maybe you should visit a gun range....where large ammunition magazines are for fun

So first it right wing rhetoric, cross hairs, Palin, Beck, Fox, Tea Party, blah, blah..

Now it is gun control and 30 round clips. Wow what a surprise. Who could have seen that coming.

How about " a crazy guy that talks to a skull in his back yard" doesn't need to able to purchase clips that can fire 30 times. (BTW - clips do not fire rounds, they feed rounds to the chamber.)

You want to address the real issue, what would legitimately help society, instead of the politcal opprtunism, follow no joe's lead and start a conversation about identifying the mentally ill, helping them and getting the public safe from them.

Afterall, the clip did not buy the mentally ill kid.

Canada requires a back ground check before an individual can buy a gun, and the completion of a gun safety course. It's harder to get a driving liscense in the US than it is to buy a weapon capbable of killing 30 people in a matter of seconds. Surely there is some point of compromise here. I suggest we talk about it.

Gun control is a tired argument. If you trust me to have a hunting rifle then why not a shoulder mounted rocket launcher? Does either one make you any less dead if I shoot you with it? Enforce the laws that already exist or ban gun ownership. The gun control laws, and laws, and laws only serve to make lawyers a bunch of money.

Blame for this shooting falls squarely on the shooter and the people around him for not seeking help before he went off the deep end.

The political rhetoric of the past few years couldn't have helped, but to make a causative leap is mis-guided. It is easy to see how some of the bile that is spewed on a daily basis from the FOXs and MSNBCs of the world could certainly color a deranged person's actions and just for that reason I'd love to see them tone it down, but they won't. It amazes me that people decry the tone of the rhetoric at the same time ratings continue to increase. The fact is, the people who religiously watch these channels can't get enough. The eat it up. Obama is a socialist! Boehner is a crybaby owned by the lobbyists! They love it. It makes their world easy to understand. Nothing like a boogie-man to to rally the troops against.

Kowrie1: What about the point that there is no LEGITIMATE (i.e. personal safety) need for a 30 round clip? Given the danger to the public in devastating situations like this, and Virginia Tech, and Columbine, etc., etc., isn't there a good argument for a sensible regulation to limit the size of such clips to, say, 12, like they have here in California (which I use for my Glock 19, same weapon used by the shooter)?

Jason in KY talks about "fun at a gun range." All that means is you have to replace the clip more often. Doesn't prevent me from having fun at my local range.

Seriously, what is the legitimate need for any non-law enforcement or non-military citizen to be able to possess a 30 round clip? Anyone?

The gun range should rent out the extended magazines, for use only at the range. No one else need own or buy them.

The one exception I would allow would be for home defense. If ever found off property with a loaded extended magazine, you get jail time.

Amy B: The US is not Canada.

It might be useful to consider the thoughts of Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is also a trained psychiatrist (and who, of late, has been described by some on the left as "brilliant"), with regard to Jared Loughner:

"He was obsessed with 'conscious dreaming,' a pretty good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one."

Fortunately, the rest of us don't have to be brilliant (or trained in the field of mental health) in order to conclude that Krauthammer probably has this about right.

The problem I see with some of the above is you have decided what defines 'legitimate' need, and what does not. Personally I think a 30 round mag is overkill, but I don't get to pick an arbitrary capacity. That's not how this society works.

Second, the reason you have to go through more hoops to get a driver's license is because driving is not a right - it's a privelage. Gun ownership is a right.

I hate to quibble, because I will entertain any opposing opinion, but if you know the difference between a clip and a magazine, at least I'll know that you have an informed opinion. Comments?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL-I was going to adress your statement with our rights, but see you are from Ill. so, nevermind.

I witnessed in the 8 years under Bush some of the most hateful rhetoric ever displayed in American history given to a standing President, including books and movies on how to assassinate Bush...And it was all from the liberal left with the liberal media leading the charges....

And now I'm to believe that it's just the conservatives with such despicable rhetoric that needs to be changed which was even eluded to in this article in the end by using only Ben Quayle's rhetoric and yet nowhere did it mention anything about Mark Penn's remarks about how obama needs another Oklahoma bombing to get re-elected or even the obama himself with his Knife and Gun words or how obama called the GOP the enemy...

I doubt it will actually change, but am possitive that the liberal media will never be able to stop it, especially when articles like this pretend the hateful rhetoric is a big problem while using the divisive rhetoric within the same article...

Both sides of the isle or guilty. I'm guilty of it, but over the last few days it has all been either Palin, Beck, Rush or anyone else that is conservative that was quickly blamed, by liberals and the liberal media accomplices...

And that hypocritical attitude in itself is why I despise liberalism more then I like conservatism...

Amy B Portland, Portland ME

Canada requires a back ground check before an individual can buy a gun, and the completion of a gun safety course

So does the US. To buy this handgun in AZ, the shooter did, in fact, pass the FBI background check. Why? How can that be? Well, for as wacky as this kid is he apparently never broke any laws. Also in the US to carry a concealed handgun in public you must take a course. Of course, criminals and wackos aren't concerned about that part.

Mixed,

Ah.... the real issue instead of this other nebulous crap.

And just think there are another (statistically speaking) 1,600 - 2,100 more of these guys out there - in Arizona alone!

Three days later and they are still talking about Sarah, cross hairs and now 30 round clips.

Thanks for posting exerts from Dr. K's column.

BTW - Did Ron ever return the compliment? (Incidently I went back and checked - it wasn't 90% that day, it was actually about 80%. Classic, nonetheless.

Good posts from all. I'm a strong 2nd amendment supporter and an excellent shot. I also have 6-30 round clips for my AR-15 (came with the gun when I bought it). Let me ask all of the people rallying against the 30-round clip a question... How long do you think it takes to change a clip in a weapon like a AR-15? I am an experienced shooter and if I push myself I can do it in just under 3 seconds.

So...we spend millions to create a law that limits (new clips only b/c you can't regulate clips that have already been manufactured or refurbished) from being produced down to say a limit of 10 rounds per. You just cost the shooter 9-15 seconds. That's totally worth it. Without that 9-15seconds, we will make the mentally ill people reconsider their futre acts of violence, right? Didn't think so...

And for those that think the 2nd amendment is ONLY there so we can hunt animals, I suggest you read and closely interpret it. The explanation of why it is in the constitution is explicitly defined within.

By banning guns, or any part of the gun, would do nothing but create a new product for the black market to pedal. Certainly back ground checks should continue on. I do like a mandatory safety course like Canada has.

What really needs reform though is how we manage the mentally challenged individuals. Like this killer, this could have been prevented by simply being more diligent in dealing with the obvious symptoms.

I have no problem with our Congress honoring Gifford and those that died. I do, however, have a problem with Congress taking time off from work to reflect on this whole mess. Inflation is on its way. Food prices are expected to rise sharply this year and are already on the move. But yet our Congress gets a week off paid. Can you imagine if a large corporation with hundreds of employees closed down for a whole week due to one of their employees dying? America needs jobs, not a vacation so get on with it Congress!

mitch j

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL-I was going to adress your statement with our rights, but see you are from Ill. so, nevermind.

You could end up with Feisty as a neighbor Mitch. After all, once Illinois fails I wouldn't blame Feisty for moving out of the State. I moved out of Illinois years ago due to work. I was raised in the Northwest burbs of Chicago. In fact, I even rented an apartment in Roselle. The people of Chicagoland are good people. The problem sits squarely on the laps of the politicians wound up in the most corrupt political machine in the nation not doing their jobs responsibly. As much as I may not agree with Feisty on various topics, I do respect Feisty and the people of Illinois because generally, they are good people. Having said that, no Feisty, you can't have my guns!

bob-

With all that's transpired since we responded to Ron's remarks, specifically, the ongoing discussion about civility that's followed the tragedy in Arizona...

I believe that the post from Ron that kicked off our exchange that day was classic as well, don't you?

Jess -- you hit at what I was trying to say. More gun laws just make lawyers money. They really don't slow down someone committed to gun violence. Guns are designed to kill. They have no other purpose. If the government entrusts its citizens with that sort of responsibility why waste millions of dollars then putting into law obstacles to ownership that are only going to slow down the procurement for law abiding citizens. I'd love to live in a world were there were no guns. We don't live in that world and all the laws that can be conceived won't deliver us to that place so lets not waste time, money, and effort on it.

Biggerproblems - Personally I think a 30 round mag is overkill, but I don't get to pick an arbitrary capacity. That's not how this society works.

Actually, it is exactly how society works. We put arbitrary numbers on just about everything. Is there a magical moment between 20 and 21 that a person can more appropriately consume alcoholic beverages? Is there a magical moment between 17 and 18 that makes the cigarette less poisonous to the individual smoker or makes the person able to properly vote for elected officials? If so, why is that same magical moment not required for an individual to join our armed forces since he or she can join at 17? Is there some magical reason why we only have 435 congressmen to represent 300 million people, yet we had that same number when our population was only at 200 million people. Is there a magical moment between 29 and 30 that allows a citizen the right become a U.S. Senator, but that moment comes 5 years earlier if they “only” wish to be a member of the House of Representatives? All of these numbers are arbitrary and how our society works.

Jess-1177200 - You just cost the shooter 9-15 seconds. That's totally worth it. Without that 9-15seconds, we will make the mentally ill people reconsider their futre acts of violence, right? Didn't think so...

And for those that think the 2nd amendment is ONLY there so we can hunt animals, I suggest you read and closely interpret it. The explanation of why it is in the constitution is explicitly defined within.

9 to 15 seconds will not make a determined shooter reconsider his or her acts, but it will provide the people that are being shot at and weren’t hit in the first 10 to 12 bullets fired, more opportunity to get out of the area, find better cover, tackle the gunman or wrestle away additional ammunition. Take it for granted the first target will not have any chance with the change of quantity, but the 6^th person that died or the 12, 13, 14, or 15^th person that was injured may not have had the same outcome thereby lowering the casualty count significantly.

As for the Second Amendment, the idea of allowing the citizens a right to keep weapons for a well-regulated militia was to ensure that the powerful new federal government could NOT use its military arm to trample over the new American citizens as the Royal Militaries of England had in the past. It was not intended for the take over of the government.

Kowrie1 - If the government entrusts its citizens with that sort of responsibility why waste millions of dollars then putting into law obstacles to ownership that are only going to slow down the procurement for law abiding citizens.

It is because law-abiding citizens do NOT need guns in an expeditious manner. Just as you cannot get a passport to travel outside the country in a manner of moments, get a driver’s license without passing a test, or run for elected office without filing appropriate paperwork and paying appropriate fees, we have determined it is best to slow the pace of certain things down. Unlike my opening comments, there is a magical moment, between 1 hour and 72 hours after a person pissed you off called a cooling down period.

Dan Eagle -- I didn't take issue with any laws on the books. I believe a waiting period is completely appropriate. My issue is that I don't believe that most of the laws make a lick of difference. We have the right to own guns. The law allows me to own a tool for killing. Adding more laws does not make anyone less dead if I use that tool for its intended purpose. What law can possibly make a gun safe? You might limit damage but then what you are proposing is a law that boils down to "Well, when you go on your killing rampage we want to make sure that the number of people you kill isn't too excessive." As if killing just a few people is ok.

Understand where I am coming from. This isn't about gun ownership it is about common sense laws. I don't own guns and never would. I don't support killing in any form. If I was a woman I don't think I'd have an abortion, I wouldn't volunteer for the Armed Forces, I don't support a death penalty. I'd rather there be no guns, but if there are, I just don't like seeing excessive laws that don't do any real good but wasting tax payer money and politician's time.

Kowrie1 - where I understand your point, there is something to be said for...

Well, when you go on your killing rampage we want to make sure that the number of people you kill isn't too excessive." As if killing just a few people is ok.

The answer is we agree that killing even one individual is bad. SO that means, killing person 1 is bad...and 2 is bad...and 20 is bad....and 39 is bad. So if we can stop the killing of numbers 20 to 39, we have saved 20 or more lives. It is still bad, but killing 20 is clearly worse than killing one.

I agree that guns have only one purpose, to kill, be it an animal for food, an intruder for protection or the person in the sights of an unstable gunman...the only purpose is to kill. I would assume then we can agree that a common sense law says that we have no use for submachine guns and clips or magazines that hold excessive ammunition. I have never seen the need for a hunter to have to shoot a machine gun at a deer, which I think actually takes away from the sport of hunting, and in current times, few people have a necessity to kill their own animals for sustenance. Presenting a handgun with 10 rounds to an intruder will be no less terrifying than pointing a handgun with 30 rounds to an intruder. Finally, mandating that containers of ammunition be limited slows down the rare but still too common unstable gunman. If instead of shooting 31 bullets (the total he had in his clip, plus the one in the chamber) he was only able to shoot 12 bullets, maybe there would be LESS injured and LESS dead, making this incident, still bad, but to some of the families, LESS so.

I suppose that is a valid point about reducing the casualties but I believe there are more lives to be saved with legislation in other areas that would cost less. It sounds callous to discuss lives saved vs dollars spent, but those sort of trade-offs have to be considered.

Stop glorifying extremists, I agree.

I can only wonder what the state of our country would be like, if only the media had focused like a lazer, and reported non-stop on the previous administration.

I, we can only wonder!

Hmmm...

Which network has spent the most time glorifying folks like former-Rep Alan Grayson, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), or Markos Moulitsas?

You're so right - people murder, not guns! Did you hear about the latest drive-by strangling?

Don't forget about the knife weilding high school kids at Columbine.

Oh, there is a new director being nominated, for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Knifes.

But remember, guns don't kill.

@ITM

I have to disagree with you. I am for gun control. I travel on the train and often wonder what it would be like if a madman with a gun started a rampage. The idea of packing my own weapon for such an occasion is just alien to me. IMO guns should only be used by professionals trained in their use not by untrained civilians.

However, I accept that the 2nd amendment allows citizens to possess guns and until it is repealed there can never be effective gun control.

He's a "slippery-sloper" there Ursula. He's afraid of gun regulation because he thinks that it is an attempt to move in the direction of removing guns from the populace. The second amendment is fairly clear, you have to wonder what they are so worried about.

Pedophilia is outlawed, yet it is still practice all around the globe, and is easily "obtained". Does that mean that we shouldn't bother to outlaw it? Loughner's plan would have been made more difficult to execute had he not possessed magazines which held 30 rounds. If he had gotten himself arrested trying to purchase what were illegal clips up until 2004, six people would still be breathing today and 14 others wouldn't have bullet wounds through their bodies.

SUB-HUMANS kill much too easily by having access to guns and excess ammunition.

Or in the minds of Extremist Muslim Terrorist. they just use bombs. so hey lets make it illegal to get anything that can be used to make a bomb.. Like. Gasoline. and soap. and manure. and fertalizer and . ect ect ect..

Yup, ITM, that gun secured in a lock box, just started killing everyone within range on it's own!

I have 3 loaded guns in my home.....they have all yet to kill a human....and I suspect, if I never pull the trigger, they wont ever kill anything.

But if a child gets one of them and thinks it is a toy, they very well MIGHT kill someone.

For all you gun control advocates, how do you rationalize all the murders of children in schools in China? Check out the news, on several occasions in the past year mentally disturbed individuals have gone to elementary schools and day care centers murdering multiple children and teachers with knives/machetes. Get all those butcher knives out of your kitchens when you get rid of your neighbors guns, if we're going to control everything that can kill multiple people in a short period of time. Personal responsibility is what this country was founded on. Be responsible for your actions, your beliefs, your health care, your retirement income, etc, etc, etc. There are so many people to blame, but let's start with the obvious, blame the a..hole that thought it was OK to go murder as many people as he could.

Why does a person need an extended magazine or whatever it is... How many bullets do you realistically need to be able to shoot at one time? Why should this not be limited so that the shooter will have to put in another magazine? to get going again?

Love to hear a rational response to LadyJude's EXCELLENT QUESTION.

Signed,

Glock 19 owner in Calif. (my 12 round clips work fine, and I wouldn't mind a lesser limit)

While I'm not for gun control or even magazine control, there is no rational response to LadyJude's question. It's been proven time and again that highly trained firearm's experts can shoot and change magazines as quickly as anyone else as long as they are taking aimed shots. The only necessity for an extended magazine is to carry less magazines (or more ammo in an equal amount of magazines) or to fire more rounds indiscriminately.

The speed limit in most areas does not exceed 65 yet we keep making cars that are not speed regulated. You likely own one, just because you want it. And cars kill more people than guns every year. Lets ban cars. More people die in motorcycle accidents every year than guns incidents. There is not one good reason for a motorcycle to be used when cars are much safer. Lets ban bikes. Pornography has been sited as a contributing factor of almost every serial rapest and demeans women, but we would never want to tred on that right of free speech. Who in this world could not live without beer, which has led to vastly more deaths, child abuse, and unhappiness. Try to ban beer again and wait for the fight.

Demonizing politcal opponants is plane free speech. Inflamatory comments IS what gets in the press, but will never remove the blame from an individual. And why would someone so far gone as a mass murderer be stopped by making the tools illeagal. He does not care at that point about the popularity of his next act. Killers always find the next best means. They managed to kill millions in acts of genicide in African nations, mostly with beatings, blades other more cruel and prolonged methods of killing. It's the mindset not the method. Added laws will not fix one damaged brain.

To Newday: if a child gets hold of a gun, then the owner of the gun was not doing what they should. I have several guns, and all of mine are secured. Gun control is not just about when you buy the gun, it is what you do with it after. The sad part is a lot of people buy a gun for home defense and have no training, common sense or skill. It usually sits on the top shelf of the closet or in the draw of a night stand loaded and forgot about.

To LadyJude: You do have a valid question. I will counter with something a little different. More people die from car crashes every year then die from being shot. Not that long ago the max speed limit was 55mph, now it is up to 75 mph in some places. However, most cars can well exceedthat. So by your same idea of banning high capacity magazines, should we not outlaw all cars that can go faster then 75mph. There may not be a need for the magazines, but it is about personal choice and responsibility. I do not own any, but I also feel that it is not my place to tell others what they can or can not own.

@TMC - Yes, more people die from car crashes every year, however we can rationally say that the purpose of a vehicle is to move individuals from one place to another. What purpose does a gun, or for that matter a clip able to hold 30 rounds to allow a shooter to shoot 31 bullets, have other than to kill. While there are millions and millions of cars that have never killed anyone or anything, I suspect there are few guns used that have the same record.

I do agree that since there is a speed limit, we should require car companies to limit the max speed of street cars to be limited. But, remember, the rational reason for having a car is to move people from one place to another, not to kill. That is why we almost always refer incidents where a car has struck something as an "accident".

Paul-977599, If I am not mistaken, From 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the manufacture of magazines with more than 10 rounds was banned, though existing magazines were grandfathered in and still legal to buy....

Get the facts straight... The old law would not have stopped a thing....

Yes, grandfathered in since their manufacture in 1993. That doesn't mean that in 2004, rather than letting the assault weapons ban expire they could have instead enhanced it, strengthened it, modified it, and extended it another ten years. In what year was Loughner's 30 round magazine manufactured?

Who knows when it was manufactured.... Doesn't matter. I was using nearly 20 year old magazines in the early eighties when I was in the army... They worked fine... So I doubt a 17 year old magazine would be much of a hindrance...

Also ate C-rats that were manufactured in the forties!!! Still edible nearly 40 years after being packaged! lol No wonder why I'll eat anything! lol

Just trying to get the facts straight...........maybe it does matter.

@ Dan.. I am not sure about the percentages, but it would be interesting to find out. Do more people die by percentage of cars driven, or by guns that are owned? I know that none of my guns have ever killed anyone. I did not buy my guns to kill anyone. I did buy then because as a young child I did hunt. I have shot animals to eat, never just to kill one. I have been raised to see a gun as a tool no different then a hammer, shovel, saw or car. I have raised my children that way. All of then have a useful purpose, and all of them can be used as a weapon (depends on the user). There have been many cases where a car was used as a weapon. Like i said, I do not own any extended magazines, but I also don't feel that I should keep someone who can legally get one from doing it. If they want to spend the money (because ammo is not cheap) to rapid fire, then I say go ahead. This is a tragedy what happened, but would people be calling for the banning of cars if he had just drove into the crowd? And yes that does happen, if happened at NC State.

His intention was to kill Giffords. With a car he had only a small chance of pulling that off. That's probably why he chose a gun with an extended clip.

Yes, he could have easily killed or gravely injured a lot of people in the crowd with the car, but that wasn't really his aim.

Sorry, not happening.

Really . . . I guess it was the Democrats who wanted Reagan and Ford assasinated then. They were such hate mongers in the 70's and 80's. Get a grip on reality. The real cowards are those who will not address the issues, but instead try to blame others to make themselves look better. By looking at your grammar, spelling and thought process, you are neither the best nor brightest the Democrats have to offer and need to stay away from anyone's tree of liberty. Oh yeah, don't forget there was a federal judge appointed by a Republican president who was killed on Saturday too. Get off your polarizing soap box and debate merits.

You liberals wrote a book and made a movie on how to assassinate Bush...

You liberals wrote a book and made a movie on how to assassinate Bush...

Care to try spinning that again?

LONDON, Sept. 1 -- Nearly every British newspaper on Friday carried photos of the "assassination" of President Bush -- or, rather, the eerily realistic depiction of it from a new documentary-style television film that is causing an uproar in Britain.

The film, "Death of a President," has been alternatively derided as a tasteless publicity grab and defended as a serious look at a plausible event that could have dramatic ramifications for the world

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100858.html

Now you want to hold liberals accountable for what the British did?

You were born with a brain - why don't you try using it for a change? Rather than repeat BS?

Note that "Death of a President" was a British made movie. We in the United States have never really had control of what the British can do. The British had control of what we could do until around 1776.

Could you provide a reference for the book?

He doesn't know what he is writing about, he's just parrotting something he heard on FAUX noose or Rushradio.

Hey Now! The second amendment applies to liberals too!

Let me chime in. The majority of British are liberal, At least the ones I know. So, his comment of "You liberals wrote a book and made a movie on how to assassinate Bush..." isn't far off the mark! Liberals live in many different countries! However, you are all the same!

I have thought the same thing, Heartlight3. I would settle for someone on the right saying something like---it doesn't matter who started this, it doesn't matter who kept it going, this kind of talk and hatred stops NOW. But I haven't heard anything like that.

Yea Steeler Fan.

Do us all a Favor andyou be the one to tell all yoru lefty Liberal Friends to Stop the hate Retheoric they have been spewing since 2001 When Bush was first Elected President. I mean Put your money where your Mouth is and Tell your Hate Mongering Friends like Feisty,, Bev.. Louis J and USnavy retired and the hate Mongers on MSNBC . You take care of the people on your side that .. but all you do is say its people on the Right. Stand up. Man up. Target your Friends first..

Bush was Appointed President by SCOTUS in 2001. The vote was 5-4.

Paul,

Keep convincing yourself of that. its all you have.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Facts ricochet off Steve with the same forceful, violent rebound as criticism does with Uwe Boll.

Steve

Take your wins where you can!

Surely you like the fact that W was appointed by the SC 'cause he certainly DID NOT win the election!

Steve---I do ask any hate-mongerer on either side to stop it---it doesn't further our political discourse and it risks violence.

By the way, I did not believe that George Bush was legitimately elected in 2000 but I always referred to him respectfully as our President and never said anything like the things that are said about President Obama on a daily basis.

Are we still on the BUSH was selected BS in 2011? IN AMERICA you win the presidency by way of the electoral college NOT the popular vote.

We can say Clinton won in 92' due to Ross Perot sniping votes from Bush Sr. Clinton won by what 1-2%. People like me enabled him by voting for Perot. Clinton never received over 46% of the vote neither time.

The electors for each state are supposed to be selected by the completed popular vote count of each state. Florida was prohibitted from witholding certification of electors until they could finish the state's vote count and recount. Bush was appointed by SCOTUS. 5-4

i was just thinking that myself. what did the politican do that deserved 'honor'"

Surely you jest. More security for us? Why, that would mean the poor public servant law enforcement officer would have to work for just about free in this climate of anti union anti tax. You know, words matter. Really. Words matter. People can incite riots, wars and killing sprees using Words. Look at history. Words incite, words cause action. Funny how it used to be the conservatives who did not want certain words used on TV (of course the violence was always okay). Now they cry the democrats are taking their freedom of speech. OMG. How quickly we forget. Shut up talk radio, boo hoo Hanity. When will you ever learn, words matter.

Lets teach that humans dont make mistakes, its guns that kill people.

So, Jared Loughner "made a mistake"?

You can go back to sucking Mitch McConnell's cheney now. Dismissed.

@Da Noid.....there are things you do that are good and there are things you do that are evil. Or, are you going to deny Jared his feelings on the government? I will not. He did however, make a "mistake" in how he handled his feelings.

@Paul-977599....hahaha, you only wish. If I could kick Mitch McConnell out of congress today, I would. Thats the great thing about being a devout Constitutionalist...I dont see R's or D's...I just see them both as evil and destroyers of America and Freedom.

Jason: the problem with what you say is this: Guns are easy to get, and in a rageful impulse, use. That is why some reasonable common sense controls need to be in place. Do you want to argue that someone who is mentally ill should have any gun he wants because of his "Second Amendment" rights? What common sense solution do you see for this?

By devout constitutionalist I guess you mean that African Americans are only 3/5 of a person and that women cannot vote or own property?

There are 16,000 murders in the U.S. annually - not all by gun shot.

There are 40,000 automobile related deaths in the U.S. annually.

Let's outlaw what ???

Interesting arguments.

However, the SOLE purpose of a gun is to kill. This is even more true of handguns as opposed to rifles.

You can't say that about either alcohol or automobiles.

You can argue sport or target practice all you want. Those are diversions from the sole initial intent. Even the second ammendment on which gun rights are based defines arms in terms of "security".

I hope no one tells the police the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. In my opimion the gun on their hip is much more a deterrent than a means to end someone's life. I don't know statistics off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure that the number of people killed by police firearms is greatly out numbered by those injured and it's greatly out numbered by guns drawn without being fired and that is out numbered by the number of police who have never even drawn their gun in the line of duty. I will say that my guns have not killed anything since I've owned them. That is due mostly to lack of time to go hunting and not being a "dead-eye" when I do. I think my guns could be one heck of a deterrent for would be home invaders. When I pump that Remington 870 it makes a very distinctive sound that makes you think awfully hard about whether you want to move forward or get out on the double. That's loaded or unloaded.

Should you have to pump it if you haven't already fired it? Your going to make that racket so the home invader knows where you are and what weapon you have?

GiffordS with an "S". If after all this time, you still can't get her name right, additional information about the other victims will be too much for you to process. The truth is, you don't care about any of them. You just want the Giffords story to go away. And you're not looking forward to her recovery, because you know that when she has something to say she will be able to refer to her earlier remarks about consequences, crosshairs and Sarah Palin. She's finished.

Paul has missed his calling - he is a mind reader.

I knew you were going to say that. ;=)

Tarzan7: You are right. Not only were there other victims, some of them died; Giffords was shot. Still others were totally innocent bystanders. However, they don't rate mentioning because only the Congressperson is deemed important to our status-worshipping culture and celebrity-obsessed media.....

The names of the others, are easily available to you. Gabby was his "target" and she lived through it. If you put yourself into the public arena, and are gunned down for it, you are going to be given a fair amount of press coverage above what the average citizen can expect.

"The others", as you call them, are the ones who matter most. The 9 year-old did not put herself in the public arena. She is an innocent, dead victim. Gaby put herself in the spotlight, and she (fortunately) was only injured. The only people deserving of a tribute are the innocent ones who died and the hero who risked his own safety to stop the lunatic gunman.

Christina Green, who means so much to you that you can't bother to type her name. Her loss is terrible. The president made much mention of her, by name. Why are you so niggardly with tribute? Christina was on her way to stepping into the very same spotlight.

One does not preclude the other. The impulses can accumulate.

After reading all of the above comments I can see no matter what happens in this country we have a guarantee of one thing and one thing only.

If you pick sides, no matter what the issue and you don't join hands for the common good of the people...IT IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE!!

It's not getting any worse for Judge Roll, or Christina Green.

How many of us are influenced by advertising? Isn't that the purpose of advertising in the first place?

How big of a step is it from advertising to political campaigns? Campaigns "sell" a person rather than a product.

Words CAN have influence. Particularly when a person is unbalanced or has lost the ability to reason thoughtfully.

If you are a person like the shooter in Tucson, and you already have negative feelings about particular people, and you hear certain words on radio/TV, and you have a weapon in your hands...

I am not blaming specific words, or people, or events. What I AM saying is that collectively, all of this has consequence. That's what we need to be aware of.

As a firearms owner who does like, for fun's sake, rather than public safety, the idea of the sheer-fire power that an extended magazine provides without a brief interruption for reload, I do not think Magazines really need to extend beyond the bottom of the grip in the handgun unless it is designed to be part of the grip, and would make a good law. It would keep my Beretta M9 limited to 15 rounds and if such a gun with an ordinary magazine was misused, we would have probably half the deaths/wounded that this shooter presented.

But of course, if your determined to go on a killing spree, than you probably would not care about spending $90 on a no-longer made extended magazine or two, as it would be some of the last purchases you make in society the moment you abuse your 2nd amendment right. I recall assault rifles though going for $3000 in the 90's after the ban, vaguely. Everything that is banned would at least be out of economic reach for lower-income nut cases, which is a lot of people, unless they built a shooting-spree into their budget.

Helped get the word out about her opponent?? By that you must mean Kelly, Who called for 2nd ammendment solutions if the Tea Party lost and fired automatic weapons to pump the attitude up in his base??

"Remember, Quayle's primary saw a lot of hot rhetoric. In addition to his declaration about the president, one of his opponents was Pamela Gorman, who ran a provocative Web ad in which she fires an automatic weapon multiple times"

It seems the firing of automatic weapons comes with the party and the territory doesn't it?

I'm not sure if Bo got the meaning of your letter or not Tuscon Guy. I think you wrote a very good little commentary there. Well done.