Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

stilicho said:
I think this is the right thread for this. My Bloomberg news told me that extended clip Glocks are flying off the shelves all over the US at about $500 USD a pop.

My question is this to gun-owners who I've seen make many claims about being such great targets that it's one-shot/one-kill: Why is everyone buying up 33-round clip guns?

A] People are expecting their homes to be invaded by 34 people (you throw the weapon at the 34th intruder and knock him or her out cold).

B] People are not as good shots as they always claim on the internet.

C] People saw how effective an extended clip is and want one in case a politician visits their local shopping mall.
It can only be one of those three options. Which one?
Click to expand...

Wrong. Argument from ignorance, just like the majority of this thread.
 
deepatrax said:
D] People are again worried that lawmakers will try to ban them again

E] People would rather have extended clips when using them for recreational target practice
Click to expand...

F] Some people thought: "Wow, I never knew the Glock came with an extended clip; that looks so cool!"

Kind of like how someone sees a new way of mounting a fin on their sports car from seeing another car, and they decide they like it so they do the same thing.

These are just a few examples, and I'm pretty sure the list of letters could extend pretty near the end of the alphabet.
 
stilicho said:
Has to be one of the three I mentioned. This phenomenon occurred after Virginia Tech, too. In a way, both incidents do qualify as recreational target practice so I'll put you down for Option "C".
Click to expand...

Why? Explain why it is physically impossible for there to be any other option besides the three you've listed. Be specific, please.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
We'll likely never have more 'evidence' than circumstantial.
Click to expand...

So, you'll be content to make something up instead of admitting that you don't really know.

But experts, based on what we know about the delusional systems of schizophrenia, can give an opinion of the estimated likelihood that such vitriol did contribute. Chris Matthews had such an expert on tonight that did indeed have the opinion it almost certainly contributed.
Click to expand...

Has that "expert" had the benefit of actually examining Loughner and his psychiatric history, or is he/she pulling a Senator Frist a la Terri Schiavo and coming up with a "made for TV" diagnosis?

It's been posted already. The government-is-violating-the-Constitution theme was in his most recent writings from Dec 15 and it's an awfully unlikely coincidence that same charge was on the forefront of the last election culminating in the Repubs having the Constitution read on the first day in session.
Click to expand...

It's also an awfully unlikely coincidence that DADT was repealed earlier this month... perhaps that had something to do with it?

See what happens when you lower the bar for the standard of evidence?

You can refrain from drawing conclusions based on anything less than absolute proof if you choose. I don't think that is warranted here.
Click to expand...

Your confirmation bias has been obvious for many pages now.

No one said every mentally ill person had the same influence on their delusions. But notice how you have no trouble saying Jodie Foster's, Taxi influenced Hinckley, but delusional rantings about the Constitution 2 weeks before the shooting when the incoming Congress just made a big show of saying the government isn't following the Constitution and you are reluctant to notice the coincidence.
Click to expand...

There's this thing called hindsight; I suggest you look it up. Until then, have fun playing politics with your crystal ball :rolleyes:
 
Xulld said:
What it does is make me responsible for my own safety. That is it, trying to justify a Gun ban whilst the supreme court rules that the police have no obligation to protect you is not an argument grounded in reason.


As far as the "he didn't get it un-holstered before the shooting was all over" bit, I call BS on that. More likely he did not choose to un-holster it at the sound of the first shot becuase he had not yet identified the shooter in a crowd of freighted people and was smart enough to realize he could be mistaken as the shooter if he whipped out his gun right then and right there. It takes me less then a second to un-holster my weapon, another half a second to put it on target, it takes longer to fire a full magazine of rounds then it takes to draw and fire a single shot. The situation at hand is not a situation that favors gun bans, or gun control, or gun rights, it does not favor anything, it is senselessly tragic. Killing someone offers the possible penalty of death, having a banned gun would carry a lesser penalty, in what way would banning guns stop murders, or illegal gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Didn't the gentleman with the gun decide to help tackle the guy instead, so he wouldn't hit anyone in the crowd? Pretty sure the gentleman who was concealed carrying was one of the two who tackled the killer.
 
tyr_13 said:
Didn't the gentleman with the gun decide to help tackle the guy instead, so he wouldn't hit anyone in the crowd? Pretty sure the gentleman who was concealed carrying was one of the two who tackled the killer.
Click to expand...

There were reports that people in the crowd returned fire. I haven't heard much more about it, but the fellow with the concealed weapon came very close to causing even more chaos:

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.
Click to expand...
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2280794

The whole story is interesting.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
There were reports that people in the crowd returned fire. I haven't heard much more about it, but the fellow with the concealed weapon came very close to causing even more chaos:


http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2280794

The whole story is interesting.
Click to expand...

Seems he showed very good judgment. Obviously things can always get worse (like with bears), but he displayed exactly what I was told in my concealed carry class. Unless you are absolutely sure, you don't shoot. You'd much rather get shot than shoot an innocent person.

Thanks for the link.
 
ProbeX said:
That's fair. Sorry for the slimy attention-grabbing antics :D



What's true is people w/thought disorders have common themes and innumerable symbols, whether those are based on power, religion, politics ... whatever, really.



Too easy to rule theses themes out as coincidence. But I'll pretend/fantasize this holds as true: if the guy was feeling homicidal and already was focused on the gov't (likely), then would you say that Ron Paul's innocuous "currency" rhetoric triggered this guy to murder people? Of course not. Currency is just currency. Nothing innately evil about currency. That would be silly.

The maniac killed a gov't official because he's stark-raving mad, not because of Ron Paul or someone else's constitution-based rhetoric.



There were crazy people ranting about Bush and his cabinet being killers who are deserving of violent deaths. With luck and good security measures, those crazies just happened not to nab Bush and co. ... of course there was that one guy who threw the grenade that was a dud. And that awesome shoe incident.



Where are your APA-approved studies to back this assertion?
Click to expand...

The APA has messed up quite enough to void that - making up a psychiatric disease/condition to help increase the number of schoolkids in special programs per ex.. ( If you need evidence, it's mentioned on one of the NPR news shows last week re: one of the big names and additions/deletions in the Boy's and Girl's Golden Book of Psychiatric Stuff (I was, I admit, very annoyed when I found from that, among other things, how much jiggling with things goes on to produce the APA book of same).
 
tyr_13 said:
Didn't the gentleman with the gun decide to help tackle the guy instead, so he wouldn't hit anyone in the crowd? Pretty sure the gentleman who was concealed carrying was one of the two who tackled the killer.
Click to expand...

Unless the story has changed, two guys took it down, the 65 yr. old woman grabbed the new magazine from it and then helped hold it down at the ankles as one of the two men went to check victims, 3rd/Walgreen's guy came in, didn't draw, saw it down, went to help hold it, woman moved off, 3rd guy continued holding (possibly other, non moved guy also did). All did well. All cool. It complained it's arm was hurting - one story says third guy pulled harder on it - no other has verified. Personally sorry his head didn't accidentally get smashed into floor a time or three.
 
deepatrax said:
Palin's rhetoric isn't any more extreme than that of Obama, the DCCC, and Democrat politicians who used crosshair ads for their Republican opponents.
Click to expand...

Bingo Sierra. The only way you could justify such a disingenuous statement would be to ignore context entirely. Even then it would make a mockery of the meaning of several words.
 
BenBurch said:
By shunning such persons and letting the world know what sort of trash they are. By making everybody understand that it is a transgression on decency to do as they do.

I have been very clear on this and you are being very dishonest by continuing to question me in this fashion.
Click to expand...


So that's a no then. You wouldn't try and curb this type of speech. You would defend the right for such rhetoric to take place, thank you.
 
Loughner's favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as "Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change" as well as bigger studio productions with cult followings and themes of brainwashing, science fiction and altered states of consciousness, including "Donnie Darko" and "A Scanner Darkly."
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot

Yep, as thought, he was an Alex Jones style fan. Which was mildly obvious from his writings.
 
hold on... did a conservative here, in this thread, say that Sharron Angle's "second amendment solutions" suggestions were wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom