You still haven’t addressed her central question. You didn’t address my question.
It’s not a theoretical question. To take my example: California versus Arizona. Both states observe the the 2nd Amendment. California has a limit of 10 bullets per clip. Arizona apparently has no limit. In California, guns can only be sold by registered, licensed gun dealers. It’s illegal for me to give a handgun I own to my own brother. I have to “launder” it through a licensed gun dealer, who is obliged to report the would-be purchaser to the state, for a background check. And the weapon, itself, has to go through a background check. This may not be a big barrier for a professional criminal, but it is a barrier for a 20 something white kid from the suburbs (again, the demographic which is disproportionally involved in these episodes).
So, both Arizona and California are in compliance with the US Constitution. Is there some benefit, at least at the margins, to having California style clip limits for semi-automatic hand guns?
These are the issues raised by the very thoughtful article by Gail Collins. It would be constructive were you to actually address the substance of Gail’s rhetorical questions, rather than nitpicking.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Gawd, Larry… you are dense? How disappointing. “Black market’ isn’t a world of race. Criminal activity is not limited to race, and it’s actually quite racist of you to assume it is. LOL
I discredit any pundit who writes drivel about shit she obviously knows nothing about. And apparently you have a strong resistance to actually learning something about guns with your continued use of “clip”. I suspect even a google search for the difference between the two is not beyond your capabilities.
Your central question? What was that? Oh yes:
Addressed that nonsense above, as did Hard Right. You’re watching too many Angelina Jolie movies…
What was the other?
Ya know, a “good point” from some pundit who’s obviously not gun savvy is somewhat an oxymoron. Actually the drawbacks are the same whether you are the offender, or the potential victim. Much easier and faster to draw from a holster out in the open than pull a weapon from a concealed spot, no matter which one you are. Rather an absurd statement on the surface. But then, you wouldn’t know that.
As far as “offense” vs “defense” goes, it again comes down to the intent of the person. You and the terminably stupid Ms. Gail are just attributing concealed weaponry to criminal intent, which is downright offensive in itself.
@mata/hard right: you can easily fire a Glock with one hand. And they are hyper lethal. One gun. One clip. One minute. 6 people dead. 14 injured. One of the injured shot through the brain.
If the gun had a California style 10 bullet clip, the toll wouldn’t have been so high. California is in compliance with the 2nd Amendment. Why do we need 30 round clips for semi-automatic hand guns? Don’t call me names; convince me. I’m open to being convinced. As I said, I haven’t yet made up my mind.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I dunno, Larry. Impossible since Loughner didn’t have “a clip”.
Even 9mms have recoil, and recoil affects your accuracy. Doing two fisted shooting will make you less accurate with both. Depends on if the crowd separates and you have a wall to wall target of humans to be effective. I can fire my Colt Series 80 Mk IV .45 with one hand… unlikely to hit my first shot let alone my second. Fired my bro’s 9mm, and felt that recoil even with two hands. Less than mine, but recoil none the less. Doesn’t have an auto compensator. Your talking out your rear orifice here.
Do you know how long it takes to change a small 8-10 round MAGAZINE, Mr. Dense? Didn’t think so
By the way, I’ll cease calling you names …. which I haven’t until “Mr. Dense” above… when you stop being an pompous ass about clip v magazine. Other than that, I have termed you dense, you have called me now “over wrought” and “obsessed”.
I’d say I’m more accurate.
I also wanted to say that article was the typical, bleeding heart, tremendously fireram ignorant crap the media usually prints. It’s clear that Gail doesn’t like firerams and wants to use this tragedy to push further restrictions upon them.
“If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms…”
Ummm, the glock is a tremendously popular handgun among civilians and Law Enforcement alike. It IS the gun most Americans think of. I’ve met several people who also have a 30 round magazine for their Glock for home defense. It is EXACTLY what people use for personal protection.
She quotes the Brady campaign, a group that wants to ban firearms. They like to claim they don’t, but when you see the various scams they’ve pushed under the guise of “reasonable” or “sane” legislation, it becomes clear what their end goal is. You’ll also notice that not one pro-gun agency was used in the article. That wasn’t an accident.
One example would be where they supported a ban on guns that melted at a certain temperature. They claimed it would get rid of “Saturday Night Specials.” The catch? Most modern (and expensive) guns at the time of the proposal were made of alloys that would have failed the test even though they were anything BUT junk.
Another example: In a false attempt to ban “cop killer” bullets which were not available to the public, they proposed a ban that would have done away with nearly all rifle ammunition.
That is their definition of sane and reasonable. That is why people like myself oppose their efforts and will continue to do so.
This could have been a useful discussion. Instead, it’s been a complete waste of time. Gail isn’t a gun expert, but she asks a rhetorical question at least worthy of discussion. Why do we need handgun capable of firing 30 bullets in one minute? I provide a concrete example, also worthy of discussion. California has a 10 round limit, while Arizona has no limit. What are the potential advantages of California’s 2nd Amendment-compliant law in reducing the mortality and morbidity in episodes such as this? What are the actual drawbacks with respect to law abiding citizens? Do the potential advantages outweigh the potential drawbacks?
But, apparently, only certified, bona fide firearm EXPERTS are permitted to ask such questions and have such discussions.
I’ll take the discussion somewhere else.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
ah well… Larry bolts in a huff, after behaving like a rebellious child. Can’t say we didn’t respond to the questions, And I guess he didn’t like the answers, eh Hard Right? Note to Larry. If you want a “useful discussion”, try to provide a source who knows what she’s talking about, and read our answers. BTW, it was the failure of SB-20 and California’s 10 round limit and state “assault weapon ban” that caused me to pack up and leave the state. Never missed it since.
BTW, HR… it was the G19. The extremely popular compact version. Don’t know if used or new, so we don’t know what generation.
@Curt:
I never claimed not to be naive. Are “naive” people not entitled to participate in these discussions or ask the questions which I’ve asked on this particular thread? All of us have areas of relative expertise and of relative ignorance.
I’d have no idea how to go about obtaining a Glock with 30 round fire capability. If it were available, I suspect it would cost much more on the “black market” than at the Grant Brothers in Costa Mesa (a licensed firearm dealer). I also suspect that this is a barrier to be overcome by the demographic which has been most frequently involved in these episodes.
I’m curious, Curt; are you in favor of changing California’s handgun laws to be more like those of Arizona? And, if so, why?
@mata: The Arizona shooter was interdicted only when he paused to change his “magazine.” So, however long it takes, it did make a difference in this case that he had a 30 round capacity, as opposed to a 10 round capacity.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Because people should be allowed to defend themselves. Why should you have to wait for the police to come rescue you?
Criminals always choose the easy targets, the ones that have less likelihood of getting caught, the ones that will give them less hassle. A armed person is a not a good target for them.
I need to get the smiley faces back. This one deserves a rolled eyes one badly.
Yeah, because we all know how those criminals work a honest day living getting a paycheck from McDonalds…so how in the world could they ever afford to buy this kind of stuff right?
Sheesh.
Larry, you can fire a Glock one handed. However trying to fire two guns at once HURTS accuracy. Rapidly firing a single Glock one handed hurts accuracy. And No they ARE NOT hyper lethal. Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Obviously not. If they were hyper lethal everyone he shot would have died. Stop engaging in hysterical hyperbole.
Larry, did you not read what I posted above? A magazine ban WOULD NOT have prevented him from getting a 30 round magazine. Such a ban was already tried nationwide AND IT DIDN’T WORK.
Convince you Larry? I have NEVER seen ANYONE here EVER change your mind about anythying. All you are doing is showing a complete lack of logical thinking and major ignorance of the subject.
Larry, I know waaaay more about firearms than you do. You may not like me, but set that aside and listen to what I say. You can verify all of it on line. Larry, this conversation would have gone better if you had talked to us instead of at us. You haven’t listened to anything we’ve said, and have re-iterated the same arguments we have disproven.
I have been decrying the repulsive politicization of this event. Didn’t you see my post above? Or did you expect me to come to a Right Wing site to decry the Left for allegedly doing the exact same thing that I’m seeing here? Is “they’re doing it too” really a defense for reprehensible behavior? Sounds suspiciously like moral relativism to me.
Maybe you missed “Putting the Blame Where it Belongs”, the edifying post by DrJohn where, after many contridictions, he finally comes to the conclusion that the shooting is (predictably) Obama’s fault? (Sidebar: is there anything that’s not his fault, that he can’t be smeared for, I have to ask?) How is that qualitatively different from blaming Sarah Palin, I wonder? I don’t see you taking advantage of your very own “perfect opportunity” in the comments section. No, instead you’re quoted as a source! How nice for you.
At the end of the day, I’m responsible for what I do, I write or I say. Feel free to point out where I’ve blamed the Right for this. I’d like to see that. Unlike you, I’ve only expressed disgust with those who have taken a national tragedy and attempted to score ideological points. Lke children, all you care about is winning” the game, and you’ll get dirty to do it. Nothing is off-limts. Nothing deserves restraint. Yes, I’ve expressed disgust with you and your friends. No one pushed you in the mud. You all climbed in willingly.
By the way, back to your “proof”. How sad to see you, the same day of the event, using uncorroborated tweets by an unknown person, who admits to not having seen the shooter in three years, as the basis for your pithy ideological analysis. Beyond the crassness of such speculation, it’s a bit premature, no? And this from Mr. “Links, please”. Do you have a link from two days ago you’d like to share corroborating the assertions in those tweets? You really got carried away, I guess. You’ll never live it down, Aye, if it ends up bullsh*t. But I’m sure you know that. So now you find yourself in the unsavory position of hoping that the truth conforms to what you alleged without proof, rather than just hoping for the truth.
openid.aol.com/runnswim. hi, don’t give up now, you are getting some info from 2 kowledgeble persons, but you don’t accept it,
from your question, I’m not a knowledgeble on gun, but if you have read m
MICHELLE MALKIN’S LINK SOMEONE GAVE HERE, you will have a potential answer,
to my mind I would prefer a 30shots gun, because when those mob come at you like they done to the ARMY RECRUTER IN UNIVERSITY, they where lucky to stay alive because those recruters know how to shoot, and I think you are better protected if you can shoot on 30 shots, because that’s the way they cowardly come to attack,
@ hard right: What I had in mind was not Laura Croft, two fisted shooting, but holding two guns and firing one at a time. Anyway, it’s not important.
The Arizona shooter did not purchase his 30 round Glock on the black market. He purchased it from a gun dealer. In California, he could not have purchased such a weapon from a gun dealer. You guys think that, if he lived in California, he’d have just gone to his friendly neighborhood black market Glock dealer to purchase his firearm of choice. Maybe yes; maybe he’d have just been satisfied with a 10 round semi-automatic. I don’t see that the 10 round California limit is all that troublesome to our many committed gun owners (I do own a laser-sighted SS P226 with two 10 round magazines, myself, and I can’t, for the life of me, think of why I’d ever need a 30 round magazine). We have a state ballot initiative process, and every election there are many propositions on the ballot. No one has, to my knowledge, ever felt sufficiently constrained, magazine-capacity-wise, to put an unrestricted magazine initiative on the ballot.
As I keep saying, I’m not sure where I really stand on this issue, but there’s nothing which was offered on this thread which has offered any clarity whatsoever, from my point of view.
If I’m able to find a thoughtfully informed opinion on this matter, I’ll come back and share it.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Can’t say I get his behavior Mata. I don’t claim to be a firearms expert, but I do know more than the average person. You clearly do too. Yet, he chose to ignore everything he was told and made an obviously ignorant writer his source of authority. I can only guess it’s because she was from his side of the political spectrum.
Tom, pulease. You are here to defend you leftist bretheren and by extension yourself. All you have done is proven yourself guilty of rank hypocrisy, projection, and denial of reality. We see, but obviously you cannot. We want to defend ourselves from the slander folks like yourself have spewed and you have a problem with that. Well too damned bad. We aren’t going to roll over and play dead for you.
I see you’re back Larry. Now Larry, do you understand that there was a nationwide ban on magazines with a capacity higher than 10 rounds until 2004? Yes or no?
Did you know their availability was not hampered by said ban? You know why? Because there were already a bunch out there. Their prices went up, but that’s it.
So becaue YOU cannot see a reason for someone who wants a 30 round magazine, they should be banned? Larry, I HAVE a 30 round magaine my my handgun for home protection. You mean to tell me THAT isn’t good reason to have one?
Do you have any training in surviving a life or death situation Larry? Does it even occur to you you may be attacked by multiple armed individuals? Wouldn’t you want more in that situation? You could easily be killed while trying to reload another 10 round magazine. That is why people want a magazine with a higher capacity.
As for concealed carry, it hardly makes one a criminal to carry that way. Even in AZ, open carry makes people nervous. Not to mention if someone wants to attack you, it’s better for the targeted victim NOT to give away the fact they are armed. Before you say they won’t go after someone carrying openly, you need to think again. My co-worker’s son was carrying openly. A gun wielding robber came up from behind and got the drop on him. Took his wallet and his gun. Criminals are just more careful in how they go after such a person. It doesn’t stop them.
Mata, I have never liked Glocks. I hate the grip, the mushy trigger, and the lack of a frame mounted safety. I know they are good guns, but YUCK!
Hard, while it may not stop all the scumbags from choosing you as a target, it will stop many of them. They want the cars without an alarm, they want the empty homes, they want unarmed targets.
@Curt:
>>Yeah, because we all know how those criminals work a honest day living getting a paycheck from McDonalds…so how in the world could they ever afford to buy this kind of stuff right?<<
I'm not talking about professional criminals, who earn a living from crime. I'm specifically talking about the unbalanced, immature, suburban white and Asian kids who have been the most frequent perpetrators in these episodes.
With respect to people having the right to defend themselves — of course. But do you think that California's (2nd Amendment-compliant) laws provide an unreasonable obstacle to firearms acquisition and ownership by law abiding people? I'd still like to hear a cogent defense of the 30 round magazine, which is the issue under discussion. The NYT article raised the issue of where the limit should be drawn, with respect to firearms. Should rocket propelled grenades be legal (rhetorical question)? Do the potential benefits of 30 round magazines outweigh the entirely non-theoretical disadvantages (e.g. the Tucson shootings).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Hard. That’s the most positive and helpful response you’ve ever given me (#140). I actually learned something useful by reading it. Thank you very much.
@Curt: How do I go about uploading an avatar; so that I don’t need to be a shadow character?
– Larry
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m talking about those unbalanced immature white, asian, black and hispanic (not sure why you left out those two races from your comment) kids also. They get the money from illegal means Larry. Breaking into homes and cars, dealing drugs, robbing people.
As Hard said, if you are facing more then one adversary those extra rounds can mean a whole lot. And who are you to decide how many rounds I can have in my gun in the first place? Just more nanny government crap.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: gravatar.com. Just make sure you register with the same email that you use here to login. Then upload a picture and that’s it.
Thirty shots? It’s highly unlikely that most of us will ever have to repell hoards of attackers coming over the baracades like Zulu warriors at Rorke’s Drift. What good reason does any well-intentioned private citizen have for carrying around a semi-automatic weapon having a 30-round capacity? I can only think of bad reasons.
Well Curt, I prefer to be aware of my surroundings and project a “vibe” or “presence” to potential scum that I may not be someone they want to mess with. That and concealed carry seems to work. 🙂
The fact is in the case of the shooter, he was a loon. I don’t assign him to either side of the political spectrum. As for the gun, it’s not the gun’s fault. He is another one of those cases where he slipped thru the cracks repeatedly, just like the Virginia Tech shooter. This could have and should have been averted long before it happened.
@Greg: One more comment from someone who has watched too many movies. In a life or death situation, with rounds coming at you, the likelihood of many of your rounds not being on target are great. It’s only in movies where you will find people shooting it out and most of their rounds hitting their target(s).
Again, who are you to decide how many rounds I can have in my firearm?
Well that is your problem Greg, you tried to think and you aren’t very good at it.
I’m coming around to your point of view (Hard and Curt). I do think that a magazine limit would have made a difference in the Arizona case (from what I’ve read about the shooter and from seeing his picture as a library volunteer — he seems to be an unlikely candidate to have the easy ability to acquire a black market Glock with 30 round magazine). On the other hand, this one case needs to be balanced against entirely legitimate concerns of tens of millions of law abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves.
I don’t ever remember reading of a case of a law-abiding private citizen who discharged 30 rounds in the course of defending himself in a gunfight with multiple assailants, but I suppose that there must be examples.
LW/HB
Law enforcement can carry 15 round magazines Larry. And we all carry half a dozen of those magazines with us at all time as well as our backup gun. We carry those rounds because it’s better to have too many rather then have too little. If you have too little and run out of ammo during a fight for your life…you’re dead, along with whoever else was with you that you were trying to protect.
What would of made a REAL difference in Tucson is if someone was there carrying a weapon also. Why should people be sheep? I’m a cop so I can carry all the time where ever I go but if I was a private citizen I would damn well want the right to protect myself and my family, whether it be in my car, in a movie theater, in a Starbucks or wherever.
Hard Right, I would need 30 rounds in order to get one
I don’t have a problem in the world with law enforcement carrying fully automatic weapons or M16s with fixed bayonets, if necessary. That’s an entirely different situation than in the case of private citizens. I’m just trying to figure out where to draw the line, if anywhere.
Another question I’m curious about has to do with carrying loaded weapons in the passenger compartment of cars. Carjacking can and does occur. Why should citizens not have the same right to protect themselves in their cars as in the case of anywhere else? I wonder how law enforcement would view this.
LW/HB
Completely agree Larry. I believe it should be legal. You should be able to defend yourself anywhere you go. That’s my whole point. But instead we have these laws saying the rounds have to be locked away and yadda yadda yadda, making the gun a big paperweight. It’s ridiculous.
@Curt:
That’s part of my point, actually. They tend to hit lots of other places.
Would we want private citizens to be routinely packing higher capacity magazines than most police officers?
Oh, so it would be better if you’re dead then rather then those rounds going lots of other places?
Uh….whoakay
can you beleive agang of 30 coming at you and youshoot all the barell and the last one get stuck in the barrel, all this work for nothing, you better have another one in your pocket,
but you forget it took humidity and stalle, so you better have another one in your sock,
but as you bent down …..oh no no no no
I’ve only shot a Glock once, HR… a couple of magazines worth (no, not the 30+ “clip” types… LOL). Can’t remember which model, but it wasn’t the 4″ barrel. Plastic guns are lightweight, but didn’t much like it. Don’t think I spent enough time being intimate to get used to it, tho. Like most firearms, you need to get used to the weight and recoil, plus dial the sights in to where you’re comfortable.
Was reading a review of the Glock 19 (both the VA Tech and the Tucson shooter’s choice) because it’s a good size for concealed carry… if you’re not lugging around the bulky magazines, that is. This particular reviewer had four Glocks, and favored his 26 and 1911 over the 19. Couldn’t stand it after his first outings with it, and said he needed the rear sites. So he mounted them. After that he liked it, but said without his mods his accuracy was worth sheeeeeet. I’m not under the impression that Loughner was either an experienced marksman, nor a gunsmith. So I’m guessing a crowd and close proximity played in his favor, considering he didn’t have a lot of time with that weapon.
You’re entirely right that the inventory for magazines pre 1994 were out there and to be had, not to mention those that owned them before becoming overnight felons. I never got rid of mine. So yup… for those that wanted them, the price went up and they didn’t even have to travel to back alleys to get them.
But I think what Larry can’t grasp is that to drop and magazine and reload is a simple process with two hands…depressing a button with one while inserting the magazine with another. I had to spend hours practicing before meets since speed between mag changes was everything. What I found was it takes me longer with the larger capacity magazines. The bulkiness was the factor, again. So I find magazine changes are faster with smaller capacity mags than the large.
Since Loughner only purchased his gun in Oct, he didn’t have a vast amount of time with the gun unless he was shooting 1000 rounds weekly at meets. His clumsiness with a longer mag – or perhaps any mag – was probably the reason they had enough time to tackle him, not to mention it takes more time to empty 30 rounds than 10 or 15. People had time to react, and those that did the tackling had a chance to get to him.
BTW, contrary to what Larry says, the 10 round capacity (as well as the threaded barrel) was a large problem with the majority of gun owners in CA and it’s “assault weapon ban” … which is the reason SB-23 (my typo above… sorry) was a grassroots referendum to get it repealed. I should know… I was in the thick of it at gunshows every few weeks, collecting petition signatures. We came somewhere about 10 – 15K short of the 600K some odd signatures we needed. That’s quite a few disgruntled firearm owners, so Larry’s pooh poohing , saying “…No one has, to my knowledge, ever felt sufficiently constrained, magazine-capacity-wise, to put an unrestricted magazine initiative on the ballot” is not accurate. That was 1999… short term memory perhaps? Or not paying attention, I guess.
The entire premise of Larry’s challenge (and now Greg’s) is something I find extremely disturbing. i.e.
Personally, I’d like to know why it’s not the other way around. Why are any of us law abiding citizens having to defend how much ammo we are allowed at our disposal for both sporting and self defense to either of you? We are not the ones who committed mass murders.
So a snot nosed piece of crap, who’s time bomb personality and lawless actions prior to the shooting was ignored by everyone, was able to purchase a legal high capacity magazine… therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to either?
The problem with this type of naive thought is assuming that making a product illegal makes it unavailable. Is pot, heroin, or crack available? Hey, that’s illegal. When they had prohibition, was alchohol available?
The point is banning something only makes it unaccessible for the law abiding types. Criminals never have a problem getting it…. yes, Larry. Even white boys. (dang, that is soooo offensive!)
So again, I’ll have to repeat that high capacity magazines are not just for criminals. They are used in sporting for the larger stages, enable you to run thru the meet carrying less hardware on your belt, and downright handy in a self defense situation as well. Since the bad guys aren’t likely to wander thru your doors armed with a single 8-10 round mag, why should the law abiding citizen be penalized and limited?
Besides, I’m not interested in having the threshhold of my rights limited and dictated by what the criminal element does with perfectly legal accessories. Especially when it makes not an iota of difference.
GREG not realy, if you go slow motion
@Curt, don’t forget the absurdity of trigger locks and smart guns… More nanny stupidity.
Wrong question. Would you want criminals to be routinely packing higher capacity mags that citizen victims or cops?
MATA, HILLARIOUS
@Mata. I wish that you’d simply have addressed the issues raised in Gail’s article and in my own thought experiments, as Hard Right did, so clearly and compellingly in just a few words in #140 — then I wouldn’t have had to miss so much of the 4th quarter of the Oregon- Auburn game and you could have spent your valuable time attending to more important matters.
– Larry W
Lately, Larry, that I address you at all is a miracle.
@Curt:
I suppose how I answered that would depend on what the location was and how dense the crowd happened to be. I figure it’s best to reduce the likelihood of high-volume exchanges of gunshots in public places. If I can carry a 30-round magazine, the twitchy guy across town who hasn’t been taking his medication can too.
So let me get this straight. Someone is attacking you with a firearm, trying to kill you and whoever you are with, and you will just lay down and die rather then fight because you don’t want to send bullets down range?
Geez louise.
You are definitely the sheep and need the police to come protect you….might be too late but hey, no extra lead was sent down range right. Coroner needs to get paid too.
@Curt:
I suspect you might be ignoring my point rather than missing it. Where do we draw the line? Maybe I should be carrying a Glock 18 with a 34-round clip to the mall or football stadium for personal protection. There’s no telling who or what I might run into outside in the parking lot…
So because you believe you will never be assaulted that gives you license to tell the rest of us that we have too many rounds? Just because you chose to live with your head in the sand doesn’t make it so for the rest of us.
Whose we? Who gives you the right to tell me how many rounds I can carry with my firearm that I use for protection?
Yo Curt… when do you think the “we” Greg refers to will figure out that criminals don’t care about “lines drawn”?
Did I miss something in California, or are G19’s now considered illegal assault weapons in California?
Nope… not via the law I remember.
Loughner could have purchased the Glock anywhere in the US legally because he didn’t have a felony on record, and no one ever documented his insanity officially. The Brady Handgun law from 1993 disallows anyone found “mentally defective” from purchasing handguns.
You want your “prevention”? There it is. This guy shouldn’t have been allowed near a butter knife at dinnertime. But the suggested “cure” is to take away *my* butter knife. Right.
What you probably meant to say is he couldn’t have purchased the high cap mag there. Which brings us right back to reality… that “white boys” can purchase that magazine on the “black market”…. sigh… and for considerably less than he paid for the gun. For all we know, he could have borrowed it.
BTW, the G19 comes stock with the 15 round cap mag, but the various Glock magazines – ranging from 8-33 – all fit. Just another accessory. Of course, in Kalifornia, they would only give them the smaller mags.
I’ve been rather hoping that “We the people” could eventually come to some sort of well-reasoned agreement.
Here we go! Just what the average citizen needs for self protection.
Whatever the reasonable limit is, that last magazine he’s using is probably on the other side of it.
@Greg:
“reasonable” is not the example you chose to use to support your arguement. Silly, rediculous, yes.
I personally don’t shoot, I have a hubby that would do that for me, don’t know how many rounds his magazine holds, but should we choose to visit friends that live on the border in AZ, I definately would feel safer knowing he had the larger magazine.
All they have protecting their property from the Mexican border is a cable, once you step over the cable you are in Mexico and that area is littered with clothing, backpacks, water bottles, etc. it’s a garbage strewn mess, my grandchildren said it was a creepy experience when they walked through it. That’s how close they are to whatever could happen. It’s the home of my son-in-laws parents, when daughter and son-in-law visit they both take their weapons, he’s a police officer and I have no doubt both guns hold plenty of ammo.
BTW, my husband has taught everyone of our grandchildren how to use and respect all of our guns, he starts them out fairly young, one of their favorite events while visiting the farm is target practice with papa, the teens sometimes practice without him because they can now be trusted to be on their own. They prefer the handguns.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You need to come to the “fly over country” . . . black market . . . no not really a black market . . . I mean you can’t put the word out that you want a specific fire arm and expect Johnny Gun to provide it in the middle of the night in a box with no outside marking.
But what you can easily do is just become a gun or weapon enthusiast. Within just a few miles of where I live are all kinds of activities where gun enthusiast congregate, shotgun par courses, fire ranges (3 or 4 of them), duck hunting clubs, deer hunting register stations (good place to get together with a bunch of rifle owners), skeet and trap shotting clubs . . . heck even the local cops. You find a guy who is interested in guns talk about what you want and someone will have a conversation with you about what ever topic related to sport guns, hand guns, military weapons, it is a social event here in Oklahoma.
Is it againist the law for these people to conduct “horse trading”, barter, swapping . . . with the items they own?
Is it possible for a weirdo, crazy MF to buy a gun at such a gathering . . . well, I guess that depends on the two guys talking about the specific gun.
Gun Shows are POPULAR events in fly over country: Is there one in your STATE . . . go check it out at the link below.
http://listings.shotgunnews.com/findshow
What I am saying here is that firearms are part of life . . . guns don’t kill people . . . people kill people!
Technically, it is against the law to sell weapons via swapping/trading, Tallgrass. I had someone interested in buying my action pistol set up from out of state, including my gun. In order to process the paperwork, I’d have to take it to a dealer here, who ran the required paperwork thru a dealer there for the buyer. Likewise gun shows cannot sell guns to attendees without running the required background checks.
That, however, doesn’t stop what goes on in the parking lots, and outside horse trading anyway. “black market” exists in lots of forms and places. Most of it done with no notorious intent or result.
The obvious is overlooked by the oblivious. Loughner hurdled all the legal barriers in place and yet it doesn’t stop him from committing mass murder. Breaking laws simply doesn’t matter to a criminal… hence why they are called criminal. But just one more law will do the trick? Puleeeeze. To make more doesn’t affect anyone, save those who have respect for our laws.
If Loughner didn’t use a gun, he would have devised another way to accomplish what he wanted. ’tisn’t like movies and terrorists haven’t inspired all sorts of methods to murder en masse.
Pray for the victim families!!!!
Wow, this thread morphed into an interesting discussion about firearms.
I think that I also would not want a Glock with a 30 “bullet” “clip.” LOL
The venerable .45 is my preference.
And worth a quick note: B-Rob STILL has yet to answer my questions in post #101.
@Tom:
Nah. What you’ve been whining about is the fact that those of us on the right actually have the audacity to stand up and defend ourselves in the face of the scurrilous accusations that have been hurled our way since Saturday.
Well, truthfully, what I expected of you is precisely what you’ve done.
What you should have done, and what any decent individual would have done, is speak up about what is going on with your side in this discussion. The lies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that we’ve seen since Saturday are stunning.
There’s not been one single scintilla of proof or evidence to support the narrative that you Leftists chose to create.
Instead of speaking up about that…well, instead of speaking up about that, you’re outraged that we, on the right, have the nerve to do so.
No one has used “they’re doing it too” as a defense here. We have, however, pointed out the absolute blatant hypocrisy of the Leftists and their arguments.
Everything from the use of bullseye symbols or targeting terminology….it’s all on full display on the left, yet we’re supposed to believe that this shooter was motivated by something that Sarah Palin may have said or done and we’re supposed to stand by stoically whilst your side of the aisle accuses us of everything short of pulling the trigger?
We’re being preached at about violent rhetoric while the guy you voted for, and still support, is out telling people to “get in their faces” and “punish your enemies” etc, etc…
Yet, we’re supposed to remain silent in the face of the Leftist lies even as their narratives fall apart?
Not a chance.