This is horrible:
Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot along with three of her aides by a gunman Saturday morning outside a grocery store in Tucson while holding a public event, Fox News has confirmed.
Twelve others were shot as well at Giffords’ “Your Corner” event held at Safeway. The gunman is in custody.
Sounds like it may have been an assassination attempt. I doubt it was over space policy, though. I hope it’s not as serious as it sounds. I’m kind of surprised that a gunman could shoot twelve people in Tucson without being shot himself — at least when I lived there, over thirty years ago, a lot of people open carried, in holsters.
[Update a couple minutes later]
NPR is no reporting that she was killed, with six others. My deepest condolences to her friends and family. I had deep disagreements with her on policy, and hoped for her electoral defeat, but this should not happen in a republic.
Of course, expect that “violent” Tea Party to be blamed in 3…2…1…
[Update a few more minutes later]
More over at Hot Air. The reporting still seems to be confused, but Fox News has also confirmed that she is dead.
[Update a couple minutes later]
OK, now Fox is saying alive but in critical condition. I guess we just have to wait a while for the fog of events to clear.
[Update a while later]
Out of surgery and “responsive” (which beats the alternative, I guess). Condolences to friends and family of those who didn’t survive.
Yes, that is the question isn’t it, Mr. Waddington? How does one filter out the people who should never be allowed to keep weapons from those who should? As an aside, yes I know that many household objects and tools can be extremely dangerous if mishandled. However, someone who goes amok with a machete has a lethal radius of a few feet – not a hundred yards. (I am also aware that aimed fire with a pistol at that range is just about impossible – but in a crowded shopping mall does it really matter just who exactly gets murdered? Except to the victims, of course.)
To return to the original question; one way to do it would be to require training and competence testing for prospective gun owners and certainly for CCW permit holders. After all, something like this is required to drive a car – and although cars can and do kill people, they aren’t designed for it.
The 2nd Amendment is not fully adhered to now, AFAIK. Quite a few classes of people are prevented from owning guns; convicted felons and small children being just two such classes. Both of these groups are citizens, right? And on a related subject, the right to bear arms is routinely limited in scope, as well; even among portable weapons – belt-fed machine guns, Javelins, Stingers, flamethrowers and fragmentation grenades are not generally available. So the issue of weapon type restriction is moot, too.
Perhaps one might consider the technology of the time when the Constitution was drafted. The damage a psycho with a muzzle-loading black powder rifle can do is limited. Certainly compared to the same loony with an AK47.
One more thing. AFAIK by strict interpretation of the Constitution, it’s perfectly in order to stroll down the street with a Davy Crockett. Just to make the point.
Does anyone here at all think it’s a good idea to prevent the mentally unhinged from owning deadly weapons? Or not?
I’m not sure you should own a keyboard. I guess if you want us to revisit Constitutional protections, perhaps we should start with the one that allows you* to spout stupid ideas?
*except you don’t live here, so that law doesn’t apply to you. Which explains why your “AFAIK” has little value.
“One more thing. AFAIK by strict interpretation of the Constitution, it’s perfectly in order to stroll down the street with a Davy Crockett. Just to make the point.”
I guess a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment means you need to turn in your keyboard and limit your postings to hand-script ramblings on parchment nailed in the town square too?
Fletcher, do you understand what the phrase “Well-regulated militia” means?
You are smart enough to understand the founders were not discussing regulation in anything approaching the modern context right?
You problem is you feel a lesser man because your government does not trust you with a weapon yet you are helpless againt the demographic trends that threaten to engulf you.
You speak of keepig everybody from owning firearms but want to nuke all muslims from the face of the Earth or so you have proclaimed more than once on this very forum.
Just who is the madman? Just who holds two insane and contradictory viewpoints that cannot be reconciled?
“Does everyone have to sit down with a distinguished medical professional *cough* before getting a license to own a gun or is it one of those “have you ever been declared mentally unfit?” questions that would actually be totally ineffective?”
It is an electronic background check run at the point of purchase. If you have been ajudicated mentally defective, there will be a record in the database and the sale will be denied.
M. Puckett – I have in fact read, and am prepared to take as read, the opinion (and that’s what it is) that “well-regulated” in the original means essentially “in good working order and sufficiently supplied with powder and shot”.
I submit that a militia that actually means anything and is any use to anyone needs easily-available ammunition; the huge variety of calibers and ammo types in use in the US probably doesn’t fulfil this too well.
The Swiss do this quite well; every Swiss male of military age is not only allowed but required to have an issue weapon (a fairly powerful assault rifle) and to train regularly in its use. That’s a militia; a random collection of half-trained yahoos with a huge variety of completely incompatible guns and ammo is not.
Incidentally, I’d like to see the Swiss example repeated in the UK.
Chris, I see your point. In fact, I think EVERY western nation(and Asian for that matter) should have a Swiss-style militia system.
Frankly, I value the mindset and discipline it instills more than the hardware availability.
However, as has been said, qunaity has a quality all its own and there are many tiers of competence amongst American gun owners.
If you add those at the upper tiers, the ex-combat arms servicemembers and war vets with decent, modern weaponry, those numbers still dwarf the sum-total of the Swiss Militia and still are almost certainly in excess of 10 million people. Larger than the number currently serving on active duty.
That is just the best of the American gun-owing public, not counting the second or third line.