Could more guns have stopped the Tucson massacre?

1. 60

   William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago

   This article says pretty much what I think:  guns are fine, but don't expect owning one to magically save your life or anyone else's. 
   
   http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … mp;emc=rss
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure about the Tuscon massacre, as there was a lot of confusion going on, but it isn't hard at all to find home and business owners who have successfully defended themselves against robbery or assault by use of their second amendment rights....

      replyreport
2. 67

   ExpandYourMindposted 13 years ago

   In the case of the Arizona shooting, another gun pulled after the first shots, probably would have been of little use.  In this case, the rescuer would have had to have a premonition or acted very quickly upon seeing the pulled gun.  Unfortunately, incidences like these happen quickly and are over in seconds.  Another gun, after fact, would have added to the melee.
   
   Guns are a legal fact of life in the US.  Undoubtedly, they have been used to negatively and positively impact many episodes. 
   
   Is it possible to legislate guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Possibly, this would have prevented the widespread killings and injuries.  However, there are always others weapons with worse consequences. Should all individuals have gone through some type of weapons screening; or would this just dehumanize this type of public interaction?  Lots of questions . . . . no definitive answer.

   replyreport
3. 60

   William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago

   Common sense legislation could have prevented this:  require background checks, including mental health issues, before selling guns.  I would go even further and say that concealed carry permits should require stringent training and requalification each year to demonstrate not only basic understanding of your weapon and safety, but also your tactical competence.  If we're going to have an armed citizenry, we should have a well trained armed citizenry.
   
   My problem is with all the magical thinking that comes from the gun lobby:  "more guns will make everyone safer!"
   
   No, more common sense laws, and a more well trained, informed, aware and competent citizenry will make us safer.  Guns are not magic - you're just as likely to shoot a family member or yourself in a fight or an accident as you are to fend off a robber.  If you want to own a tool that exists only to kill, you should at least be required to demonstrate that you are worthy of such a responsibility.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's pretty clear. The guy had mental health issues. The issues were known by local authorities. THEY WERE NOT REPORTED. The FBI is flagging records that they get info on. Regardless of conviction of a felony or being committed to a mental institution.

      replyreport
4. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   It's ridiculous! As if asking for safer gun responsibilty is "taking away my rights....." bulloney!
   
   This issue has been totally skewered by the NRA.
   Time to take them down a peg or two.
   
   We all have rights.....not just you!

   replyreport
5. 72

   livewithrichardposted 13 years ago

   You can't cover all scenarios with gun control laws.  A person can be just fine on the day he is tested and flip out months or years later.
   
   It's been said a million times but if you take the guns away from the citizenry then who is left with them?  You got it, the criminals and the government (One in the same)
   
   I was born and raised in Chicago but lived 14 years in the Deep South of MS and SC and have many friends that are truly into guns and survival. Many stockpile weapons "just in case" there is ever an insurrection with the Govt.
   
   In my mind, controlling who has guns is not the answer, dealing swift and immediate justice to those that use them improperly is the answer.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's a cliche. We have to start somewhere.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe it is but can you deny it?

         replyreport
   2. 60

      William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      My question is, why are automobiles so regulated, but guns aren't?  I can buy a gun and carry it in my vehicle, or even on my person, without any sort of license or insurance.  Why is that? 
      
      If I'm pulled over in my car, I need to produce a title and up to date registration, proof of insurance, and a valid drivers license.   Why the difference in regulation?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         State regulations vs Federal regulations, you do the math.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            But just about every single state requires all of those things to drive, so Federal vs. state is kind of a moot point.

            replyreport
6. 74

   cheaptrickposted 13 years ago

   One more gun in the right hands would have stopped it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Doubtful.   A trained bodyguard detailed specifically to watch Mrs. Giffords might have been able to stop it - but it happened so fast that the person with the gun would have had to be very close and catch on immediately to what was going on.  Loughner had his gun out and shot Ms. Giffords at point blank range before anyone even realized something was amiss.  From that point all he had to do was empty his clip, and that's what he did.  Our hypothetical civilian with a gun would have had to be very alert, well trained with his/her weapon, and very fast to respond.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As would one less gun in the wrong hands !

      replyreport
7. 0

   ryankettposted 13 years ago

   In the UK there have been 4 or 5 'massacres' in the past 30 years, in a country where very few people own a gun and obtaining a license for a gun is extremely difficult. This is a country with a population of just over 60 million people.
   
   Can Americans at least see why us Brits think that the idea that increased gun ownership reduces the number of gun related crimes is completely damn crazy?
   
   In the USA there were 500,000 non-fatal firearm-related incidents in 2005 alone, whilst there were 16,137 homocides committed using a gun in the same year. There were even more suicides committed using guns.
   
   In the UK in 2005 there were a little over 10,000 gun related crimes in total, including non-fatal and fatal. Our statistics include the use of Air Guns! I can't find 2005 homocide statistics, but the highest on record is just 97 and in 2006 it was 50 gun deaths.
   
   The population of the US is approximately 5 times greater than that of the UK. If you multiply our worst year for gun related homocides, 97, by 5..... you get 485.
   
   16137 versus 485.
   
   Yet you still drone on about the problem being a LACK of guns? You have 200 million of them already, that is 1 gun for every 1.5 persons (including children).
   
   Do you really think that dishing out more guns is going to decrease gun crime? If you were to give everybody Heroin tomorrow, do you think you would see less Heroin deaths or more Heroin deaths?
   
   I love the USA, hence the reason that I am going there the next week. The two things that I find incredibly disturbing about your country are:
   
   a) The ability for anybody to buy a gun in Walmart without the need to have a license.
   b) Your unwillingess to treat the ill and injured.
   
   Other than that your country is great, but the last thing that you need is more guns.

   replyreport
8. 74

   barryrutherfordposted 13 years ago

   Well Said ryankett !   

   replyreport
9. 63

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   We must arm every citizen over the age of 9 years old, and do so quickly... not just with one firearm, but with two (in case the one is clogged or otherwise interoperable at an inappropriate time).
   
   Furthermore, these firearms should be rapid fire, just in case a person is approached by a swarming gang.
   
   Grenades would also be a good idea.. they are portable, and can carry a substantial punch.
   
   With the rise of carjackings, modified cars/tanks should also be made available and affordable.
   
   Despite all these reasonable measures, no doubt that the criminals in our midst would still attempt their dirty deeds.
   
   The only surefire way to deter such madmen is to destroy the objects of their desires....  We might therefore want to proactively destroy all our assets.. cars, homes, jewels, etc.
   
   While such a scorched earth policy would deter thieves, cold blooded murderers would still be out there, however. 
   
   Only by killing ourselves via mass suicide initiatives, could we assure that potential victims of violent crimes will be safe from the killers lurking out there.
   
   Thankfully, guns are readily available, and bullets are relatively cheap.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Brilliant solution! Unassailable logic! There will be a great future for you in the Tea Party and/or the NRA.

      replyreport
10. 85

    DzyMsLizzyposted 13 years ago

    More guns is never the answer.  It only means more death and mayhem.  People confuse the 2nd amendment rights as the right to vigilante justice, which it is not.
    
    It originally referred to an ad-hoc milita organized on a state-by-state basis.  This has evolved into the National Guard, a para-military organization with professional training.
    
    Too many untrained and undisciplined people are running around with guns, which is exactly why events such as occurred in Tuscon keep happening.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yep! More guns=more shooting of innocent bystanders.

       replyreport
11. 70

    tritrainposted 13 years ago

    As I've said before, it's quality, not quantity.
    
    If you have a well-qualified gun carrier, then those gun-carriers may have been able to react and possibly save some of those that were shot.
    
    What I mean is a person that has taken and passed classes on gun safety, tactical handgun use and decision making, and actively practices with their weapons.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Which is why I say people who want to carry guns should be required to train and demonstrate their competence regularly.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Seems like a fair trade to me.
          
          It's a big responsibility.

          replyreport
       2. 93

          habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I wouldn't have a problem with this.

          replyreport
12. 80

    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    People did have guns, but froze. One guy who tackled the suspect was almost shot by someone who ran out of a store with a gun.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Good point.

       replyreport
    2. 55

       C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Sounds like the guy "running of the store with a gun" made the right decision.

       replyreport
       1. 80

          Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Only after people yelled at him to stop...

          replyreport
          1. 0

             china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Yeah - that would make me feel more safe.

             replyreport
          2. 55

             C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             The fact still remains, people were carrying weapons and did NOT behave irrationally. With the exception of the mentally ill person with a firearm.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                and the fact remains that in the US it is the right of every nutter to carry a firearm - and most of you think this is the way to go !  no wonder the US is slowly dissapearing over the horizon

                replyreport
                1. 55

                   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Actually, I don't believe that we should have so many people "openly" carrying firearms in our society. However, I see it as a result of the people NOT feeling secure in their communities. Fix that problem and you will find that fewer people are walking around "strapped".

                   replyreport
13. 61

    Paul Wingertposted 13 years ago

    Like Chris Rock said, we don't need gun control! We need bullet control! Each bullet should cost $5,000! If each bullet costs $5,000, there will be no more innocent bystanders because you'll definately think before you shoot!

    replyreport
    1. 85

       DzyMsLizzyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       There ya go!  Amen to that!  ;-)

       replyreport
    2. 70

       tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I'll sell you a couple bullets for $5,000 apiece!

       replyreport
       1. 60

          William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'll sell you two for $500.00 each, how's that?

          replyreport
14. 0

    china manposted 13 years ago

    More devices that are only designed to kill people are a good idea to reduce the number of people being killed -  are you people raving loonies or what !

    replyreport
15. 0

    Aleister888posted 13 years ago

    i believe they could have, just my 2 cents, i don't want to start on a radical rant though, i respect everyones opinion.

    replyreport