“What scares me about the Tucson shooting is that if gun control advocates have their way the only people possessing guns will be criminals and the Jared Loughners of the world. There is no need to control guns in the hands of responsible citizens.”
—
“Hey Sheriff Dupnik: Barney Fife wants his gun back.”
—
“In light of Saturday’s event, the most naive and ignorant of the facts are calling for more gun control. Gun control of law-abiding citizens would not have changed anything. The fact is, if gun owners were not so vilified and demonized by gun control nuts, the gunman would have been stopped after only a few shots and we wouldn’t be wasting tax dollars on his defense.”
—
“All the people blaming the Arizona gun laws for the tragic shootings should realize two things: 1. If guns kill people then pens misspell words; blame the person not the instruments they use. 2. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. These men were able to committ murder; do you honestly think they would have obeyed gun laws!”
—
Your chance to sound off: E-mail Vent submissions to vent@evtrib.com
Dale Whiting posted at 10:23 am on Mon, Jan 17, 2011.
To the first Venter:
I suppose some view me as a "naïve and ignorant gun control nut.” After all I do suggest that we ought to discuss whether or not 33 round ammunition magazines [clips] need to be banned, banned all around:
1) from honest upright citizens, none of whom can express a single rational reason why their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms equipped with 10 round magazines would be impermissibly cut back if they could not own larger magazines,
2) from dishonest criminals, none of whom [so far as I am aware] use such grotesque add-ons [which no regularly constituted armed force has yet adopted, but which our US militia desires],
and 3) from those who are unhinged but are yet to have been called out [like Jared Laughner] and banned altogether from carrying arms. Heck even the Army rejected Jared!
Now I can appreciate why those in group #’s 2 and 3 are not commenting. After all, criminals and the unhinged do not speak out. But why are those behind door #1 being so evasive? Get to the point! All I hear is sound and furry amounting to nothing rational. How about it guys? Speak up! I’d like to hear about why any of you need a 33 round magazine for your Glock 19! Otherwise I choose no door whatsoever but rather do keep my ideas intact.
To the second Venter:
Since the Barney Fife character is a duly constituted law officer, surely Sheriff Dupnik would happily call for the return of his stage prop side arm. Want to try your hand at some more meaningful commentary?
To the third Venter:
I ditto the remarks given to the first Venter above. Now allow me to point out your glaring errors. You state: “The fact is, if gun owners were not so vilified and demonized by gun control nuts, the gunman would have been stopped after only a few shots and we wouldn’t be wasting tax dollars on his defense.”
I appreciate your effort to state facts [even if they really are opinions. In vents space is at a premium.]. You imply that "gun control nuts" have so vilified “gun nuts” that none would show up on the 8th able to kill Jared after only a shot or two. While I dispute that anything really inhibits gun nuts from owning the articles of pride and joy in their lives, I would point out several facts.
First and foremost, one gun nut was present shortly thereafter. And he almost shot a bystander who had picked up Jared’s Glock 19. Unlike Barney Fife, he was not a duly constituted law officer and had no training on how to react to a rapidly changing scene.
Second, let’s go forward with your hypothetical assumption that this youth had been standing in a spot with a close and direct line of sight to Jared and that shortly after Jared begins, he gets off a first shot which stops Jared cold but harms no one else. Don’t you think that this hypothetical requires a few too many assumptions to be valid? I do.
We call such bystanders armed security guards and we give them training. And absent “self defense,” if they mess up, they get jailed. Only those who actually were shot or were shot at can intervene without fear of messing up. ["Mess up" means shoot the wrong person or harm a bystander in shooting the right person]
To the fourth Venter:
Who in Arizona do you claim are “blaming the Arizona gun laws for the tragic shootings?” I certainly have not heard from any. I have heard [and have added my voice to] a call to examine our laws. And I do realize that 1) people kill people, many using guns to do so. But I do not blame our gun nuts for Saturday last’s incident. Rather I suggest that absent that “clip,” no more than 10 rounds would have been fired before reloading, the event which allowed unarmed bystanders to intervene and that 2) if we outlaw guns, then logically only outlaws will have guns. But no one whom I have heard over the last 10 days has called for banning guns, just those 33 round magazines, no one!
The point you seem incapable of understanding is that magazines so grotesquely oversized are not protected by our 2nd Amendment. Understand that except for a very few special ops forces and they and they alone, no military force uses them. There is no 2nd Amendment right for our militia to out gun all but those few special ops forces.
P.S.
From now on, I shall use 1) the term “gun nut” to refer to those who oppose any restrictions whatsoever on the right of law abiding citizens to own any and all implements of war, 2) the term “gun control nut” to refer to anyone who questions the position of gun nuts, 3) the term “clip” to refer to any ammunition magazine, whether a true clip [M1 style] or magazine [M16A1 style] and 4) the term “gun” for any side arm [revolver or semiautomatic pistol] or assault weapon. I have no doubt that the possession of hunting rifles and shot guns is protected by the 2nd Amendment But I do point out that no militia has been called to duty since 1814 when Andrew Jackson "took his little trip down the Mighty Mississip."
Think I’ll go now and cook up some bacon and beans in Andy’s honor!