AZ Shooting of Congresswoman Giffords: More Fuel for Gun Control Crowd?
Gabrielle Giffords is a Gun Owner and Supports the Second Amendment
I've heard many arguments over the years and have yet to figure out how gun control will stop someone from committing a horrific act of violence if they are dead-set on following through with it. Prohibition didn't stop people from making, selling and drinking liquor, and the same hasn't worked for illegal drugs.
Responsible gun owners don't shoot people intentionally any more than responsible drinkers get in a car to cause a fatality. How is gun control going to stop a nut from killing people if that's what he's bent on doing?
Over 17,000 people were killed in the U.S. in alcohol related incidents in 2006. How many of those fatalities were at the hand of repeat offenders? How many of those responsible were driving without a license or under the legal drinking age? Did having laws prohibiting those things save any of those lives?
No, because some irresponsible people thought it was ok to stop and have a few on the way home and then got back in their vehicle. Would prohibition have made a difference? Should you limit the rights of all due to the irresponsibility of some?
Many life-saving medications can cause severe harm or even death if taken inappropriately, so why haven't we outlawed all pharmaceuticals that could harm someone if abused or fell into the wrong hands?
If the shooter was paid to shoot Congressman Giffords, gun control wouldn't have stopped him.
If the shooter believed that Jesus or the devil made him start shooting into a crowd of people, gun control wouldn't have stopped him.
If someone wants to possess a gun, for whatever reason, laws won't keep them from finding one. Someone wanting a drink to relax after work or celebrate an event will have that drink - prohibition be damned.
Gabrielle Giffords supports the Second Amendment giving us the right to bear arms. She is a gun owner herself, said to own a Glock. In 2008, she objected to the ordinance banning handguns in homes in D.C. My source hasn't been confirmed, but I've also heard that she's a member of the NRA. It's safe to assume that she's aware of the dangers inherent to holding public office, and she chose to meet those dangers head on in order to talk with constituents on their own turf. For that, I applaud her.
The events surrounding the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and so many other innocent people were tragic indeed, and like most of America, my heart goes out to her family and all those affected by the incident.
Would gun control have prevented the tragedy? I don't think so. The firearm wasn't responsible. The shooter was.
Sources:
Personal opinion
AZ Capitol Times
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov
Published by Marie Anne St. Jean - Featured Contributor in Lifestyle
A Top 1000 Content Producer for the last three years, Marie Anne is a retired U.S. Marine MSgt whose weapons of choice are now crochet hook and pen. When not writing for Yahoo! sites such as YCN! Voice... View profile
- Barak Obama's Gun Control PositionsAn article to examine what Barak Obama's positions on gun control are, and what they mean to us.
- Arizona Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords Apparently Politically Motivated (January 8...Representative Gabrielle Giffords is in critical condition this evening (January 8, 2011) after being shot in the head during "Congress in Your Corner" event at a Tucson, Arizona Safeway grocery store.
- Gun Control Laws Are GoodGun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes.
- Democratic Sheriff Uses Arizona Shooting to Attack the Political Right (aka, the T...Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blames political figures on the right for causing the tragic Arizona shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
Is Sarah Palin Responsible for the Shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,...After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot today, a federal judge and five others killed, many now say Sarah Palin must accept responsibility.
- Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot at Arizona Rally
- Gun Control Laws: From the Perspective of a Hunter, Target Shooter and Former Gun...
- Representative Gabrielle Giffords Shot in the Head in Tuscon Az. Safeway Store
- Gabrielle Giffords Shot by Jared Lee Loughner: Congresswoman Giffords Survives Ari...
- Arizona Shooting Motive: Rep. Giffords was on Sarah Palin's Targeted List
- AZ Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Survives Assassination Attempt Outside Tucson Grocery
- U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot, Six Others Dead in Tucson
28 Comments
Post a CommentExcellent editorial! I am all for responsible ownership.
Gun control? No! Idiot control? YES!
if the entire people of the world that died from gun shots, had a say about firearms, what would they say to us today?
Amen! And I agree with Martin as well.
My position is the more people who carry guns, the safer we are. Criminals will tend to think twice before offending someone with a gun, and the nuts will be shot down before they can kill a bunch of people. Laws do not stop anyone. Laws apply after the crime is committed. Giving someone a psychiatric evaluation before they can buy a gun? Better do that with people applying for a driver's license! Well written article.
Many things can be considered weapons besides guns. If things that are able to kill are to be outlawed then crossbows, bows and arrows, swords and knives would have to be made illegal also. Gun control people fanatics are more dangerous than the guns. Very good article.
Great, great points you made here! I totally agree. I don't understand how anyone thinks more gun control will make criminals and crazies afraid to buy guns illegally and any way they can get them.
Absloutely! A gun cannot kill someone but the person that pulls the trigger is the killer! Loughner slipped through the cracks!! Who was responsible!? Great Article and Thanks!
"We need tougher gun laws for people mentally ill able to buy them"-- Just in case you would like know, 5.7 million Americans have a mental illness--and the type varies, according to NIMH. In addition, does that include those who go into a psychosis from old age or a diabetic onset? Where is the line here? Also, treating mental illness involves recognizing the signs, first. So, what happened there? Not to take away Loughner's accountability, but what do you want to do about healthy people--with treated chemical imbalances inclusive--commit them all before they murder someone? Again, where do we draw the line? Criminals are criminals; don't generalize about people with mental illness like they are not people with rights. Many "sane" people commit huge crimes, too.
We do need tougher laws for mentally ill people able to buy handguns.