US

Shooting Doesn’t Stop AZ Legislature From Introducing Pro-Gun Bills

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona has become a national leader in the gun rights movement in recent years as the state enacted law after law to protect the people’s right to bear arms nearly anywhere, at anytime.

The shooting rampage that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a former legislative colleague, has done nothing to slow down the Legislature.

Gun rights bills were introduced in the days after the shootings last week, and more proposals are to come.

“I don’t think it really changes anything,” Republican state Sen. Ron Gould said of the mass shooting. “I don’t see how gun control could have prevented that shooting unless you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

The shooting in Tucson brought new attention to the national gun control debate after authorities said the rampage was carried out by a man who couldn’t get into the military because of his drug use and had repeated run-ins with police at his community college because of his bizarre mental behavior. Jared Loughner bought the 9 mm handgun legally at a Tucson gun store, and was also carrying extended magazines that hold 30 rounds of ammunition.

Arizona Republicans remain adamant that the shooting will not dissuade them from pushing their pro-gun agenda.

They want new laws allowing college and university faculty members to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus, an issue that gained attention after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University. Only Utah has a law allowing concealed weapons on college campuses while 24 states have bans, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“There are going to be some nervous Nellies, so to speak, but I think that it will be overcome,” said John Wentling, a leader of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun owners advocacy group active at the Capitol. “We still have an obligation to protect constitutional and civil rights.”

Bills already introduced this year in Arizona in the Republican-controlled Legislature include barring landlords and homeowner groups from restricting the right to bear arms in self defense, and expanding the current law that allows gun owners to display a weapon in self defense. And Wentling said his group’s priority bill, which he wouldn’t discuss, hasn’t been unveiled yet.

Arizona‘s permissive gun laws and the state’s heritage dating to the Wild West days sometimes jolts newcomers, particularly in Phoenix and other metro areas where most residents live. Heads turned in 2009 when a man openly carried a semiautomatic rifle to a Phoenix protest outside a speech by President Barack Obama.

At the Legislature, some female lawmakers with concealed weapons permits have acknowledged carrying guns in their purses despite a state law prohibiting guns in public buildings. Visitors to legislative buildings are supposed to place their weapons in lockboxes.

Last year, Arizona become the third state to make it legal for adults to carry a concealed weapon without getting training and a background check. In 2009, the big change was allowing armed people in bars and restaurants, if they‘re not drinking alcohol and the establishments haven’t posted signs against it.

House Speaker Kirk Adams said last year‘s bill to legalize carrying concealed weapons without a permit wasn’t a mistake.

“Arizona remains a place that is respectful and adamant about our Second Amendment rights, and I think the people of Arizona support that,” said Adams, one of 61 Republicans making up two-thirds of the 90-member Legislature.

Former Gov. Janet Napolitano signed several bills supporting gun rights between 2003 and 2008, but the Democrat vetoed others. When Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary in 2009, Republican Jan Brewer stepped into the governor’s office, and more laws protecting gun owners were made.

Brewer signed bills into law that let people keep guns in locked vehicles at parking lots of businesses that prohibit guns and barred local governments from prohibiting a person with a concealed weapon permit from having a gun in a park.

Gun control proponents hope that the Tucson shooting can create momentum in pushing back against the various pro-weapon bills in the Legislature. They want to pass more regulation of gun shows while prohibiting sales of extended magazines like the one authorities say the suspected shooter used.

Still, Sen. Steve Gallardo, a Phoenix Democrat, acknowledges that such proposals have little to no chances of ever passing, but said “we have to start the education. I would hope that many members of the Legislature see it as a wake-up call.”

Sen. Jack Harper, a Republican sponsoring the campus-carry measures, said he didn’t want to be seen as trying to take advantage of the Tucson tragedy by citing it as reason to support his legislation, but he said it was vital, given the deadly shootings on university campuses and the Arizona Board of Regents’ policy banning guns. The board oversees the state’s schools.

“University professors are tired of feeling like sitting ducks,” Harper said.

Comments (146)

1 2 3
  • Fight for America
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:07pm

    I suppose when all of the drug dealers, mob members, gang members, anti-American militants, and mentally ill people turn in THEIR weapons ……….

    Report Post »  
  • ALISSTER
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:01pm

    My state of Indiana has very pro gun laws but Arizona is looking pretty good to me. Warm year around training!

    Report Post » ALISSTER  
  • Phoenician
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:54pm

    The shooter was tackled to the ground by the time the law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen made it to the scene. The law-abiding citizen did the right thing by not shooting away, because at that time, one of the innocent was in control of the gun. No one else was hurt. Thankfully, like on planes, our citizens come together and show how heroic Americans really can be. I wish he could have been stopped sooner, but if not, the responsible, law-abiding shooter would have had a chance to stop him. More Arizonans need to exercist their right to protect themselves, their families and community. I truly feel sorry for states that aren’t allowed this right. Don’t take it for granted, AZ.

    Report Post »  
    • Phoenician
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:58pm

      *EXERCISE your rights, Arizona!

      Report Post »  
    • heyjim55
      Posted on January 18, 2011 at 3:47am

      It’s interesting to see these idiots submit new gun laws and do nothing about the real cause of this event. I blame the Sheriff its’ his responsibility to protect the citizens and the Congress woman, and he failed he should be fired. I also blame the FBI who allowed this politician to show up without security this is not done in any other country. This Sheriff did nothing and given the fact that he already new about the shooter implicates him even more. Not enough has been done to point the light of blame on this man, Fox News was so busy defending themselves that they never considered this Sheriff’s job responsibilities. Even news outlets as far away as Russia were asking this question why is this guy still a Sheriff? and when are the city officials or state officials going to fire him or the surviving victims going to sue him for malfeasance.

      Report Post »  
  • Smokepole
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:43pm

    How can smart, educated people believe that the introduction of new firearms could possibly stop something like this from occurring in the future?
    There are endless laws and regulations, in place now, that are not enforced.
    Enforce the current laws. Put criminals in prison with appropriate sentences that have broken the current laws.

    Report Post » Smokepole  
  • Adlu
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:41pm

    A thirty round clip has no purpose other than mass m.u. rder.

    Report Post »  
    • awizard
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:00pm

      But they look so Cool!.. and they hold 30 rounds …

      Report Post » awizard  
    • thebear
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:03pm

      A thirty round clip is very hard to conceal, and so would the spare one that he carried be. So maybe if people would pay closer attention to what is going on around them, this guy might have been stopped before he got started. I carry and I am always (or try to be) totally aware of who and what is going on around me. There are less surprises that way. Just sayin – maybe folks should quit looking at thier phones so much and observe the folks around them.

      Report Post »  
    • Hillbillybone
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:29pm

      What and get connected with reality?

      Report Post »  
    • BringbackCoolidge
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:32pm

      The Bear,

      I completely agree with you, and I believe we have a personal responsibility to pay attention to details around us. I live in AZ. I can’t be completely sure, but I’d like to think I would notice a kid in a black sweatshirt, with his hood on walking toward me, and I would have have noticed him draw, so I would have drawn and taken cover, taking every step to protect myself and family. It is strange to me that someone didn’t stop the guy sooner. Sometimes terrible events like this happen, and there isn’t a law in the world that can stop them from happening.

      “Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime.

      The right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights, not to deter crime, but to deter oppressive government. Just governments honor and protect the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments fear and prohibit the right to bear arms.

      Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them.”- G Edward Griffin.

      Report Post » BringbackCoolidge  
  • fastfwd
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:40pm

    They want new laws allowing college and university faculty members to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus, an issue that gained attention after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University. Only Utah has a law allowing concealed weapons on college campuses while 24 states have bans, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Yes and there has been 0 campus shootings in Utah. Why ? because they know they wouldn’t be able to slaughter unarmed folks !!

    Report Post » fastfwd  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:53pm

      Sure. Take a look at this:
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266368,00.html

      Notice that many almost all of these “deadliest shootings” were in states with less gun regulation.
      Virginia, Texas, Iowa, West Virginia, and Arkansas.

      Report Post »  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:43pm

      Notice that most muggings, rapes, murders and home invasions occur in States with More gun control regulations

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:46pm

      PubliusPencilman, also notice how many of those shootings are on college campuses where even legal concealed-carry license holders are forbidden to bring their guns.

      If given the choice, would you rather be in a position to defend yourself with a concealed weapon, or would you prefer to wait for law enforcement to arrive?

      The choice is a personal one. At lease one should legally be allowed to make that choice, assuming of course they can pass the strict requirements to obtain a concealed-carry license. Who knows, maybe someone with a concealed weapon will save your life one day. I certainly would in that situation, even if I completely disagree with your politics.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:57pm

      I appreciate the thought TexasCommonsense, but statically, if I am saved by someone legally carrying a firearm, there is an overwhelming chance of it being a police officer. I am far more concerned with the chance that whoever is trying to kill me is carrying a weapon that was legally purchased by that nutjob or by someone else he stole it from.

      Report Post »  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:15pm

      PubliusPencilman, so you’re saying you would rather wait for a policeman rather than defend yourself? Chances are they’ll get there in time to draw a chalk outline around your dead body. If you carry a concealed weapon you have both options, save yourself and wait for the law. Statistically, you’re better off that way.

      Maybe the person trying to kill you bought the weapon on the black marker. Making guns illegal would only increase that market; the same thing the 18 amendment did for alcohol.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
  • Adlu
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:40pm

    A thirty round clip has no purpose other than mass murder.

    Report Post »  
    • The Patriot
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:54pm

      unless your the one being shot by more than one nut with 60 round each

      Report Post »  
    • Pocono Countryboy
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:19pm

      right..that’s why they are standard for cops using the M-4

      Grow up

      Report Post »  
  • fastfwd
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:39pm

    AS i have stated before the more responsible people carrying concealed weapons the less crime there is ! This a proven fact and yet the brain dead libs refuse to hear it. If more people in that crowd had weapons less folks would have been killed, and if the brain dead sheriff had done his job the nut case would have been in jail or nut home long before he killed someone !

    Report Post » fastfwd  
    • Jill
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:57pm

      That is so true..but was it because he is the son of a councilwoman that kept him from getting the help he needed?
      “a man who couldn’t get into the military because of his drug use” but one could become President with his self-admitted coke use…bizarre, NO?

      Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:36pm

    The only guy with the gun (even though it was unloaded) is the only guy who ‘charged’ the shooter, after coming out of the safeway. Seeing that the shooter was up for reload, he did not load his weapon but rather tackled him.

    If their was just one more loaded gun on the scene – many could have been save!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:02pm

      There was another legal loaded gun on the scene–It was carried by Jared Loughner.

      Report Post »  
    • J.C. McGlynn
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:12pm

      Someone else was there and armed. When he saw that the bad guy was empty and down on the ground he re-holstered his weapon.

      Report Post » J.C. McGlynn  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:12pm

      That’s why i said ONE MORE!

      No amount of gun control will keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, or the insane. We already have laws against that and they get them anyway. make them illegal and they will be extremely profitable to traffic. Would you rather this guy lobbed a grenade or a pipe bomb? Handed out cold, poisoned drinks? If you want to kill people and don;t care what happens to you – the methods are endless.

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:08pm

      Right. So more guns will mean fewer shootings? Just like how, if everyone had a knife, no one would ever get stabbed, correct? Silly silly….

      Report Post »  
    • Sledgehammer
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 7:04pm

      To pubpen again, Your wrong again! He was busted for dealing drugs, did you know him?

      Report Post » Sledgehammer  
  • GrumpyCat
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:31pm

    One of the great things about having 50 states is that mistakes made in one place are not automatically imposed on all. Californians and New Yorkers would have no idea how bad off they are were it not for Texas and Arizona.

    Report Post »  
  • wash1776
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:22pm

    Speaking of gun and shooting control. HOW ABOUT A LAW TO KEEP THESE SAD EXCUSES FOR LEGISLATORS FROM SHOOTING OFF THEIR MOUTHS?

    Report Post »  
  • awizard
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:21pm

    @Nick…

    I’m with you There …

    Maybe not here
    “Progun/ Antigun“ Who do ”they” think they are? I Carry a couple “weapons” all the time, one is a gun … and to be honest I don’t care what the law says, I have a “right’( yes it’s in the Constitution ) to protect myself and my family, “they” can’t take that away from me …

    If a couple of those folks at that rally had had a gun, the nut would have been stopped a lot sooner saving lives and injury.

    Report Post » awizard  
    • franknshadow
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:34pm

      Be aware, we have a Supreme Court Justice that literally questions whether or not we are guaranteed the, “right to self defense..”" Sonja Sotomayor, for one.. Who knows who else thinks that way..

      Report Post » PrfctlyFrank  
  • highcarry
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:18pm

    did he say ” i don’t see how gun control would have prevented that shooting unless you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.” ?

    Report Post » highcarry  
  • Alvin691
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:17pm

    Yea!

    Report Post »  
  • RIGHTNOTLEFT
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:16pm

    They understand that the only people restrictions on guns would affect, is on LAW-ABIDING citizens. Criminals or mental cases will get them or, make shanks, like in prison, and use those. Or maybe even just drive a vehicle into a crowd.

    Gun control=PEOPLE CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:49pm

      You realize, of course, that until Loughner opened fire, he had been perfectly law-abiding in regard to gun laws.

      Report Post »  
    • themanflounders
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:00pm

      I can‘t say I’ve ever heard of a mass killing spree with a shank. It’s the entire point of eliminating guns from the crazy people. Make them use shanks.

      And you are incorrect. Gun restrictions do of course effect everyone, but they do also effect the crazy people’s ability to get their hands on guns. The data is the data. It shows that the states with the most restrictive gun laws also have the lowest gun violence, and vise versa.

      “It’s not the bullet with my name on it that I”m afraid of, it‘s the one that says ’to whom it may concern”.

      Report Post »  
    • RLTW
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 2:38pm

      PUB
      Actually NO he wasn’t. AZ //Brady act #3 Are addicted to, or use, any controlled substance.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:30pm

      You are right about the law RLTW, but Loughner had not legally been declared mentally unfit, so he was not breaking any laws.

      Report Post »  
    • RLTW
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:00pm

      PUB
      So I’m right & he was legal??? He used illegal drugs, was busted with a friend in position, lied to purchase a weapon not legal.

      You could say the system didn’t work, but he still lied.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:06pm

      OK, sure. I’ll concede that he lied on his application. This just not change the fact that the system relied entirely on his willingness to check a box saying he is a criminal. And you want LESS regulation?

      Report Post »  
    • Sledgehammer
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 7:01pm

      To pubpen again, you are wrong this idiot slipped through the cracks, he had been busted for dealing drugs, The sheriff’s office and the F.B.I. both dropped the ball! Also thanks to the ACLU (Jackasses they are!) his mental status as wittnessed by his collage proff. could not be reported! We are a society based on honesty you should try it sometime!

      Report Post » Sledgehammer  
  • franknshadow
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:14pm

    A seed of reason in Arizona, and they’re getting away with it?? There may be hope for us yet although I’m not ready to move to AZ.. It’s too damn hot and the liberals there are obviously violent..

    Report Post » PrfctlyFrank  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:09pm

    Good for AZ! This Colorado boy is proud of ‘em!

    Report Post »  
  • NickDeringer
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:08pm

    I like AZ more and more every day!!

    The only way to stop a crazy man with a gun is a sane man with a gun. (or woman)

    Report Post » NickDeringer  
  • stevetheartist
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:07pm

    If the professors don‘t wish to be ’sitting ducks‘ then they should be packin’! “Cowboy-up” professors for crying out loud.

    Report Post » stevetheartist  
    • J.C. McGlynn
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:20pm

      They can either carry a weapon or leave.

      Report Post » J.C. McGlynn  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:12pm

      Yes, because no one could possibly get hurt by crossfire in crowded classrooms. You’re a moron.

      Report Post »  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:58pm

      PubliusPencilman, if given the choice, would you rather be in a position to defend yourself with a concealed weapon, or would you prefer to wait for law enforcement to arrive?

      The choice is a personal one. At lease one should legally be allowed to make that choice, assuming of course they can pass the strict requirements to obtain a concealed-carry license. Who knows, maybe someone with a concealed weapon will save your life one day. I certainly would in that situation, even if I completely disagree with your politics.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
  • stevetheartist
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:05pm

    Well, let us blame the ‘spoon’ for all the obesity that exist in today’s culture! Spoon-control laws have yet to be enacted and I think it is high time our governments did something about it. Ban automobiles as well. I mean after all, don’t car accidents cause deaths in this great land?

    Report Post » stevetheartist  
    • Alvin691
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:17pm

      The Tic not pleased!

      Report Post »  
    • Hillbillybone
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:26pm

      They already blame the food, not the arm that bends at the elobow and crams it in the mouth that causes obesity, and as for automobiles, if you look up the total fatalities, the car is the biggest killer in this country not counting diseases so why not outlaw them?….

      Report Post »  
  • wildbluyonder11
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:03pm

    That’s it, I’m moving to Arizona!

    Report Post »  
  • milo
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:03pm

    Arizona is a sovereign state and can do as it pleases within its borders.
    Speaking of borders, Arizona. Nothing says you can’t build your own fence.

    Report Post »  
    • click4cheapandeasyweb
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:48pm

      You know darn well that the FEDS will sue AZ to stop them from doing so.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:54pm

      You guys claim to love the Constitution, yet you don‘t quite get why AZ can’t can’t co-opt US border policy? Please stop being so willfully stupid.

      Report Post »  
    • Sledgehammer
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 6:55pm

      to: Pubpen. When the Govt. fails to act in it’s responsibilites, as it has across the board including immigration, we have right and the responsibilty to make them do it, failing that to act in our own (by the state) accord! Your pulling a lib trick, by mixing topics, that dog don’t hunt! Grow up!

      Report Post » Sledgehammer  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:19pm

      The Constitution is optional for states. Got it.

      Report Post »  
  • MAULEMALL
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:00pm

    Thank you God,for the second amendment.

    Report Post » MAULEMALL  
    • spendthrift
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:06pm

      And thank our founding fathers also.

      Report Post » spendthrift  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:47pm

      I think God has very little to do with your right to carry firearms.

      Report Post »  
    • JimOhio
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:57pm

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, … Last time I checked Creator would still be God.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:10pm

      JimOhio,
      Setting aside the debate over natural law etc.
      Please, point out where in the Declaration of Independence we can find the Second Amendment?

      Bonus Points: Point out where the Constitution or the Bill of Rights mentions God.

      Report Post »  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:03pm

      PubliusPencilman, actually God has everything to do with it. I was endowed by my creator with the right to life. God is my creator.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:59pm

      Sorry Texas, but “right to life” is far too vague to be in any way persuasive. After all, plenty of people shot by firearms every day have a “right to life.” What do you think Jesus would say about the whole firearms thing?

      Report Post »  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:06pm

      PubliusPencilman, the right to life includes the right to self-defense. I think Jesus would be fine with some protecting themselves from a deranged person exercising their free-will to hurt innocent people. Turn the other cheek doesn’t include allowing yourself to be killed and leaving your family to fend for themselves.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
  • expatinontariocanada
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:57am

    You heard it here first, Gabby Giffords will switch back to being a Republican within two years.

    Report Post » expatinontariocanada  
    • grandmaof5
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:11pm

      I pray she will be able to return to Congress, whether Rep or Dem, but it would be nice to have her go back to her roots.

      Report Post »  
    • knotaclu
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:13pm

      She almost seems to be one already. Why does she run as a Dem? Was she considered a Blue dog?

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:15pm

      I’ll betcha NO WAY :)

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • civilunrestnow
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:21pm

      If she is going to remain a Democrat I would prefer she not return to Congress. there may be a few decent Dems in the House and she MIGHT be one of them, however, the leadership dictates what goes on and doesn’t so the fewer Ds the better..

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:25pm

      http://www.giffordsforcongress.com/2010/10/04/republican-leaders-endorse-gabrielle-giffords/ Jesse Kelley was supported by the Tea Party in the Nov election.

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:51pm

      I wish her a speedy recovery but I don‘t see how she’s returning to congress at all. She’s going to be in physical theraby for quite a while.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • grandmaof5
    Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:55am

    The voice of reason.

    Report Post »  
    • cnsrvtvj
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:13pm

      Who really thinks gun laws would stop a crazy man like Jared Loughner? 3 of the top 5 most deadly school shootings were in Germany. Germany has some of the strictist gun laws in the world. Peter King proposes a law where you can’t carry a gun within 1000 yards of an elected official. These laws change nothing when you are dealing with sick people.

      http://www.donsmithshow.com – The Loughner connection with Zeitgeist.

      Report Post » cnsrvtvj  
    • chips1
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:16pm

      A state that actually is concerned about protecting its citizens. I think when the rest of the country learns about freedom they might start electing representatives that think of the people first. We could even call it THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. What a novel idea. Why didn’t someone think of this before?

      Report Post »  
    • BlazingPatriot
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:19pm

      I’ve got to admit, Arizona is looking better every day!

      Report Post » BlazingPatriot  
    • 912828Buckeye
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:34pm

      I don’t think it really changes anything,” Republican state Sen. Ron Gould said of the mass shooting. “I don’t see how gun control could have prevented that shooting unless you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.”
      Got to be a Blaze typeo?

      Report Post » 912828Buckeye  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:45pm

      And yet, so many of you railed against the Ground Zero Mosque because it was “insensitive” to people’s feelings regarding 9/11….

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:55pm

      @Grandmaof5

      Agree wholeheartedly with you. AZ has a history of citizens having guns, and knowing how to safely handle them. One nutjub has left a legacy for those seeking to ban any and all kinds of guns; some weaponry, military in nature belongs exclusively to the military and should be there. It is only in the ownership of private arms that the citizenry of the land can defend themselves from thievery and from the oppression of a wannabe dictators or tyranny should it come about in the land.

      http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:07pm

      SnowLeopard,
      “AZ has a history of citizens having guns, and knowing how to safely handle them.”

      Right…. How about this ranking of gun deaths by state:
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona/2/

      Second highest gun deaths per capita with the most permissive gun laws in the country. Clearly the solution is weaker gun laws, right?

      Report Post »  
    • Marcobob69
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:10pm

      Thank God there are still some people that haven’t lost total touch with reality over the Tucson shootings. The Feds would just as soon use that tragedy as an excuse to do away with ALL GUNS, no matter what the intended use(by that I mean hunting, self protection, sports shooting, etc.) would be. Dis-Arming the public is high on their agenda, in my opinion, and to quote Rahm Emmanuel, “Never let a good(?)crisis go to waste”!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Xcori8r
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:22pm

      The Tucson idiot maniac had a Glock model 19 – 9mm and a couple 33 round magazines. If somebody I know had been in the crowd with his Glock model 23 – .40 SW with LaxerMax internal sight and only a 13 rounds in his fanny pack, and not been one of the first few folks shot, I very reasonably contend the following: 1) more people would be alive and fewer people would have been wounded, 2) the expense to the health care system in Tucson would be substantially lower, and 3) there would very possibly be a much greater savings in time and legal cost as that smirking sh_thead would no longer be wasting our oxygen.

      Report Post » Xcori8r  
    • cessna152
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:29pm

      ….because we all know that the gun laws will stop criminals….criminals always abide by the laws! (SARC)

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • chubbzbar
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 2:03pm

      The Second Amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

      Report Post »  
    • gobluebuckeye
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 2:06pm

      and it shouldn’t stop it!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think if someone wants to kill you and they are crazy enough to do it, do you think a ban on guns would stop them? Really? are liberals really that naive, never mind dont answer that we all know.

      Report Post » gobluebuckeye  
    • Cemoto78
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 2:28pm

      Damn proud to live in the Great State of Arizona.

      Report Post » Cemoto78  
    • RedneckJim
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 2:29pm

      Hey Publius – Why don’t you draw a rational relation between the number of law-abiding citizens who own weapons relative to the number of shooting deaths? In other words, how many deaths were at the hands of repeat offenders or career criminals? Maybe you could check the State or FBI stats and tell us all how many of the gun-deaths were the result of gang-bangers, and how many of those guns were stolen. I know I’m probably asking a lot, but I‘m sure you’re passionate enough about this to do the research and tell us the full story.

      Maybe you could also tell us how many of these “deadliest shootings” happened in designated “gun-free zones.”

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 2:53pm

      Florida is also going ahead .. at least as of last nights tv news report .. the newscaster seemed quite “peeved” at the fact …

      Report Post »  
    • RightUnite
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:11pm

      cnsrvtvj: Only a fool, or the whole Democrat party would believe enacting new gun laws would stop crazies.

      Report Post »  
    • walkwithme1966
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:16pm

      Oh yeah…..Arizona that home of sensible gun law! http://wp.me/pYLB7-wu

      Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:26pm

      RedneckJim,
      I will be happy to pass those statistics along when I find them. However, even those statistics would entirely miss the point. Obviously, in states with more lax gun laws, EVERYONE has greater access to firearms, including criminals. It is also very well documented that guns purchased in states with more lax laws are illegally exported to states with stricter laws. If it were not so easy to obtain legal firearms, they would not end up as “illegal” weapons in the first place!

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:38pm

      And by the way, smart guy: who do you think those “stolen guns” were stolen from? Legal guns become illegal guns–more of the former means more of the latter. This is real simple logic.

      Report Post »  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:56pm

      PubliusPencilman, I wonder how many of those shootings were criminals being shot by people defending themselves? Those stats obviously wouldn’t be reflected in states where law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry guns. They would be victimized and the perp would get away.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
    • independentvoteril
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:04pm

      Good.. only nut jobs trying to make a name for themselves are even talking about control and they are already overruled by the SC..

      Report Post » independentvoteril  
    • 82dAirborne
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:30pm

      @PubliusPencilman
      So all we need to do is to have all states with laws like AZ and there would be no more “illegal” weapons. If someone wants a gun they can get it no matter what laws are in force. “legal” – “illegal” are just words in this instance. It’s what people do with them that matters.

      Your name calling also really helps your arguement. Keep up the “good” work………

      Report Post » 82dAirborne  
    • avenger
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:41pm

      more liberal hysteria that simply takes the eye off the ball…the marxist in the white house….

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:44pm

      TexasCommonsense,
      If you have any evidence that the number of shooting deaths in self-defense is enough to skew the statistics, I would be interesting in seeing it. I would ask, however, how many of these “law-abiding citizens” would be discouraged from owning a gun at all if laws were stricter.

      I think too that we should keep in mind the overall point: the question is not whether people should be permitted to own guns. The question is how strict should gun control laws be. Even in states with very strict gun control laws, like MA, people still legally own firearms. If you are absolutely convinced that having a gun in your home is essential for the safety of your family, would stricter gun control laws actually deter you? The obvious answer is no, which begs the question of why you folks are so insistent on having fewer restrictions.

      Report Post »  
    • IntheKnowOG
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:08pm

      @PubliusPencilman

      Gun deaths vs gun crimes? Does your study differentiate between murder deaths and self defense kills? How about hunting accidents? Are border fights included (that would definitely skew the data). Don’t just paste a study here without details. A study can be interpereted differently based upon perspective. Perhaps the death rate is higher in AZ because people actually know how to weild a gun? Practice makes perfect. That’s why ghetto thugs use drive bys and dirty tricks. They can’t hit the broadside of a barn in a firefight. Just sayin….

      Report Post » IntheKnowOG  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:18pm

      PubliusPencilman, no I don’t have the evidence, but neither do you. That means your statistics prove nothing.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
    • jlee80644
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 8:40pm

      The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. Removing arms from law abiding citizens does nothing more than put a “welcome criminals” doormat in front of every home in America. Example: Chicago, Illinois!

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 9:18pm

      TexasCommonsense,
      I’ll admit, I also do not have statistics for how many gun deaths have resulted from somone firing straight up in the air and then having the bullet fall right back down and killing them. However, not having that statistic does not in fact render my statistics useless.

      I think you are just a bit confused over where the “burden of proof” lies. The fact that I have not found a statistic concerning gun deaths in self-defense supports my own point rather than yours. You are assuming that because I don’t have this statistic, it must be a large enough percentage to completely invalidate my point. However, it goes without saying that in order to be counted as a “gun death,” a number of things need to be true:
      1) The victim has to be armed
      2) The victim has to go beyond simply scaring the perpetrator to actually firing at him or her.
      3) That shooting has to be fatal.

      So, this would seem to me necessarily to be a very small subset of all shooting deaths. Even studies that support the idea of deterrence (most notably, Gary Kleck’s work) note that the vast majority of times a gun is used for deterrence it is never fired. Your assumption that your point invalidates my statistics is just that: an assumption that remains baseless until you can provide some kind of proof.

      Report Post »  
    • markussan
      Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:44pm

      @PubliusPencilman

      Remember ther are lies, damn lies and statistics. The problem is states with guns and hunting will have a high rate of gun deaths.

      The better “stat” would be gun crime or murder by gun to illustrate your point. The problem is strict gun law states have higher gun crime rates. So unless you are proposing to ban all firearms, are you? Your statistic does nothing to prevent crime but rather makes it worse.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

      Of course there is common sense. What is the greatest equalizer between a 105 pound woman being attacked by a 230 pound man – a gun.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 18, 2011 at 9:06am

      Mark,
      This equilizer myth is just plan goofy–you folks have watched too many cowboy movies. There are no statistics for this, but I’d like to know how many assaults occur “on a level playing field.” Let’s face it–even if Giffords had been holding a gun in her hand at the time, she would not have been able to prevent Loughner from shooting her. And aside from this: when guns are easily available to people like Loughner, it makes it even more dangerous for people who choose not to carry a gun.

      These are good statistics, but there are some objections. For one, these statistics do not control for where the gun was purchased–as I said above it is well-documented that many gun deaths that occur in states with stricter gun laws are perpetrated with guns bought or stolen in states with more lax laws.

      Report Post »  
    • Wiz001
      Posted on January 18, 2011 at 9:09am

      Rednickjim
      Even if he comes up with stats they will not be correct. He gets his facts from a liberal news site.. He said Az. is 2 nd But the sites I checked have them list as 5 and 6th.. And they did not say how many of the deaths were due to some scumbag illegal!!!!! BUT guess who was NUMBER 1 in EVERY SITE.. Yep the NO GUNS ALLOWED D.C… So i will keep my Glock and D.C. Can keep their toe nail clippers and let the criminals rule(in and out of congress)..
      God Bless our Troops

      Report Post »  
    • Bum thrower
      Posted on January 18, 2011 at 9:19am

      Too bad there was not a CHL holder in the crowd. Unfortuately, at least in my state, most CHL holders are Republican, so you wouldn’t find one at a Democrat political event. Therefore, I conclude that all gun control efforts are to disarm Republicans.

      Report Post »  
    • terryu1
      Posted on January 18, 2011 at 11:40am

      GUN CONTROL: = The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. Bought my daughter a nice pink Walther for Christmas so that she does not become a statistic. Politicians will not accept the responsibility for failing time and again to set up a nationwide system where backgrounds can be checked instantly whether it be a gun purchase or boarding an airplane. All branchs and authorities ie: mental health tx, police etc have to be able to enter data into this system. THEN this POS would not have gotten a gun in the first place (along with many others I know who have “legal” weapons and should be disqualified. There are enough laws. what is needed is realistic enforcement.

      Report Post » terryu1  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love