Skip to main content

I'm sure you've asked yourself this, but why is it that the incident in Tucson over the weekend seems to have bolstered the standard NRA position on guns? That would seem to be the opposite of what we should take away from the shooting!

More after the fold.

Folks-
I had a different subject in mind for my next blog post/diary entry, and in fact I did not intend to comment on the shooting of Representative Giffords in Arizona this last Saturday at all. But while driving to school yesterday morning I heard a debate between radio show host Thom Hartmann and a representative of gunowners.com.

I absolutely must mention that I am, in fact, a gun owner. In fact, I own several. I have never pointed any of them at anyone, and hope that I never have to.

While listening to them, I felt they both basically missed the most important point: the NRA and gunowners.com both claim that people should be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves from bad people. Unfortunately for them, Arizona, where this tragic shooting took place, should have been the showplace for their argument. Arizona is one of three states that allow ordinary citizens to carry concealed guns without an additional background check beyond the FBI background check required to purchase the gun in the first place, or a permit from any local or state agency. Representative Giffords often carries a gun on her person (I do not know if she was carrying it when she was shot.) There was another person carrying a gun nearby, but he didn't get to the scene until the gunman had already been wrestled down by unarmed bystanders, and according to accounts, the gun-toting citizen almost shot the wrong person!

In short, having guns with extended magazines available to anyone did absolutely nothing whatsoever to make anyone at this event safer, and if that availability somehow didn't contribute to the tragedy, it easily could have.

So, the "Arizona Shooter" didn't just kill and wound all of those people, he also shot the NRA's argument full of holes.

-Edly

Originally posted to dadlyedly on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well certainly, but (7+ / 0-)

    most people who share the NRA's viewpoint won't have the intellectual integrity to re-examine their ideological beliefs in light of actual examples of why those beliefs are irrational.  It would inconvenience them.

  •  The NRA treats these incidents (5+ / 0-)

    in exactly the same way the Republican Party treats taxes.

    Economy's good? Business is booming, revenue is rolling in, we don't need taxes, let's lower them!
    Economy's bad? We can't afford taxes right now, let's lower them!

    Likewise,

    It's a relatively safe period? We don't need gun regulations. People aren't misusing guns.
    Shootings are happening? We can't have gun regulations or that would prevent people from protecting themselves.

    There is no societal condition that would indicate signs should point in any other direction.

    •  In this case the standard NRA argument is wrong (3+ / 0-)

      (not that will keep them from parroting the same denial about gun violence over and over again.)

      If someone had a gun for self protection at this event, what would they really be able to do? Loughner used the gun close up.  If anyone had been able to shoot him, it would have added to the number of innocent bystanders that were hit.

      HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

      by HylasBrook on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:21:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shot full of holes in the foot? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, HylasBrook

    You're mixing your shooting metaphors. And shouldn't we be avoiding gun-play metaphors?

    On a serious note, yes, the LOGIC of their argument is completely busted. Unfortunately, there's not much logical there to begin with -- the support for unrestricted individual gun ownership is based on emotion and fear, and logic has nothing to do with it.

    The tragic shooting of Giffords and 20 others and the subsequent faux-victimization right-wingers feel (even though they weren't shot) will only entrench the FEELINGS and fear that they all have to have even more lethal guns locked loaded and in every cup holder.

  •  No, the NRA will just "tighten up" its position (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    a little.

    Instead of every citizen being allowed to carry a firearm, every citizen will be required to carry a firearm.

    Or would that Big Government forcing an unconstitutional mandate on its citizens?

    I just don't know...we'll only be safe when there's a black helicopter in every driveway, carport, and garage.

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B Anthony

    by NoMoJoe on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:24:40 AM PST

  •  Using the NRAs way of thinking the (0+ / 0-)

    right to bear arms means that until the trigger is pulled the person is Constitutionally protected here's what I mean:NRA says you got the right to have a Gun and the Right to carry a Concealed Gun and a Right to carry a Gun in a holster to anyplace and to have the right to hold the Gun in a persons hands and in fact the Right to point and aim a Gun at anything and it's only when the Trigger is pulled that "The Right to Bear Arms" is not covered by The Constitution,so cops can't do anything till the bullets start flying to stop anyone with a gun in their hand pointing it at someone since until the trigger is pulled the intent of the Gun Holder can not be determined maybe he/she is just using it like a wooden pointing stick pointing out a fly on someones nose.The NRA the Lobbing Arm of The Gun and Ammo Industry.

  •  Zimudio had a concealed weapon... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rockhound

    ...but did not use it, as he arrived after Loughner was subdued. To his credit.

    (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

    by Enterik on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:44:19 AM PST

  •  Great post! Thanks for pointing this out. (0+ / 0-)
  •  I guess the next thing the NRA will argue (0+ / 0-)

    is that the NINE-YEAR-OLD CHILD should have been carrying a gun.  'Cause then, she wouldn't have been shot and could have defended herself, you know?

    Jerks.  

    The era of "the era of big government is over" is over.

    by lungfish on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42:33 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site