In Wake Of Tragedy, Tucson Goes Wild For Gun Fair

Just days after a shooting rampage northwest of Tucson left six dead and 13 wounded, a gun show near the city drew 8,000 attendees.

The Telegraph reports the heavy turnout was a reaction to the perceived threat that the tragedy will bolster the cause of gun control advocates.

The Telegraph spoke to the president of the gun show, which hits Tucson five times a year: “Any time gun owners feel their rights to use firearms lawfully may be challenged, they turn out in numbers,” the owner said.

While senseless incidents such as the one in Tucson, my hometown, cause some to yearn for more restrictions on gun access, they convince others that gun ownership needs to be more prevalent so innocents can better defend themselves.

Did the massacre change the way you feel about firearm ownership?

Arizona shooting: business booms at Tucson gun fair [Telegraph]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Darrone says:

    Same run happened a few months before the last presidential elections. idiots running around saying Obama is going to ban guns. Other idiots listen, and stocked up. There hasn’t been major progress on gun restrictions in 10+ years.

    • RxDude says:

      The last Democrat president was 10+ years ago. Coincidence?

      • paulthegeek says:

        Obama’s been president for just over 2 years now. If guns were even remotely on his agenda, you’d think we would have heard about it by now.

        Paranoid gun nut is paranoid.

        • DevsAdvocate says:

          He isn’t going to make an agenda on something he has no traction on… Even in his own party, gun-rights are popular.

          Obama, on his own, is anti-gun. His record in Chicago speaks for itself.

          • webwbr says:

            More than just ‘popular’, gun ownership is a protected, constitutional right! (Sorry, to nit-pik)

            • unsmith says:

              Sorry to pick your own nits, but “gun ownership” is not specifically a protected Constitutional right. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to “arms,” not “guns.” An “arm” here could easily be a spear, or crossbow, or other weapon. It does not say “firearms,” however that viewpoint has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, so most people simply assume a direct right to own firearms. In reality, a successful challenge to established court views could overturn that interpretation, and that would not strictly violate the 2nd Amendment.

              • jefeloco says:

                So you picked his nits just to theoretically disagree, yet agree with him/her?

                If you want to break it down to absolute basics that jive with what you’re saying: “Arms” = generally defined weapons, “guns” fit within the category of tangible objects known as weapons.

                The constitution and its amendments are specifically open to interpretation and that is exactly what the general acceptance of the 2nd amendment is, a legally supported interpretation.

              • alSeen says:

                Which also means that the 2nd Amendment protects more than just guns. You also have a right to have a tank, f16, and nukes.

              • spamtasticus says:

                I hate to burst your bubble but when the 2nd amendment was written they squarely meant guns. Not bows and arrows.

        • RxDude says:

          Health care was priority #1 for 2 years. What else is on his wish list?

          Granted, with a Republican majority in the House it’s unlikely that a gun control bill would pass.

    • Ixnayer says:

      “There hasn’t been major progress on gun restrictions in 10+ years.”, I consider that a good thing.

    • Ixnayer says:

      “There hasn’t been major progress on gun restrictions in 10+ years.”, I consider that a good thing.

      • Plasmafox says:

        +1. Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

        If a nutjob doesn’t care about taking a life do you think he’s going to care about a law that says he’s not allowed to use a gun while doing it? The old adage “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” rings true- gun control laws only affect people who actually follow the law, people who the government should not be infringing the rights of for “health and safety.” As for accidental deaths, that can be solved with educating children about guns and how dangerous they are when handled improperly, rather than a broken record that repeats only “GUNZ R BAD MMKAY.”

  2. SuperSnackTime says:

    Hey, I know what will get some page hits… let’s get people to debate the merits of gun control!

    • simplegreen says:

      exactly. idiocy at it’s best. Guy could have killed people with a toyota no one would hurry up and blame toyota for not being able to distinguish when it has people in front of it to automatically stop. Why is this even valid why do people continue to blame guns for crazy ass people. There’s more crime per capita in the UK than the US.. wanna know how they do it.. with knives.. because they banned guns.

      There will always be crazies doing crazy things. You cant blame the inanimate object for it.

      • YOXIM says:

        While I agree that crazy will be crazy guns or not, your analogy was flawed. A toyota is designed to transport people and things. That someone would use that vehicle for something other than its intended purpose is not toyota’s fault. Guns, on the other hand, are designed to shoot and kill things. The crazy bastard used the gun for its intended purpose.

        Still, at the end of the day, the only person/thing to blame for the tragic incident is the crazy fuck who pulled the trigger. While I do believe that tighter gun control is badly needed in this country, an outright ban on firearms would be silly. It would be extremely impractical and pretty much impossible to implement.

        • simplegreen says:

          i can respect your opinion but I own guns and the guns i own while designed to shoot things has never killed anyone at least in my possession. Knives were originally made to defend and kill things yet their everywhere. A javelin in the Olympics was originally a spear made for war, now it’s a sport. Exactly the same line of logic i have for guns. I use them as a sport target shooting etc. I dont even hunt (don’t like killing things).

          I dunno its hard to blame things that have no thoughts or feelings for something a crazy does (as you’ve pointed out). I dont agree with tighter gun control, it just takes the guns out of the hands of people who legally use them for sport/target and self defense and puts them into the hands of people that dont follow the law in the first place. Look what just happened in California, one of the tightest restricted gun states in the union. We need more IDIOT control in this country.

        • dakeypoo says:

          Guns are designed to shoot bullets, not people or things. Bullets are designed to penetrate people or things. See how far we can take this argument? The problem is not the gun. The problem is the wackjob who did this, and the 20+ people who gave up their right to bear arms and defend themselves that day. If a few people were armed, the wackjob would have been eliminated fairly quickly.

      • unsmith says:

        While I agree that there is more per-capita crime in the UK than the US, despite strict gun laws, that same crazy person can do WAY more damage with a firearm than a knife.

        Using a knife, you’re going to get the first victim and probably a second before people realize what’s going on and take you down. With a firearm, it’s very easy to peel off five or six victims in that timespan. Also, it’s far easier for an unskilled user to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Shooting someone to kill is a pretty big target area. To kill with a knife, you need good knowledge of internal organs and the relative placement of bone and such, so that your strikes actually kill instead of simply injure.

        Not to mention a knife requires close proximity (melee range) while a firearm can be used from range.

        • PercyChuggs Was Found At JFK Airport says:

          What about the guy in Japan back in 2008 who killed SEVEN people with a knife?

          Crazy people will be crazy and find ways to harm people regardless of any type of gun control law. I would prefer I have the means to protect myself from said crazy people.

          If the Indians had guns, the Pilgrims never would have stolen their land ;)

  3. Cosmo_Kramer says:

    “Did the massacre change the way you feel about firearm ownership?”

    No, I’ve always thought that crazy people and criminals shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

    • Leksi Wit says:

      (From the link in the article above.)

      “Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year-old being held for last week’s killing spree, was deemed too unstable to attend college, and unfit to join the army. Yet he appears to have bought a $599 pistol with ease.”

      Then it gets better…

      “Over at the Glock stall, things were frantic. The makers of the 9mm semi-automatic G19 allegedly used by Loughner to shoot Miss Giffords through the head had underestimated the interest in their wares.

      ‘Business is dramatically up,’ said Steve Zacher, the leading salesman, who could only apologise that he was unable to pause from processing credit card payments.”

      • evnmorlo says:

        He was never admitted to a psychiatric hospital, treated, or diagnosed for a mental disorder. He was kicked out of school for criticizing it on the internet, and the army rejected him because of a drug test.

        • Doncosmic says:

          No he was kicked out of school because he frightened the students and faculty.

        • jefeloco says:

          Exactly, I don’t believe I have seen anything that claimed he had been adjudicated mentally defective and that is one of the stipulations for buying a gun.

          I didn’t see or hear anything about this tragedy until the following Monday evening. I did think it was odd though that the shop where I picked up my new Sig on that Monday had signs up saying they were sold out on 9mm Glocks.

      • George4478 says:

        Who decided if you’re too “unstable” to attend college? I have 2 kids in college and neither of them had psychiatric counseling before the school would admit them.

        He was unfit to join the Army after admitting drug use that would make him fail the urine test. I have one son who joined the Army last summer and the recruiters are serious about those tests. They asked him about drug use over and over, made sure he passed the test twice over a period of time before they’d talk job/contract, and I watched them turn away several guys who said they’d smoked pot recently. When I joined the Navy in 1980 they counted the number of limbs I had (+/- 1 from the norm was OK, IIRC) and gave me a uniform.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          The community college didn’t deem him unstable before he went to college. He was accepted, then when he showed alarming and disruptive behavior, the college warned him about his behavior and spoke to his parents. It was only after repeat problems that the college sent him a letter of suspension and told him and his parents that he would not be allowed to return until he had completed a psychiatric evaluation and obtained a certificate from the proper governing body that deemed him mentally fit to attend the community college.

  4. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    So we are trusting the opinion of a UK paper about gun rights/ownership?

    • Elcheecho says:

      why not? they used to have pretty lax gun rights, decided against it, and implemented major gun control. seems like they might have worthwhile insight.

      • Cosmo_Kramer says:

        Every year I go to a machine gun shoot in Kentucky. It’s a great time – a bunch of people get together with their legally owned guns and shoot stuff. At the same time there is a gun show happening in a pavilion near the gun range. Amazingly, despite the presence of thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammunition, no one is ever murdered. A good time is had by all, stuff gets blown up, it’s all good fun.

        After last year’s event I was sent an article in a New Zealand newspaper about the show. It was ASTOUNDING how much misinformation was in that article. The writer of the article twisted everything to fit his bias. He even maligned the playing of the national anthem.

        So no, I’ll never trust the word of one journalist on something that gets people as fired up as guns. If 5 or 10 journalists are describing the event in the same way, then I’ll believe it.

        To give you an example of how this article could be misleading:

        “Over at the Glock stall, things were frantic. The makers of the 9mm semi-automatic G19 allegedly used by Loughner to shoot Miss Giffords through the head had underestimated the interest in their wares.

        “Business is dramatically up,” said Steve Zacher, the leading salesman, who could only apologise that he was unable to pause from processing credit card payments.”

        When I’ve gone to gun shows in the past people didn’t exactly line up to purchase guns. Most people spend a lot of time browsing and maybe buy 1 gun, maybe just buy accessories or ammo, maybe buy nothing at all. I’ve never in my life seen a crowd of people at a stand all waiting to buy guns from the same dealer. What you may see is a crowd of people at a stand with one guy buying a gun and the rest browsing.

        The part about apologizing that he was unable to pause from processing credit card payments? That probably went something like this:
        Reporter: Can I ask you a question?
        Dealer: Sorry, I’m busy with a customer.

        The quote about business being up dramatically? Could have been in response to a variety of questions. All they needed was the quote, then they put it into the context that makes it mean what they want it to mean.

        Why am I suspicious of this part of the article? Because you can buy a Glock from any number of dealers at a gun show, you don’t have to go to one specific booth. Additionally, someone who is going to spend $500+ on a gun aren’t going to choose a model just because it was used by a murderer.

        • Tim says:

          So, you trust your experience with a gun show or two against the writings of someone who was actually at this specific gun show?

          • alSeen says:

            Absolutely.

            I’ve been to dozens of gun shows in multiple states. From huge ones in Dallas, TX to smaller ones in Pierre, SD.

            What he describes is consistent with every single one I’ve ever been to.

            At any particular gun show there will be dozens of dealers selling Glock pistols. Unless this particular dealer was selling them at a significantly lower price, there is no way people were lining up just to buy from him.

            • OutPastPluto says:

              Nevermind the gun show.

              Just go to your local sporting goods store. There’s simply no need to mob some guy at a gun show.

    • denros says:

      No, we’re not trusting them by posting this article. This is us mocking them for questioning such basic essentials as guns and ammo.

    • Tim says:

      Damn foreigners. They can’t get anything right! Because they’re foreign!

    • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

      Thank you. My first thought. British journalists have wet dreams over mocking Americans and their supposed gun nuttery.

    • OutPastPluto says:

      How soon before American gun control advocates try to take away my kitchen knives?

      This sort of shenanigan in the UK really turned me off to the idea of giving American gun control advocates any quarter. We have an incident involving pistols and they start screaming about “assault rifles”. Right out the gate they are engaging in obvious lying and fear mongering.

      Crass jackals.

  5. Moosehawk says:

  6. Maximus Pectoralis says:

    When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    Just look how well the “War on Drugs” is working if you want to see how effective banning guns will be in preventing criminals from getting them…

    • Xenotype51 says:

      I prefer “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.

        • jebarringer says:

          Yeah, and such absolute statements are never incorrect…

        • pythonspam says:

          Guarantee that the people carrying concealed guns who would stop this sort of attack will only shoot the shooter and I have no problems agreeing with your position. It does make it difficult when the police show up to determine who shot whom and why though.
          Your theory works until an innocent bystander gets shot by someone trying to stop the original shooter.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            Concealed carry probably wouldn’t stop this attack, just as having a bomb squad on site wouldn’t stop a terrorist from lobbing hand grenades into the crowd or detonating a truck bomb. Unfortunately random incidents like this are difficult to predict and difficult to stop. Concealed carry would, however, potentially greatly reduce much more “mundance” instances of crime such as robbery, assault, rape, etc. The problem is people are trying to use this one-in-a-million tragedy by a crazed psychopath to take away the self-defense rights of all of the law-abiding citizens.

    • nbaptist says:

      When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Isn’t that just one big scary thought that only outlaws will have guns!

      Remember when seconds count help is only minutes away!

      You Choose One: GUN

      1 – Owner

      2 – Victim

      • jebarringer says:

        It’s always fun when I can point out that I’ve known hundreds of people that don’t / didn’t ever own a gun, and none of them were victims… always blows a hole in that last argument.

        • axhandler1 says:

          Not really. I mean, you wouldn’t ever need a gun unless you were put in a situation where you would be a victim without one. It’s like saying, “Oh, well I’ve known hundreds of people who drive without auto insurance, but since none of them have ever been in an accident, it completely blows a hole in the argument that everyone should have auto insurance.”

    • Tim says:

      The proliferation of gun ownership encourages people to develop a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality. It encourages the idea that a gun solves every problem.

      For example, in my home town, a couple was recently having an argument in a bar. No one was being physical, but the argument was getting pretty heated. A bystander thought he saw the man in the couple raising his hand to hit the woman. So his first reaction was to get out his gun and shoot. Bonus: he missed and shot the woman.

      For a more general example, in states like Florida, if someone breaks into your house, you can legally shoot them. What if it’s someone who has the wrong house? What if it’s your babysitter and you forgot what time s/he was going to come? What if it’s your son, coming home late after partying? No matter, you’ve convinced yourself that if someone comes into your house and you aren’t expecting him, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

      I don’t think guns should be outlawed, no. But I think the culture we have behind gun ownership and gun use is out of control. Somehow, societies with a much lower rate of gun ownership haven’t disintegrated.

      Also, Jared Loughner shouldn’t have been able to buy that gun.

      • Sian says:

        What you describe is a bad shoot. that citizen will be one of the .005% or so of those who carry who will get his license revoked for being an idiot. He’ll also get jail time if there’s any justice in the world, because seriously what the hell?

        You can’t use a .005% case and apply it to everyone though.

      • Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

        I agree with what you say about Loughner. With regard to everything else, that’s why there are classes on safe gun handling and such. I’m all for mandatory gun safety and training classes, but not for restrictions placed on law-abiding citizens that give the advantage to criminals.

        And for the record, more people die each year from riding bicycles than they do from guns. Just FYI.

    • NotEd says:

      I love that. My theory:

      If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns?
      Great. Have the police shoot anyone with a gun.
      It should make it a heack of a lot easier to identify Outlaws.

      • Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

        You’re so right! Guns are evil, Evil, EVIL! Only cops should be allowed to carry them! I’m with you, 100%.

        Wait. What happens if the outlaws are better armed and have better aim than the cops (which is often the case)? ;-Z

        Hmm…an interesting conundrum.

        • Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

          By the way, NotEd, ask the cops how easy it is for them to identify the outlaws in Chicago or D.C.

          • NotEd says:

            What exactly are you implying specific to Chicago or DC?
            I’ve known a few cops in DC in the past who did a fine job identifying outlaws when called upon to do so. One I knew hadn’t had to use his gun at all in his time with the police.

    • sumocat says:

      The “outlaw” argument? Really? You know that argument also works for things that should definitely be illegal, right? Such as…

      When chemical weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have chemical weapons.
      When crack cocaine is outlawed, only outlaws will have crack cocaine.
      When child p0rn is outlawed, only outlaws will have child p0rn.
      When skinning people alive is outlawed, only outlaws will skin people alive.

    • Mr.Grieves says:

      Yep. All the outlaws in Britan TOTALLY have guns!

      The only reason your rhetoric works in the US is because guns have been allowed to proliferate so long there. If they were banned tomorrow, many millions would be floating around out there for quite a while to come.

  7. Moosehawk says:

    [Insert my standing on gun control]
    [Insert reasons why I believe I am right]

  8. RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

    Sorry this is hitting close to home, Phil.

    This whole thing has just renewed for me the wish to just see one kind of consistent gun law. I’m all for State’s Rights as far as they go, but the current mishmash of gun control laws make it easy for any wacko to get a gun. Yes, if you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns, but that doesn’t mean you have to make it easy to walk in and out of a store with one.

    • evnmorlo says:

      Sorry this is hitting close to home, RadarOReally.

      This whole thing has just renewed for me the wish to just see one kind of speech law. I’m all for State’s Rights as far as they go, but the current mishmash of speech laws make it easy for any wacko to post on the internet. Yes, if you make the internet criminal, only criminals will have internets, but that doesn’t mean you have to make it easy to log in and out of a website.

    • jayde_drag0n says:

      Criminals are not getting their guns in stores, they don’t exactly want to be tracked. They purchase off the black market, in back alleys with serial numbers filed off. So making it harder to purchase a gun in a store will STILL not do a damned thing

      • pot_roast says:

        It will only reduce the number available to law abiding citizens, once again giving criminals the upper hand.

    • ludwigk says:

      This ‘mishmash’ of laws is essential to the structure of federalism which is a cornerstone of our system of governance. Having diversity in the laws allows us to vet them against each other and determine which ones work, and which one’s don’t. Laws that closely resemble each other from the outset don’t allow us to do this, and keep us from being able to come up with good laws.

  9. MeowMaximus says:

    In other news, Consumerist Editor Phil Villareal has stopped having sex with zebras…

    Yes I’m making a point here. We expect actual useful consumer news here, not attention grabbing headlines that address some political agenda. I think its long past time for Mr. Villareal to be let go.

    • JeremieNX says:

      This. The intentions of this article are very transparent. Combine a recent tragedy with a “hot button” issue that people tend to be polarized about. Yet another reason I didn’t nominate Consumerist for the bloggies…

    • Maximus Pectoralis says:

      This. Sometimes I think this is The Kommunist and not The Consumerist…

      • RandomHookup says:

        No fair. If you are going to comment on your relative’s post, you need to include a disclaimer.

      • JulesNoctambule says:

        Aww. People with ideas other than your own are scary, huh?

        • Maximus Pectoralis says:

          Aww, afraid of people being responsible for their own well-being and self defense, and not always thinking Big Brother needs to “provide everything for everyone”, huh?

          Actually I am quite open to new ideas, but most of the non-consumer political articles posted here are 1) very one-sided and seem to assume that this is treehugger.com and not consumerist.com and 2) sometimes present opinion as fact.

          I could also say that by you being “liberal” you’re just a poor little baby who wants everything to be spoon-fed to you by the government. That is about the equivalent of your rather pathetic ad-hominem attack.

    • lawnmowerdeth says:

      It seems his hatred for guns is almost as high as it is for the smokers.

    • scouts honor says:

      Agreed. From the looks of the content he posts here, which tends toward non-consumer items from the Tucson area, he clearly wants to be a southern Arizona political blogger.

    • Cetan says:

      What part of this article has to do with consumerism?

      OH! A vague link… gun fairs sometimes sell guns. I think. Or was that Gun Shows?

    • palfas says:

      because the availability of guns for purchase is not a consumer issue, amirite?!?

  10. Beeker26 says:

    Stay classy rednecks…

  11. sonneillon says:

    So what? There are gun fairs happening every week in some areas. It is essentially saying in spite of tragedy, life goes on.

  12. Tarceinus says:

    I don’t quite understand the logic behind statements claiming that more citizens armed would keep things like this from happening. The last thing I would want in a chaotic situation like this would be an untrained civilian firing his gun in a crowd.

    The second amendment contains the words “Well Regulated” in it. Why can’t we keep nut-jobs from getting handguns. At least keep them from getting 30-shot magazines.

    • dopplerd says:

      This did happen in Tucson. A man with a handgun almost shot a bystander who had picked up JLL’s gun after being tackled.

      • George4478 says:

        >>A man with a handgun almost shot a bystander who had picked up JLL’s gun after being tackled.

        Or, you could say “a man with a handgun did not shoot a bystander who had picked up JLL’s gun after being tackled.”

        Personally, I drove to work this morning and almost crashed, screaming, into a busload of nuns and orphans, leaving dozens dead and injured. But, I stopped at the red light instead.

      • wackydan says:

        No… Not almost anything…

        Here he is… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldi1mgVgsAc

        He was able to exercise proper judgment – Watch from the 1:00 mark on. CCW holders are responsible and in many cases very well trained in the use of their firearms, and are good at accessing situations like this. This guy proved it.

    • RandomHookup says:

      If I remember correctly, Arizona has legal concealed carry without a permit. It’s entirely possible that people at the event were armed

    • alSeen says:

      As I’m sure you’ve seen mentioned before, “Well regulated” when the Bill of Rights were written did not mean “controlled by the government” or “lots of laws.” It meant in good working order.

      The militia members were expected to provide their own weapons when called up. You can see a good example of this in The Patriot (yes I’m using a movie reference, deal with it).

      And here is the official law concerning militia membership.

      TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      And non of that matters as the actual language of the 2nd Amendment does not say that only militia members have a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that the phrase “the people” means the same thing in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th.

      • ludwigk says:

        More correctly, the Supreme Court in D.C v. Heller, and the recent McDonald decision have affirmed that gun ownership is a right unrelated to the regulation of a militia.

        This right is not unlimited. Alito’s opinion in McDonald specifically noted that gun ownership was subject to reasonable regulation.

        • alSeen says:

          Well, that was a ruling specifically on guns. The ruling I’m talking about actually had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It was a 4th Amendment case. The 2nd was cited though as to the meaning of “The People.”

          United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez

    • Sian says:

      Nobody except police needs a car that is capable of going over 75 mph.

      See how silly that is? Guess what kills more people.

    • OutPastPluto says:

      Actually, the likelihood that the people in the crowd were familiar with firearms probably allowed the situation to end more quickly and allow the perpetrator to be subdued in a more timely fashion. Fear mongering only leads to more fear. Being able to know about these things (guns) allows for people to approach a situation like this with some ability to impact the outcome even if they aren’t armed.

      A crowd of people that bought into the “oh, gun scary” rhetoric would probably have done nothing to stop the shooter until he was completely out of ammuntion at which which time medical help for any of the wounded would not have been possible at all.

      Self reliance is a virtue.

  13. bonzombiekitty says:

    I think too many people have fantasies about just how helpful guns are in a variety of situations. I think they’ve seen too many action movies.

    Simply having more guns present in a situation like that in Arizona, is not much of a help. In that particular case, there were, afaik, at least two other people present who were carrying guns with them. According to reports, Laughner already emptied his clip and done his damage before people even fully realized what was going on. One of the people who had a gun ended up tackling him and another person who had a gun, drew it, and almost fired at an innocent person who was taking the gun away from Laughner – thankfully he made sure he was targeting the right person.

    I don’t necessarily have anything against owning or carrying a gun. It’s not for me, but to each his own. However, I think that there needs to be some mandatory training to carry a gun around. A person not trained on how to handle a fire arm or dangerous situation properly is just going to put more people, if not themselves, in more danger.

    People need to have a realistic view of just how helpful a gun is in a given situation. It might be helpful to have a gun in a Columbine sort of situation, where there’s an identified gunman trying to hunt you down.

    In the Tuscon sort of situation, it’s just an additional danger (at least immediately). Imagine a gunman in the middle of a crowd starts shooting and several people pull out guns within a few seconds to target the gunman. If you are one of the people who pulled out a gun, how do you decide who is the gunman and who is trying to take the gunman down? How are you supposed to know who is and isn’t the bad guy?

    • Hi_Hello says:

      However, I think that there needs to be some mandatory training to carry a gun around.

      I completely agree on this statement. Screw the gun control crap, focus on training in order to obtain and keep a gun license.

      each year, require people to pass a gun test. someone need to come up with a proper gun test. Aren’t police required to take some sort of gun test every so often?? kind of weird that professional need to get training while regular people with guns don’t need it.

      • evnmorlo says:

        If you work with computers you might need to update your certifications every so often. Do you think that private citizens should have to maintain a license to use a computer?

        • jebarringer says:

          Fail on the comparison. Better comparison is a driver’s license. (In theory) you show you can properly handle a car, you get permission to do so and have to renew that permission every few years or if your situation changes (address, name, etc). You show you are irresponsible with that permission, you lose it.

      • parabellum2000 says:

        You’d be surprised how lax police gun qualifications are. I have one friend who is a cop and another in the academy. I shoot a pistol way better than either.

        In most states basic gun training is required to carry a gun. You learn basic gun safety, how to operate a weapon, how to shoot a weapon, and the laws of your state.

      • Sian says:

        How much will the training cost? Who is going to pay for the training?

        Be very careful with your answer, lest you deny 2nd amendment rights to the poor, who deserve them just as much as Mr. Warbucks.

      • nutbastard says:

        The kind of people who would buy a gun and then neglect to get proper training are exactly the kind of people that proper training can’t fix. They’ll go through the course, pass, and then go jokingly pointing their gun at things they do not intend to shoot anyways.

        Firearm respect is something that can (and should) be taught at a young age. But there’s a window on these sorts of things.

        That said, I think that every citizen should own a firearm, and failing that, they should own a replica. in 90% of the 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms each year, the defender does not discharge their weapon. That means a replica is 90% as effective as the real thing and 0% as dangerous.

        • OutPastPluto says:

          Make them pass a military marksmanship exam.

          That will stop them.

          Can’t hit what you aim at, you can’t carry it.

          It also hits upon the original intent of the “militia” language in the 2nd Amendment.

          Along those lines, I think that if someone can get Expert on the Marine Rifle KD course then they should just be plain given the rifle.

    • Elcheecho says:

      It’s inconsistent to say that the dude almost shot an innocent bystander (but didn’t) and not acknowledge that having armed citizens could have helped (but didn’t). You can’t say, in the same breath, that having guns in the crowd didn’t help AND that the dude should have had better formal training.

      • bonzombiekitty says:

        I think you may be misunderstanding my point. In this particular case, armed citizens were not a help, and could not have helped. Of the (at least two) armed citizens, one didn’t draw and chose to tackle and the other drew, but by that point the gunman had been tackled. The guy who did draw almost shot at an innocent person, and thankfully he didn’t. He showed that he knows how to react appropriately in the situation, he’s demonstrated he knows how to use it. Good for him. I’m not against people like him carrying a gun around, same thing for the guy who tackled Laughner.

        I’m not arguing against people carrying guns, I’m arguing against the idea that it’s some sort of panacea. My point is that I don’t inherently trust people to act reasonably correctly in this sort of situation. I don’t want a person who doesn’t know how to handle this sort of situation pulling out a gun and putting others (and themselves) in more danger than they started off with. In my mind, that trust has to be earned. Which is why I think training and tests should be mandatory in order to legally carry a gun around.

        • DevsAdvocate says:

          Your grammar shows disdain for the gun owner who drew the weapon. In this scenario, people acted properly. On gun owner tackled the active shooter, the other was armed and ready to deal with the shooter or any other threats.

          He didn’t “almost shoot anyone”… think about how dumb that sounds. To make that statement honest, he would had to discharge the gun, missing the person. Then he “almost shot someone”.

          Furthermore, if it was a police officer and not a citizen, would the statement be the same? Would the cop have “almost shot someone”? No.

          Give the responsible gun owners credit. They acted properly, legally, and to their best abilities.

          • bonzombiekitty says:

            Did you read what I just wrote? I just said that both gun owners acted properly. One pulled out a gun and said he almost shot (BTW, you “almost shoot” at someone by drawing your weapon and being about to fire which AFAIK is what the guy in quest did) at an innocent person, but took a second to make sure he was targeting the correct person.

            Again: GOOD FOR THEM. THEY ACTED CORRECTLY. I don’t have ANYTHING against those two individuals carrying around guns.

            My point is that I don’t inherently trust people to act correctly in this sort of situation. I think that legally carrying a gun on you should require at least some sort of basic level of training and certification. You wanna own a gun? Fine be my guest I don’t really care about it. You wanna fire that gun on your land? Fine, I don’t really care much (provided of course, there’s ample space for it). You wanna carry the gun around in public? Well then, I want to be sure you have at least some sort of competency in regards to handling a gun because now there are other people potentially at risk.

            Much like I don’t want people who haven’t demonstrated a basic level of competency driving a car. And yes, I support periodic driving exams. Just because you are capable of driving a car now does not mean that you are capable of doing so fifteen years from now.

            • DevsAdvocate says:

              So, they acted correctly, but you still don’t trust them to act correctly? How much more proof do you need?

              Also, you committed grammar bias twice with your use of “almost shot him”… it’s a negative emphasis on what is actually a positive act. He didn’t shoot anyone, he acted properly, yet you made it out to be a negative reaction. Was he not supposed to ever pull his gun out? Or if he did, have it in a ready position?

              You can try to spin it however you want, but it’s clear that you’re biased against guns and gun owners.

              • bonzombiekitty says:

                Oh my god… For the last damn time. The two people in question acted correctly, which is great. Wahoo! They’re responsible gun owners. I have NOTHING against responsible gun owners.

                However, I don’t think that owning a gun inherently makes you a responsible gun owner just like owning a car does not make you a competent driver. Given the possible harm that could result in failing to use either a gun or car improperly, they should require some level of basic training and certification.

                I’m even more concerned when people run out to buy a gun and carry it around in a situation like this because now you’ve gotten rid of a good deal of self-selection when it comes to competency.

    • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

      Exactly. It’s a panacea that makes people feel safe, that weight of the gun making them feel like they’d whip out their piece and make everything ok. It would not have been possible, or even wise, to do so in this case.

      Meanwhile, even one kid accidentally getting shot because people aren’t taught gun safety before they buy a weapon and because it’s easy for any idiot to get one is one kid too many in my book.

    • alSeen says:

      Wow, you mean a person carrying a gun made the correct decision and did not shoot someone that was innocent?

      I thought that only police could make snap decisions like that and that letting everyone carry guns would result in wild west shootouts.

    • owtytrof says:

      I feel the same way about punctuation.

  14. Elcheecho says:

    wow so much hate for this “phil”….seems unecessary.

  15. Rebecca K-S says:

    No. I was conflicted about gun ownership two weeks ago, and I still am. I don’t like guns, but outlawing them doesn’t really seem to work. I don’t know what the solution is, but I hope we find one soon.

    • lawnmowerdeth says:

      Sadly, there will never be a solution of stopping isolated incidents of a crazy person going on a rampage.

      • GMurnane says:

        This^^^
        Guns make committing violence very easy, but crazy and/or violent people will always find away to harm the innocent with or without the aid of guns.

        • parabellum2000 says:

          I’d rather have shootings than car bombings, and you’d be amazed how simple those are to create.

    • Sian says:

      I just want to thank you for using your brain.

      If Loughner didn’t have a gun, he probably would have made a bomb or plowed into all these people with a car instead, and the death toll would have been much higher.

    • jesusofcool says:

      Thanks for saying this – pretty much how I feel. I feel very strongly that I would never want to own a gun even for defensive purposes, but I’m also unsure as to whether a total ban would prevent violence in the long run.

  16. Hi_Hello says:

    i remember during one of the school shooting someone mention, that if everyone had a gun, the shooter wouldn’t been able to take soo many lives.

    the someone mention a town that require all the resident to own a gun and crimes are low.

    I think the people who want more gun control or restriction doesn’t know much about guns. Then people who own guns and hurt themselves or someone close to them doesn’t practice with the gun.

    You hear stories about kids shooting themselves with their parent gun even though the gun is locked up or something. Kids are curious, remove their curiosity, and they probably won’t do something stupid. I know of a parent who job require a gun. which is brought home. The parent let the kids mess with it and answer any question the kids have about it. When the kids brings friends over, the friends think its a big deal that there is a gun in the house. The kids don’t care about it, and doesn’t mess with the gun or is interested anymore in trying to figure it out.

    I think people who want a gun to do something run will always find a way to get the gun.

    I would be interested to see what happen if everyone are trained and have a gun with them all the time.

  17. BuyerOfGoods3 says:

    The gun show in Austin this past weekend was also packed tighter than usual.

    People want their guns before they’re not allowed to have them anymore in the name of ‘national security.’

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Anyone who actually thinks guns are going anywhere is being paranoid. No one is trying to take away anyone’s rights to own a gun. The few people you hear sqwaking about it are the vocal minority.

  18. Kevin Welz says:

    I hate how this comes up every time there is a tragedy like this.

    People always tend to blame the tool and not the person. Or at the very least they claim that the tool allowed for him to be more effective. Think about this. If I took my car and drove through a crowd of 20 people, how many would be injured or killed? Probably about the same number or more than were harmed in this incident.

    It is also a lot easier to get and use a car than it is a firearm.

    I have a lot of training with firearms. More than your average police officer does in fact. I take organized rifle and handgun classes almost monthly that focus on the defensive use of those tools. Your average Police officer shoots twice a year. So tell me why it is bad that I carry a firearm?

    In this tragic situation there was at least one individual who had a firearm. He was faced with a chaotic Shoot/No Shoot scenario and he acted properly. I have seen some media try to demonize him just because he carried a weapon. Yet he is one of the people that stopped the attack.

    You want to keep things like this from happening? I am sure we all do. But it won’t happen. Guns are to easy to make, other tools are just as effective, and driven people will always find a way.

    • El_Fez says:

      Had – driven people. I see what you did there!

    • Alter_ego says:

      I’m not stating my stance one way or another on gun control here, but in regards to your statement about how driving a car into a crowd will kill as many people as a gun, but it isn’t as regulated, there’s a reason for that. Guns have a single, primary purpose. They kill things. Animals or people, it is the sole reason why a gun is used. (Just to head it off, I know some people use them to shoot targets for fun, but that is a hobby, not a primary function of the weapon). Cars primary purpose is for transportation. The fact that the can be used from harm doesn’t take away from the fact that it isn’t their point.

      • alSeen says:

        No, the primary purpose of the gun is to set off a chemical reaction that propels a small mass at a high rate of speed.

        What that mass is propelled towards is up to the person that pulls the trigger. End of story.

        • HannahK says:

          Umm no, you’re describing how a gun works, not its primary purpose. A “chemical reaction that propels a small mass at a high rate of speed” basically describes how both a gun and a car engine work, but the purpose of a gun is to shoot a projectile at something and destroy it, and the purpose of a car engine is transportation. Similar function, similar capacity for destruction, entirely different primary purpose. End of story.

          • Alter_ego says:

            function, that was the word I was looking for! There’s a difference between purpose and function.

      • Sian says:

        there are plenty of guns that are suitable only for targets. sure they CAN be used to kill someone, but so can a bowling trophy.

  19. JulesNoctambule says:

    I seem to recall the gunman in Tuscon was taken down by unarmed citizens.

    • Kevin Welz says:

      True and false.

      One of the gentlemen was armed but in the situation he felt drawing his weapon would not have helped at the time. He made a good choice.

      • Tim says:

        In other words, he was taken down by people who did not use guns in taking him down.

        • Kevin Welz says:

          Correct. However they had the option to if they needed them.

          It goes to show that the whole Blood in the streets, Shootout on every corner argument is false. Just because one has a weapon doesn’t mean they will use it as a first resort.

          • jebarringer says:

            It also goes to show that the argument that “guns would’ve prevented the shooting” is false.

            • evnmorlo says:

              Usually the Secret Service does not shoot the people shooting at the president. Concluding that they don’t need weapons is also false.

          • Doncosmic says:

            Concluding that every gun owner is as intelligent and responsible as the two that were present in Tucson would also be false.

    • evnmorlo says:

      It Jared found only one oddball friend to come with him, only bullets would have been able to stop them.

  20. Cameraman says:

    Why all the debate over whether or not to outlaw guns? We should just outlaw murder. That’ll go to the root of the problem without having to outlaw the guns of the law-abiding. Boom, problem solved. Thank you, Cameraman for President to find out my views on abortion and taxes-

    *whisper whisper whisper*

    What, seriously?

    *whisper whisper*

    Already illegal?

    *whisper*

    Dammit.

  21. AustinTXProgrammer says:

    I seriously doubt more gun laws would have stopped this nutcase. Clearly looser gun laws wouldn’t have made a difference either, it happened too fast.

  22. EverCynicalTHX says:

    Questionable topic for Consumerist but I’ll play anyway.

    I believe in the 2nd amendment and would be considered a gun rights advocate. However, I also believe that concealed carry is a higher level privilege reserved for individuals that have passed a thorough background check including an FBI fingerprint check, mental health record search and demonstrated some level of proficiency when handling guns.

    As far as magazine capacity and semi-automatics go (funny how many news organizations don’t understand the difference between an automatic weapon which is illegal for most people in America and a semi-automatic), it’s not the guns that kill – it’s criminals and mentally deranged individuals. Jared could have just as easily ran his car through a crowd of people had he not had a weapon and the results might have been the same or worse.

    • DevsAdvocate says:

      So in your world, will Criminals also go through background checks, fingerprint ID, mental health checks, and so on? No?

      Then why are you going to put law-abiding citizens through that process?

      • EverCynicalTHX says:

        First off, the process described is already standard procedure in most states for concealed carry permits, Arizona is one of the exceptions.

        Secondly, anyone convicted of a felony isn’t eligible for a permit so that question is a moot point.

        Finally, the requirements mentioned were not for gun ownership but for concealed carry.

  23. Consumeristing says:

    According to the US government, Arizona has a far lower crime rate than California, Illinois and DC (where handguns were banned).

    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      Which is really not a very fair comparison. What is likely a bigger contributor to the crime rate is population density. I’d be willing to bet that DC and CA are a lot more densely populated than AZ is.

      I’m not saying that banned guns => lower crime, but rather that you’re comparing apples to oranges in order to talk about bananas.

  24. Sian says:

    It’s a matter of public record that Joe Zamudio was emboldened to go towards the shooting instead of away by the presence his own concealed carry pistol, allowing him with two other citizens to stop Loughner before he could reload.

    Anyway, the threat on high-capacity magazines is real, so people are understandably stocking up. We remember what the 10-year Clinton AWB desert felt like.

  25. nutbastard says:

    “According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

    Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)

    In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.

    In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker.

    A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it’s fewer than one a day”

  26. Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

    While senseless incidents such as the one in Tucson, my hometown, cause some to yearn for more restrictions on gun access, they convince others that gun ownership needs to be more prevalent so innocents can better defend themselves.

    No. There was someone there. With a gun. He was “a second away” from drawing his weapon and killing one of the heroes that disarmed the shooter.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/armed-bystander-shot-hero-disarmed-az-shooter/

    • stegosaurus1 says:

      A previous poster’s comment would be appropriate here (my words):

      “Today, I was a second away from running down a line of grade school children crossing the street,”

      “But, I didn’t. I obeyed the crossing guard and stopped at the crosswalk”.

  27. gybryant says:

    I maintain that a sizeable portion of the guns bought during these rushes can be marked up to nothing more than the wife factor. That is: husbands use the threat of impending increased regulation to convince their wives that they need to buy some coveted piece of hardware before someone makes it illegal to do so. The purchase of that particular firearm is not necessary for protection or freedom or whatever; it’s necessary because there is a window of sympathy that can be exploited for a limited period of time. I know it got me a Ruger Mini-14.

  28. oldwiz65 says:

    We have a culture that worships guns and violence. Shootings like Tucson are a natural consequence in our culture. More gun control is not going to pass Congress or even state legislatures. People simply worship their guns and more people will buy if they can. Take a look some night at how many shootings you see on TV, and I’m not talking about the news.

    • evnmorlo says:

      Take away guns and people will become interested in tentacles raping schoolgirls like in Japan. There is no cure for being human.

      • DevsAdvocate says:

        Or running around stabbing people. That seems to happen in Japan as well.

      • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

        Agreed. People are violent, period.

        I used to live in a place that catered to many thousands of Japanese tourists every year and there were a number of popular “shooting gallery” type places. Even the supposed peaceful, Zenlike, unarmed Japanese got a hardon as soon as they had the chance to fire a real weapon.

  29. Daedelus says:

    I have an idea: Let’s all stop going to auto shows after major car accidents! This is a non-story. What’s happened to you, Consumerist? You used to be useful….

  30. Nitrogen says:

    “Well Regulated” in the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what you think it does.

    Well regulated in those days means “well disciplined.”

    It also has “the right of _the People_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    To answer Phil’s question directly:

    These types of mass shootings are terrible, but if you take the emotion out of it, they are not a huge problem. Humans are a terrible judge of danger when the probability of an event is low, but the damage from an event is high. Mass Shootings (or even homicide/violence) is a great example of this.

    I think that more people need to take the responsibility for their own safety seriously, and not expect other people to keep them safe. Guns are one way for some people to help keep themselves safe. They are not the only, nor are they the best way, but its one tool in a large toolbox for people to help insure their own safety.

    In a place like America where we (supposedly) value freedom, having freedom is dangerous. The only real way to ensure safety is to take away freedoms.

    Heart disease killed a whopping 615,616 people in 2007. On the CDC’s list of all deaths, you have to go down 15 spots until you reach homicide. Before you get to homicide (which includes but not limited to gun violence) you have killers such as:
    Malignant Neoplasms (cancer)
    Cerebrovascular (strokes, etc)
    Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease
    All forms of unintentional injury/accidents
    Alzheimer’s
    Diabetes
    Upper Respiratory (flu, pneumonia, etc)
    Nephritis (which I had to look up, which is a kidney problem)
    All forms of suicide (which about half of reported gun deaths are from leading gun control proponents)
    Septicemia
    Liver Disease
    High Blood Pressure
    Parkinsons
    and then ALL forms of homicide. (including but not limited to firearm gun deaths. )

    SOURCE: webappa.cdc.gov:
    Centers for Disease control’s “National Center for Injury Prevention and Control”

    • Sian says:

      actually ‘well regulated’ more meant ‘in good working order’. meaning the militiaman should have a modern rifle of military quality in good repair, with the proper tools and ammunition to use it.

      • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

        Disagree. If so, it would read “militia with well-regulated weapons.” The phrase in its context means “not a rabble of losers with no discipline getting drunk and pillaging the countryside, kind of like Blackwater contractors.”

  31. Mecharine says:

    A gun can’t protect anyone if it isn’t fired. There were two people at the gathering that were armed, but they couldn’t use their weapons because of bystanders and the quickness of the shooting spree. No amount of gun control or gun “un”control would have stopped it from happening. This wishful thinking that if everyone is armed belies the real issue in that even if everyone was armed and properly taught gun discipline, lunatics can still cause mayhem because a well-trained gun user will know not to shoot in a crowd of innocent people..

    The solution – comprehensive mental health provided free or low cost.

  32. Alexander says:

    If people keep arming themselves for protection, how come you never hear of any one shooting back when these shootings occur?

    • gjones77 says:

      Because unlike the one performing criminal acts, legal gun owners take into account their target and what lies beyond their target so as not to harm a bystander.

      There are cases where a legal gun owners has stopped a crime from escalating by using their own firearm, they just don’t make the news as often since it doesn’t fit the “gun are bad” story they like to report.

  33. Mandrake says:

    The instance of the lone gunman shooting a lot of innocent people is probably not something that will ever be resolved in the United States. It’s going to happen again, unfortunately. Should there be reasonable restrictions on firearms? Of course; and there already are. Of course one person’s “reasonable” is another’s unreasonable but surely we can find some common ground as we have done in the past.
    IF one places the well-being of society ahead of the rights, privileges, or freedoms of the individual, one has to ask of an item such as a high-capacity magazine or an assault rifle: “Is this more a benefit or a hazard to society?”

  34. DevsAdvocate says:

    Sigh… what the fuck is a “gun test”? If you’re going to buy a gun, you’re probably going to try to learn everything you can to be responsible with it’s use and function. If you don’t, then you’re going to be irresponsible with it, and eventually face the consequences (typically, shooting yourself, your spouse, or your kid, and then saying “I swear, I didn’t know it was loaded!”)

    Oh yeah, equating it to driving is really great… *rolls eyes*, how many people do you see on a day-to-day basis driving a car when they are not only a danger to themselves, but everyone around them?

    Just because you have a testing requirement doesn’t mean it can’t be beaten.

  35. tbax929 says:

    I wish I had seen this when it was originally posted, since I’m a Tusconan. I can’t speak for anyone here except for myself, but I am considering buying a gun for the first time in my life. I am a military veteran and completely comfortable with guns, but I never felt the urge to own one as a private citizen. For me, this tragedy happened so close to my home that I don’t know if I feel safe anymore.

    I know owning the gun won’t make me any safer, but it may help me feel safer, at least. And I really need to feel safe again in my home town.

    • RandomHookup says:

      I am honestly curious as to why you see the need to get a gun now? If it’s this specific event, is there something about it that makes you feel less safe? From all appearances, this is the act of an individual and it’s unlikely that your safety is compromised to any greater degree than the day before it happened. Or is it something else?

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      You don’t necessarily NEED a gun. Random crazy political assassins aren’t that common. You’re still as safe or unsafe as you were before.

  36. GMurnane says:

    Many people like guns, as tragic as the shooting in Tuscon is, people are not going to stop liking guns.

  37. Wang_Chung_Tonight says:

    not a damn bit.

    guns don’t kill people idiots kill people.

    now we just need to kill the idiots…

  38. Horselady says:

    Woo HOO !
    Guns for all,
    Shoot ‘em up, everybody!

  39. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    Maybe they want to arm themselves against freaks like that guy. Imagine if one person had a license to carry and had their gun with them. Maybe this guy wouldn’t have hurt so many people.

    • Sian says:

      There were two present. One tackled the guy. The other was involved and ready to act.

      Both acted responsibly, considering the chaos of the moment and chances of shooting a bystander. Neither could have hoped to respond fast enough to stop the first round of shooting.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        You have a good point. I didn’t realize there were two people with guns. I guess it would happen so fast that even with lightening fast reflexes there would be plenty of time to kill a shooter.
        I guess people want to feel like they have some control over what is happening to them and feel like they can do something in a scary situation. I guess guns give some people piece of mind.

  40. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Did the massacre change the way you feel about firearm ownership?

    It did not, and I was just saying to someone today that I’m surprised there are not more people shooting stuff up in AZ, given that everybody’s packing.

    Guess if I go live there I’ll have to get me a gun. Although I could have killed the gunman himself with a can of peaches if I’d been there. So you don’t really need one.

    • Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

      It’s hard to get a tight group with cans of peaches. Even if you throw them REALLY hard.

  41. waltcoleman says:

    I would suggest increased interest in firearm ownership is driven by awareness for self defense as much as a sense that additional laws and bans may be on the horizon.

    I personally consider gun ownership much like insurance. It’s something I hope I never need to use, but I take some comfort in knowing I have it just in case.

  42. Ixnayer says:

    So if a drunk driver kills someone in LA, they should cancel the car show next week?

  43. marsneedsrabbits says:

    Phil asks: Did the massacre change the way you feel about firearm ownership?

    No.

    I have a better question:

    Did the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the massacre change the way you feel about the First Amendment? Do you feel that you have too much free speech?

  44. Cetan says:

    Did the massacre change the way you feel about firearm ownership?

    No.

  45. JadePharaoh says:

    People have the right to defend themselves. Tighting the belt on gun ownerships isn’t going to keep weapons out of the hands of people hell-bent on killing. It only restricts their would-be victims’ access to them, leaving them defenseless when stuff like this happens.

  46. consumerfist says:

    If lawful gun carrier would have been around, he or she could have taken this nut job down and saved some lives. But no, the gun control crowd would rather demonize guns then the one responsible for this unspeakable crime.

    You can’t rely on cops either. Guns are a heck of lot easier to carry around than a cop.

    I also disagree with the notion that you couldn’t do as much damage with a knife or other weapon.

    Criminals are always going to find a way to reach their desired objective, regardless of what laws you pass. The only thing banning guns would do is give them the peace-of-mind knowing law-abiding gun owners will be nowhere in sight to stop them. Back to waiting on the cops.

    Had someone taken him down, criminals might think twice about going on a rampage.

  47. shibblegritz says:

    This is about akin to an auto show following an incident in which a drunk plows into a crowd of people, killing some of them.

    Or home show the weekend after some fruitbat burns down his house and kills his family because they weren’t all named Ralph or something.

    In other words, the two have virtually nothing to do with one another.

    The shooting was perpetrated by an obviously disturbed individual for whom laws had no relevance. The gun show was perpetrated by capitalist gun enthusiasts whose customers, overwhelmingly, follow gun acquisition and ownership laws and don’t misuse their weapons.

    The issue in the Arizona shooting is not one of gun ownership, it is instead an indictment of a culture in which no one, individuals, institutions, government or even parents, takes responsibility for getting disturbed individuals the mental health treatment they need.

    Let’s talk about that. Let’s not spend a lot of time demonizing people who live within the laws.

  48. OnePumpChump says:

    You can be for gutting public health programs, or you can be for liberal gun laws. You can’t be for both, unless you’re also pro-shooting rampage.