Jump to content
The Education Forum

Arizona Rep Giffords shot, at least 5 killed


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Craig,

What do you think would happen in the following scenario:

- All new gun sales subject suitability check (e.g. criminal record, history of psychological instability, etc) and demonstrated need (e.g. sports shooter / hunting, farmer, etc). Waiting period of about 30 days would apply. All holders required to be licenced with photograph and fingerprints.

- All weapons holders to undergo weapons proficiency test (safety handling).

- Sports / hunting / rifle sales only - no handguns. Rifles and shotguns limited - no automatic weapons, reasonable calibre weapons, etc.

- Sport (i.e. target) shooter weapons to be kept at range and use only permitted on authorised ranges.

- Hunters must have designated hunting areas and secure (approved) gun stowage. Outside of approved hunting seasons, weapons must be kept in an approved armoury (e.g. range).

- Existing weapons holders to conform with stowage requirements. Five year sunset period when they will be required to conform with aforementioned rules. Licence requirement with immediate effect.

- No concealed weapons permits except for certain designated state and federal personnel (e.g. sky marshal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Craig,

What do you think would happen in the following scenario:

- All new gun sales subject suitability check (e.g. criminal record, history of psychological instability, etc) and demonstrated need (e.g. sports shooter / hunting, farmer, etc). Waiting period of about 30 days would apply. All holders required to be licenced with photograph and fingerprints.

- All weapons holders to undergo weapons proficiency test (safety handling).

- Sports / hunting / rifle sales only - no handguns. Rifles and shotguns limited - no automatic weapons, reasonable calibre weapons, etc.

- Sport (i.e. target) shooter weapons to be kept at range and use only permitted on authorised ranges.

- Hunters must have designated hunting areas and secure (approved) gun stowage. Outside of approved hunting seasons, weapons must be kept in an approved armoury (e.g. range).

- Existing weapons holders to conform with stowage requirements. Five year sunset period when they will be required to conform with aforementioned rules. Licence requirement with immediate effect.

- No concealed weapons permits except for certain designated state and federal personnel (e.g. sky marshal).

What would happen? A revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulleyes, Hit Lists, Responsibility and Consequences

“I think it's important for all leaders... community leaders... to say we can't stand for this...

People really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up--for example we're on Sarah Palin's 'Targeted List' but...

the way she has it depicted is that she has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district.

When people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action.”

--US Representative Gabrielle Giffords on MSNBC March 25, 2010

...

Finally, Arizona/Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had this to say, and it's my point as well:

"All the vitriol we hear... That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

Bulleyes and harassment lists and hit lists may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

Vicki Saporta posted a good essay (http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/149632/on_roe_v._wade's_anniversary:_let's_reflect_on_the_consequences_of_violent_rhetoric,_which_abortion_providers_know_all_too_well/)

"On Roe v. Wade's Anniversary: Let's Reflect on the Consequences of Violent Rhetoric, Which Abortion Providers Know All Too Well"

It's the example of the violent antics of some abortion opponents that most alarms me when I see those with an agenda publicizing home addresses and phone numbers of their enemies.

Some excerpts below. Emphasis mine:

"I was saddened and disturbed on January 8th when I heard the news about the shooting in Tucson that left six people dead and 14 others injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. As the coverage began to focus on possible political motivations for the attack and the influence of violent rhetoric, I couldn’t help but think about the parallels between this tragic event in Arizona and the senseless murders of eight abortion providers and clinic staff, including my friend Dr. George Tiller.

...

Abortion opponents have a long history of using violent rhetoric to attempt to justify their crimes and incite others to violence. They regularly refer to abortion providers as “murderers” in interviews and articles and utilize imagery associated with murder such as “wanted” posters and “hit lists” in their campaigns to end legal abortion. Unfortunately, instead of marginalizing these extremists, other opponents of abortion have picked up on this dangerous rhetoric to advance their political agenda.

...

The devastation this rhetoric can cause has been keenly experienced by the abortion provider community. In late 1992, Michael Griffin, who had no history in the anti-abortion movement, became involved with a local anti-abortion leader who took him under his wing and mentored him by showing him graphic anti-abortion videos and involving him in efforts to target a local clinic where Dr. David Gunn worked. Earlier that year abortion opponents had distributed western-style "wanted" posters featuring a picture of Dr. Gunn, his home phone number, and other identifying information. In 1993, Dr. Gunn became the first abortion provider to be murdered; shot to death by Griffin in Pensacola, Florida."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
CRAIG WROTE: “What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

Your argument fails for an even more basic reason. We have numerous examples in the last 50 odd years of dictatorships being overthrown by unarmed protesters such as: Venezuela 1958, Argentina 1983, Brazil 1985, Haiti 1986, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania 1989, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004, Tunisia and Egypt 2011. There are also a few examples of the military forcing a return to democracy Portugal 1910 and 1974, Brazil 1945. On the other hand other than colonial wars of independence the only examples I can think of of armed citizens forcing a domestic dictator from power were China 1949, Cuba 1958, Iran and Nicaragua 1979, Afghanistan 1996 but doubt you see any of those revolutions as positive developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRAIG WROTE: “What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

Your argument fails for an even more basic reason. We have numerous examples in the last 50 odd years of dictatorships being overthrown by unarmed protesters such as: Venezuela 1958, Argentina 1983, Brazil 1985, Haiti 1986, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania 1989, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004, Tunisia and Egypt 2011. There are also a few examples of the military forcing a return to democracy Portugal 1910 and 1974, Brazil 1945. On the other hand other than colonial wars of independence the only examples I can think of of armed citizens forcing a domestic dictator from power were China 1949, Cuba 1958, Iran and Nicaragua 1979, Afghanistan 1996 but doubt you see any of those revolutions as positive developments.

You forgot that one very important armed overthrow, the American Revolution. Genesis for that pesky constitution and the second amendment.

Nice try though, even though you failed.

Lets face facts Len. Guns in private hands are here to stay in the USA and thats a GOOD thing.

Signed,

Armed and free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
CRAIG WROTE: “What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

Your argument fails for an even more basic reason. We have numerous examples in the last 50 odd years of dictatorships being overthrown by unarmed protesters such as: Venezuela 1958, Argentina 1983, Brazil 1985, Haiti 1986, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania 1989, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004, Tunisia and Egypt 2011. There are also a few examples of the military forcing a return to democracy Portugal 1910 and 1974, Brazil 1945. On the other hand other than colonial wars of independence the only examples I can think of of armed citizens forcing a domestic dictator from power were China 1949, Cuba 1958, Iran and Nicaragua 1979, Afghanistan 1996 but doubt you see any of those revolutions as positive developments.

You forgot that one very important armed overthrow, the American Revolution. Genesis for that pesky constitution and the second amendment.

Nice try though, even though you failed.

Lets face facts Len. Guns in private hands are here to stay in the USA and thats a GOOD thing.

Signed,

Armed and free.

I specified revolutions in modern times, so you fail again. As for Libya the people seem to have small arms but have not been able to overthorow an entrenched dictator who retains the support of the country's armed forces. This seems to be the critical factor i.e. dictators can be overthrown with little violence if the Army etc refuse to attack their own people but the people have little chance of succeeding if they don't.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRAIG WROTE: “What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

Your argument fails for an even more basic reason. We have numerous examples in the last 50 odd years of dictatorships being overthrown by unarmed protesters such as: Venezuela 1958, Argentina 1983, Brazil 1985, Haiti 1986, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania 1989, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004, Tunisia and Egypt 2011. There are also a few examples of the military forcing a return to democracy Portugal 1910 and 1974, Brazil 1945. On the other hand other than colonial wars of independence the only examples I can think of of armed citizens forcing a domestic dictator from power were China 1949, Cuba 1958, Iran and Nicaragua 1979, Afghanistan 1996 but doubt you see any of those revolutions as positive developments.

You forgot that one very important armed overthrow, the American Revolution. Genesis for that pesky constitution and the second amendment.

Nice try though, even though you failed.

Lets face facts Len. Guns in private hands are here to stay in the USA and thats a GOOD thing.

Signed,

Armed and free.

I specified revolutions in modern times, so you fail again. As for Libya the people seem to have small arms but have not been able to overthorow an entrenched dictator who retains the support of the country's armed forces. This seems to be the critical factor i.e. dictators can be overthrown with little violence if the Army etc refuse to attack their own people but have little chance of succeeding if they don't.

I agree Len. The dictators fled in Tunisa and Egypt because they lost the support of their armed forces. The same will be true of Libya. The big step is when the military allow free and open elections to take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRAIG WROTE: “What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

Your argument fails for an even more basic reason. We have numerous examples in the last 50 odd years of dictatorships being overthrown by unarmed protesters such as: Venezuela 1958, Argentina 1983, Brazil 1985, Haiti 1986, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania 1989, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004, Tunisia and Egypt 2011. There are also a few examples of the military forcing a return to democracy Portugal 1910 and 1974, Brazil 1945. On the other hand other than colonial wars of independence the only examples I can think of of armed citizens forcing a domestic dictator from power were China 1949, Cuba 1958, Iran and Nicaragua 1979, Afghanistan 1996 but doubt you see any of those revolutions as positive developments.

You forgot that one very important armed overthrow, the American Revolution. Genesis for that pesky constitution and the second amendment.

Nice try though, even though you failed.

Lets face facts Len. Guns in private hands are here to stay in the USA and thats a GOOD thing.

Signed,

Armed and free.

I specified revolutions in modern times, so you fail again. As for Libya the people seem to have small arms but have not been able to overthorow an entrenched dictator who retains the support of the country's armed forces. This seems to be the critical factor i.e. dictators can be overthrown with little violence if the Army etc refuse to attack their own people but have little chance of succeeding if they don't.

I agree Len. The dictators fled in Tunisa and Egypt because they lost the support of their armed forces. The same will be true of Libya. The big step is when the military allow free and open elections to take place.

Egypt seems to be making progress:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201137162628391374.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...