53 Comments

• maloney | Jan 25, 2011, 01:14 PM EST

  IC are just plain cowards for not printing posts that are nothing but the truth that IC doesn't like being told.

• eiriamach | Jan 20, 2011, 05:23 AM EST

  Ajreaper, if US law enforcement succeeds in indicting only 1 in 1,000 drug dealers, should we repeal the laws that prohibit the sale of illegal drugs? I think we have to keep trying to deal with the problem until we can do better. The same goes for illegal weapons. There are no quick or easy solutions, but that does not mean we should stop looking for solutions.

• Ajreaper | Jan 19, 2011, 01:31 PM EST

  Good lord look at prisons- people are locked up, under constant supervision day and night, they and their cell regularly searched and access to the prison and the immates tightly controled and drugs find there way in and in the absence of guns they manufacture weapons that are very deadly (which they manage to hide very well). If we cannot keep a tightly controled population free of weapons and drugs how will we manage to do that outside of prisons? So many of you believe there are quick and easy solutions to very complicated matters- it defies logic how some of you think.

• eiriamach | Jan 18, 2011, 06:02 PM EST

  Thanks for the good wishes, Ephraim and Michaelidaho. I really enjoyed this discussion, thanks! I'll miss having time for back-and-forth discussions when work begins again tomorrow. Best of the new year to all!

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 18, 2011, 12:17 PM EST

  Last time - I need to read some of the other stimulating articles in Irish Central - I think our efforts are better directed at the roots of our violence than at the leaves. Michael Moore was on Rachael Maddow last night and explained his surprise at getting Kmart to stop selling ammunition when asked to do so by two of the Columbine shooting victims. I greatly respect Mr. Moore and his skill at shining a light on the ills of our society but the ammunition was not the problem at Columbine, it was the mental state of the shooters. I respect your opinions, your skill in arguing them and wish us all luck in creating a more peaceful world.

• michaelidaho | Jan 18, 2011, 09:33 AM EST

  eiriamach, You made some good points that I agree with. However, I was criticizing Cahir's original article for simple explanations to complex problems. As for as the rancher analogy that works in rural areas. However, Boise is a medium-sized city about the same size of Rochester, NY and of course neither city has ranches within their limits. Finally, nobody was killed in Boise in several different years during the past decade because of host of different reasons that had nothing to do with gun ownership rates. Again, the original point I was making. Making a direct correlation between gun ownership rates and crime is a seriously flawed way of analyzing this problem.

• eiriamach | Jan 18, 2011, 06:22 AM EST

  In a further effort to be conciliatory, I'll mention that I live a couple of blocks from my town's police station. The police have a practice range, which is available to local residents as well as to officers. Many an evening, I try to dine or read to the sound of residents' gunfire that lasts for hours. I haven't complained to the town council because I support the entire Constitution, and I recognize that other people's exercise of their constitutional liberties may impose some burden on the rest of us. But we need to draw a line somewhere, and I draw it at assault weapons and their equivalent in extended magazines and enhancements that maximize killing power. You know, of course, that the first thing a burglar will steal is your weapon, and about a third of homeowners killed by burglars are killed with their own weapons.

• eiriamach | Jan 18, 2011, 05:52 AM EST

  Michaelidaho and others who cite statistics should give some thought to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: "after this, therefore because of this." In some sparsely populated areas, people own more guns--because such areas have more ranchers who use weapons to drive off non-human threats to livestock, etc. Where ever population density is low, we expect lower crime rates, so the correlation between high gun-ownership levels and crime rates does not mean that gun ownership deters crime. And whenever crime rates spike in an area, media and citizens demand more law enforcement officers and better surveillance, so the fact that a drop in crime rates coincides with lifting a weapons ban does not mean that lifting the weapons ban caused the drop in crime rates; more likely, increased enforcement caused it. For a different perspective on crime epidemics, read Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point." (I do not think that Gladwell has a complete analysis either, but he clarifies some of pitfalls in interpreting crime data.)

• eiriamach | Jan 18, 2011, 05:39 AM EST

  If the majority of assault weapon owners do not keep their guns for self-defense, then we're talking about hobbies, which the second amendment was not written to protect. Why not legislate to regulate such ownership? When the benefit to some imposes a burden on others, we have a conflict of rights for the Supreme Court to resolve, and if I recall, the Court did not find the previous ban on assault weapons unconstitutional. I'm not unsympathetic to your argument. For some years I had possession of my great-grandfather's hand-crafted pistol, engraved with Celtic scrolls (even the screw heads) and fitted with a polished wooden handle. The firing pin had long ago been removed, and I would have needed also to fill it with black powder to fire it. But when I compare today's assault weapons with that beautiful artifact, I cannot comprehend a fondness for collecting modern weapons. To outweigh the risks to public safety, I'd need to hear a more compelling reason than marksmanship (a bow and arrow pose greater challenges for marksmen), historians' or investors' interests (they should be collecting non-functional weapons), or hunting (for which real sportsmen use rifles). Yes, I would ask all those gun owners to vote to regulate their hobbies for the greater good (safety and security) of all of us.

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 17, 2011, 11:13 PM EST

  Why do you limit gun owners to such monolithic motivation? Some own guns because they enjoy the challenge of marksmanship just as some enjoy perfecting their ability to run a slalom course. Others enjoy the mechanics of the devices and work to improve the smoothness with which they operate. Some are collectors who enjoy holding a piece of history in their hands and even actually firing it. Some aspire to join the military and serve their country. Some are returning service men and women who may be called back to active duty in the near future and wish to maintain their readiness. Some are investors who wish to put their money into a tangible asset which has an excellent record of appreciation. Some ARE hunters and some hunters choose to use unusual firearms to hunt with such as handguns or assault rifles. One bullet can be as deadly regardless of its source. Some ARE afraid of real and imagined dangers in their environment. If owning a firearm brings them peace of mind, why chastise them for it? As one previous commenter noted, violent crime rates in the US were worse during the ban on assault weapons and have continued to decline after its repeal. All of these side issues wear us out leaving us with less energy to fight the very real problems of domestic and social violence. They also alienate many of the very people that we need to enlist in our struggle for a safer country.

• michaelidaho | Jan 17, 2011, 10:02 PM EST

  "It's not rocket science. You work it out." Actually, strict control laws do not = less crime. Look at the states with the strictest gun control laws and you will see that they also have the highest crime rates. In Boise, Idaho, a city with a population at around 200,000, there is very little gun control. But guess what. In the past decade there were actually some years where they had ZERO murders. I bet you there are plenty of European cities of a comparable size that can not claim the same low murder rate. You see Cahir when you are a blind, ideologue you resort to simple explanations for complex problems.

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 07:55 PM EST

  Besides target practice, what legitimate use does a civilian have for an automatic weapon? It would be seriously unsportsmanlike to use it for hunting. Its only real purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. Felons are not going to break into your home in teams or attack you on the street by the dozens. If the only legitimate use for such weapons is target practice, and the purpose of target practice is learning how to use the weapon effectively, and if the only purpose for using the weapon effectively is to kill as many people as possible--- You see where I'm going with this? A person who thinks that an assault weapon is necessary for self-defense is suffering from a seriously overblown need for security. By contrast, my concern about the tens of millions of assault weapons already in private hands seems rather realistic, I think. I agree with you that we need to work on the underlying problems of mental health and poverty, but we're more likely to make progress on these when owning terminator-type weapons is not the norm. The warrior tribe is just not a mentally-healthy environment.

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 17, 2011, 07:29 PM EST

  As I have said several times, my point is not to mislead ourselves into a false sense of security by placing restrictions on this type of firearm or that type of magazine when the real danger is who has the weapon and what they intend to use it for. It does not even bother me that someone has paid the tax on a fully automatic machinegun and is using it to destroy targets at a legal target range. Unlike a machinegun, when you fire a semi-automatic weapon, a new cartridge is readied for fire each time the trigger is pulled and a round fired until the magazine is empty. A revolver likewise places a new cartridge ready for firing each time one is fired until the cylinder is empty. The method of cycling in the new round is different but the result is the same, another bullet is ready each time you pull the trigger. Revolvers have been used in many of this nations tragic shootings. In the wrong hands semi-automatic weapons and revolvers are equally dangerous. At the Tucson tragedy, one of the men who responded to the shots was carrying a concealed weapon. By the time he got there, the subject was already being subdued and he judisciously chose to keep his weapon holstered. Two men with similar semiautomatic weapons but totally different results because of their mental states. The faults are within ourselves not our guns and can only be successfully corrected by solutions that deal with us and not the guns.

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 06:02 PM EST

  Your owning one handgun does not bother me (I assume you are of age, rational, not addicted, keep the gun away from children, etc.). But the thought of anyone stockpiling assault weapons bothers me a lot. I believe that it infringes on my right to a basic sense of security or what I called "public safety," which is necessary for other forms of freedom. I agree that the ban on high capacity weapons should not have been allowed to lapse. Those who seek out unlawful weapons are usually criminally-minded, and as I said earlier, I accept the fact that there can be a criminal on any street corner in America--that's enough risk, however, for me to tolerate.

• Ajreaper | Jan 17, 2011, 04:52 PM EST

  How does my owning a gun infringe upon any rights you have? A gun is no diffent then a car, a baseball bat or a golf club- none infringe upon anyones rights until they are used inappropriatly. Perhaps we should blame our government which had outlawed the high capacity magazines then allowed the law to lapse but truthfully what has government ever banned or made unlawful that was not available to those who sought it out?

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 04:02 PM EST

  EphraimK, I have no desire to live in a fully armed, warrior-tribe society. No "original intention" reading of the Constitution can make the "intention" of arming civilians with modern combat weapons sound plausible to me. A glance into a history book tells us the fate of all warrior tribes, and I'm sure the founders read history. I'd be ready to immigrate to Finland--or Israel--if I thought the Supreme Court could give that kind of reading to the amendment. Gun ownership in Israel is limited to one handgun for each civilian.

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 02:54 PM EST

  EphraimK, please clarify: are you suggesting that the second amendment protects the right of ordinary citizens--civilians--to amass weapons of the kind used by law enforcement and military? Do we not have officers in law enforcement and military to defend the nation against invasion? What do you plan to have civilians with arsenals defending the nation against?

• olovely | Jan 17, 2011, 02:21 PM EST

  Arizona is the new Mississippi. This is where the focus of the resurgence of right-wing hostility is located.

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 17, 2011, 02:15 PM EST

  Please correct me if I am mistaken but the 2nd amendment is based on the founding father's belief that a free nation required a milita of individuals who were experienced in the use of the latest weapons of their period. To that end, they said that the right to bear arms should in no way be INFRINDGED upon. Were the individuals of today limited to experience with the weapons of 1789, the 1860's, the 1920's or even the 1990's, they would hardly be of value in defence of this country if it faced an enemy equiped with the latest in weaponry. When the government set up the civilian marksmanship program, they recognised that it is easier to train soldiers that already have a background in the use of combat weapons. While we are a strong country and at present the threats are more from financial mismanagement and corruption, it does not mean that dangers do not still exist in the world that require armed service by our citizens. Every Israeli citizen spends two years becoming a competent soldier, familiar with the LATEST weapons not flintlocks, ready to serve their country should the need arise. Gun laws are bandaids that our society tries to place on symtoms of much deeper problems. Just taking pain killers does not treat the cancer that is causing the pain and only allows it to cause more damage to the host and sometimes the pain killers cause new problems with the patient. Limiting the type of weapons available to our citizens to none combat types, by definition, would violate the intention of the 2nd amendment to populate the country with competent soldiers.

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 11:54 AM EST

  Ajreaper, let's assume you are right that "to keep the bulk of guns out of the hands of criminals ... we must infringe upon the rights of" law-abiding citizens. Our legal system is built upon rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens. The right to gun ownership is a benefit to some, but unquestionably a burden to those who die by gunshot: robbery victims, inner-city teens, victims of domestic abuse and assassination, and all their grieving friends and relatives. And such an inordinate toll of killings is a burden to the nation as a whole. I agree that our culture is more gun-oriented than other cultures--but that is just the problem; it helps explain our higher rates of violent death. It must be possible for this culture to become more like Finland's or UK's with regard to guns. Rational adult non-felons should have the right to own handguns, but not to own weapons whose only use is mass slaughter. At that point, gun owners infringe upon our right to public safety. Because "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of our system, we already pay the price of knowing that criminals are among us (known drug dealers, for ex., who can't be convicted for lack of evidence). But knowing that 250,000,000 guns are in mostly private homes is too great a price to pay, too heavy a burden for the nation to bear for the right of some to firearms.

• Ajreaper | Jan 17, 2011, 10:47 AM EST

  The simple fact is in order to keep the bulk of guns out of the hands of criminals (and only those who attempt to purchase guns legally) as well as others who are mentally questionable we must infringe upon the rights of those who can legally purchase guns- there is no way not to. Look at the ruckus raised over security checks at airports. In the U.S. the culture about guns is far different then it is in about any other country in the world so comparing gun deaths in Finland, for example, is way beyond apples and oranges. You know drinking and driving kills and injuries many more people then guns- do we not sell cars or seize those owned by those who have a known or suspected issue with alcohol or drugs? Do dealers do a background check or your bank when you request a loan for a car?

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 10:17 AM EST

  Basically, Ajreaper, I agree with the NY Times editorial that followed the Supreme Court Ruling in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, July 2010: "The court acknowledged, as it did in the District of Columbia case, that the [second] amendment did not confer 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [Justice Alito]' It cited a few examples of what it considered acceptable: limits on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in sensitive places like schools or government buildings, and conditions on gun sales." "Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws—to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials. They should continue to impose background checks, limit bulk gun purchases, regulate dealers, and close gun-show loopholes." But unlike some on the Court, I think that the feds have the constitutional power to ban private sales of all forms of assault weapons, which are designed for military uses.

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 09:16 AM EST

  No, probably the LA gang members do not care about gun laws, but the hands of LA police are tied with regard to gang violence simply because of current lack of gun regulation. The USA is in a unique position, and that position does have much to do with regional interests/polarized politics that other, smaller nations do not face. Yes, I think that the states have responsibility for most of the problems of poverty and crime in the US, and there must be regional considerations brought forward in trying to resolve such problems. But that means that our representatives must resist the power of wealthy NATION-WIDE lobbying organizations like the NRA, whose MONEY greatly overshadows the voting power of moms and dads, however many there are in the inner cities. Our failure to reduce these problems has an demoralizing effect on the nation as a whole. See the religious left law web site for these statistics, which can also be found elsewhere: "The US has well over 250 million guns in private hands according to the National Rifle Association. That is more, according to the BBC, than any country in the world. In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States according to the Brady Campaign."

• Ajreaper | Jan 17, 2011, 08:45 AM EST

  Eiriamach so you are saying there are no programs designed to address poverty and crime in the inner cities of the U.S.? Any "answers" we come up with cannot be one size fits all. Sometimes the the problem is those who govern us try to do that in the interest of being "fair". Should we address our safety concerns exactly the same on both our northern and southern borders or should we recognize there are different issues and specifically address them? If you think the problem is there are far more NRA supporters then mom's and dad's living in large American cities then you need to do a great deal more research. Do you really think the criminals and gangs in LA, for example, care what our gun laws are?

• eiriamach | Jan 17, 2011, 08:10 AM EST

  Just as we saw on "The American Paradox ...," them that have political power do not give much of a dang about them that don't. The USA is a huge piece of geography, with sharply divergent regional interests. It is nearly impossible to get a rural Southerner to care about the inner-city youth who has a 10-times greater chance of dying by violence than rural or suburban children have. The rural guy, steeped in American tradition, wants to teach his sons how to hunt with rifles; the inner-city mom wants drugs, guns, and gang violence off the streets where she's trying to raise her kids. The inner-city mother has common sense, astronomically high urban crime rates to cite, and the power of her one vote; the gun owner has the powerful NRA lobby to support his unencumbered "right" to own guns. And NRA activism has spawned a new breed of delusional people, who keep arsenals of weapons to use against government agents who, they believe, will arrive some day soon to deprive them of all their liberties. There are ways for both the hunter and the inner-city parent to have what they need, but politicians lack the courage to enact the procedures into law, and that's our real problem. Why can't we find a common meeting ground on the problem of gun violence in the USA? Why can't we care enough about each other's problems to enact some safeguards at least?

• Watereskhill | Jan 16, 2011, 11:55 PM EST

  Gun powder was not invented to bring down food in a forest to replace the bow and arrow. But to kill other human beings. The term 'fire-arm' itself evolved from native peoples: The outstretched arm that brought fire and death.

• Monsoonman | Jan 16, 2011, 11:35 PM EST

  Lad, I said serial killer, not cereal killer. Maybe in your land you have a bowl of serial in the morning? In that case, I understand.

• Ajreaper | Jan 16, 2011, 10:35 PM EST

  "Violent crime continued to fall in 2009, even as gun sales reached an all-time high, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes of all types declined in 2009 by 5.3 percent and property crimes declined 4.6 percent. In fact, the rate of violent crime declined 6.1 percent below 2008 figures" Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard concluded, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent." "There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.” Dang reality sucks when it completely contradicts the garbage some people wish to spread.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 16, 2011, 09:06 PM EST

  Mman I hear the cops in Cal. have a roadside test to read one's level of paranoia,best be careful they may take your guns and the f250 ford,but not to worry they'll leave the butterfly net

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 16, 2011, 07:42 PM EST

  Constitutional Rights are abridged regularly in the United States for felons, minors and for those deemed a danger to themselves or others. Children can not buy guns and must be under adult supervision while using them. Murders lose their right to liberty and sometimes life. As my high school social studies teacher put it - a citizen's rights end where the rights of others begin. You do not have the right to deny another their rights. If you kill someone, you lose your right to freedom because you can not be trusted not to deny the right of life to your fellow citizens. Likewise, a delusional person can not be trusted not to deny others that right to life if they exibit violent tendencies. That said, I agree that there are many people who are not yet diagnosed as being mentally ill, just as there are many people who act like children even though they are mature in years. My point is that instead of worrying whether a mentally ill person can buy a gun or if they should be able to purchase an extended magazine, we should be taking the proactive path of treating their illness so that they do not reach the point of destroying themselves and others.

• McGlynn0704 | Jan 16, 2011, 06:37 PM EST

  Why is this topic listed under an "Entertainment" banner on this site? I do not find mass murder "Entertainment".

• sfmicky | Jan 16, 2011, 05:58 PM EST

  If owning a gun is truly a Constitutional right, than how can we take that right away from the mentally unfit. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as others? I'm sure there are plenty of mentally unfit people that own guns. Almost by definition you would have to take guns away from many people who have them. Someone who has to have MULTIPLE handguns to feel safe, lives in irrational fear and probably has mental problems (fetishizing guns might be one of them).

• peterson | Jan 16, 2011, 05:54 PM EST

  Arizona , at one time was THE wild west and then it became civilized. Their new gun law may create a wild west again. People can buy and carry a gun with out knowing anything about the weapon and how to safely carry and use it. Sounds rather stupid.

• Monsoonman | Jan 16, 2011, 05:21 PM EST

  Lad, you know you can always come to me for the answers for all of your questions, I always give you the pure unvarnished truth. A serial killer tried to attack me and a friend in a very remote spot in the california mountains. If I was not armed at the time I would not be here today to enlighten you to the fact that guns are not evil, but some people are...Furthermore automatic weapons are illegal in the U.S., semi automatic weapons are not. But if you pay a 500.00 fee to the feral gummint you can have a fully automatic weapon.

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 16, 2011, 05:02 PM EST

  All the talk about extended magazines and semiautomatic guns addresses, like so often in our society, an attempt to put a bandaid on a severed limb. This person was intent on doing violence because of his mental state. If a gun had not been available, he would have tried to harm someone in some other way. Yes, fewer people would have been harmed but the tragedy is that anyone was harmed and that it could have been prevented. Apparently many people saw his violent tendencies and failed to get him the help he needed. They did not want to get involved or were afraid of the legal ramifications. Decades ago many of our mental health complexes were closed to save taxpayers money and the mentally ill sent to live in group homes where they often stopped taking their medications and wandered off to add to our homeless population. When I was growing up in this country (50's & 60's,) people prided themselves on being taxpayers. They were contributing to the commonwealth and building a better place for their kids. Now its all about the individual, less government and taxcuts. Taxcuts and less government mean fewer policemen, firemen, teachers, mental health providers, food inspectors, highway safety engineers and all the other people who devote everyday of their lives to protecting our communities. Illinois is the only sane state in the nation. They are raising taxes to pay for the needs of the community instead of borrowing against their children's future or cutting essential services. It is time that Americans GET that there is no free lunch. If we aspire to a society free of tragedies like the one in Tucson we must again work together as one people commiting our time, talent, money and care to those around us before ourselves.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 16, 2011, 05:01 PM EST

  Mman you better watch out there is someone around every corner watching you. Do you have a siege mentality or paranoia?

• SCVMal | Jan 16, 2011, 04:51 PM EST

  There are only 2 reasons why an individual would need a mega-cartridge: 1- To kill more people without having to stop to load. 2- To kill police or others trying to stop the carnage. Let's be logical, just, real and ethical, Monsoonman

• Monsoonman | Jan 16, 2011, 02:41 PM EST

  When danger is just seconds away, the po-leece are just minutes away. What's faster? 911 or .45? I know from personal experience what's faster when you are hours away from 911 and are faced with a homicidial maniac. Don't take guns away from the law abiding citizenry.

• saintjames | Jan 16, 2011, 01:48 PM EST

  Living only 50 miles from the Mexican border(in Arizona) and with the ilegals parading by our somewhat rural district -we need to have a gun. Home invasions are common. The gang related -drug business is out of hand. The Bad Guys have guns--no question of that.Notice how the crime rate went up in Australia once guns were banned? I'd rather have a gun and not need it-than to need it and not have it.

• Ajreaper | Jan 16, 2011, 01:34 PM EST

  A noticable mental problem? Christ what medical authority diagnosed him? Our store clerks now doing mental evals? The police officer that stopped him hours before the shooting certainly did not believe he had a "noticable" mental problem. Hey I know what they should sue his parents- clearly this is their fault, they should have known and shipped him off to a mental institution. You don't know a think about Arizona or the people who live here nor do you know a thing about the shooters mental or physical health- in hindsight people NOW say his behavior was odd or off but how many BEFORE the shooting contacted the police to suggest he was a ticking time bomb? Put a sock in it- you write about that which you know nothing about.

• Monsoonman | Jan 16, 2011, 01:16 PM EST

  There is already a law on the books called 1st degree murder, it is illegal to kill another human. Doesn't seem to do much good when someone decides to ignore a law, no matter what it is. I was in Dublin back in the 90's just when the agreement was reached to not use guns to kill and maim each other. I was reading the local rag interviewing an emergency room Doctor saying he wished they would go back to guns, the wounds were far less grievous than the baseball bat inflicted injuries he was getting since the ban on guns. If it's not guns, it will be something else. Read up the history between Cain and Abel, I don't think there was any 9mm ammo. available back then.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 16, 2011, 12:25 PM EST

  According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Arizona's weak gun laws help feed the illegal gun market and allow the sale of guns without background checks. In its 2009 state scorecards released for all 50 states, Arizona received a 2 out of a possible 100, based on several categories including curb firearm trafficking, strengthen Brady Background Checks, child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and guns in public places and local control. As of 2009 Arizona had the second highest rate of crime gun sales.

• macstwo | Jan 16, 2011, 11:54 AM EST

  I read imsok2u's comments and I agree 100%. If it weren't for those local and state police officers serving on the "thin blue line", the yapping crying liberals would probably not exist, they hide behind law enforcement so they can continue their cowardly ways.

• cillowen | Jan 16, 2011, 11:49 AM EST

  inalienable rights for populace whom the majority of which is touched - thanks due to media masters.

• mayoman | Jan 16, 2011, 11:43 AM EST

  Very good article. Unfortunately the NRA and the gun lobbyists will always argue after a tragedy like this that more guns are needed, not less. The perverse reasoning is that the public needs to defend itself against people like Jared Loughner, and thus must be armed as well. This illogic never ends, and it is one reason that there are "loopholes" of the sort that allows guns to be sold at gunshows in Arizona without a backgound check. If we were truly serious about ending the sort of violence we witnessed in Tucson, then loopholes of this kind would simply not exist anywhere in the country. Why do we allow the NRA and the gun-makers to dictate to us how safe or unsafe our society should be?

• imsok2u | Jan 16, 2011, 11:31 AM EST

  When laws are written, they only affect good people. Bad people don't follow the laws, and will always get a gun when they want, no matter how many restrictive laws are written. THe more good people that are able to defend themselves the better off we all are. Why try to leave good people at the mercy of the bad? As a ret. NYPD Sgt., my job would have been alot easier in the 90's if the good upstanding citizens of the Bronx had a level playing field, and weren't at the mercy of drug dealing scum. Long live the 2nd amendment...

• seamusmoore | Jan 16, 2011, 11:00 AM EST

  Read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" for confirmation of AZREDNECK's point that higher gun ownership correlates with less crime.

• olovely | Jan 16, 2011, 10:47 AM EST

  If you actually call yourself an Arizona redneck (azredneck) then it's a safe bet that you think your own point of view is the only one worth paying attention to. But guess what, SB 1070 and the absurd gun laws divide the state and the nation. Europe has gangs and drug dealers, but nothing like the US body count. It's ease of access to increasingly powerful guns that make America such a dangerous society.

• azredneck | Jan 16, 2011, 10:36 AM EST

  The author of this article may be amoung the mentally challenged. I live in Arizona and am perplexed on where the problems the author states exist to this degree. "Arizona is still one of the most divided states in the nation?????" What is this guy smoking? The vast majority of the state are on one side of topics some take issue to such as our SB 1070 and firearm rights. Banning firearms is literally impossible in our country with the existing quantity and more laws only impact the good people that follow the law, not the dirtbags that don't care about the law. Why is a firearm blamed for a horrible tragedy and not the nut case that committed the crime? Shouldn't efforts be made to prevent the nut case that commits the crime in lieu of the an inanimate object that cannot commit a crime without a nutcase? I am a state and federal certified firearm instructor and have a very detailed view of firearm related crime in our state. The fact many choose to overlook is that the highest firearm ownership areas have the lowest crime rates in every single example. What makes Europe unique to our country concerning firearm violence is the unfortunate quantity of bad groups of people we have in the USA such as gangs and drug dealers. If we remove their contribution of violence to our country, our crime rates would be lower than most countries in the world. Just the facts folks!

• hollabackgurl | Jan 16, 2011, 10:26 AM EST

  Jared Loughner didn't cause a massacre with a hand gun, he opened fire with a semi automatic, which automatically reloads. That's a WMD by any measure.

• olovely | Jan 16, 2011, 10:21 AM EST

  You're being awfully literal there in your attempt to discredit the person who's views you don't share, colkelley. Arizona is an "open carry" state, as so many Tea Party rallies reminded us. It's legal there to strap a gun to your leg and parade around and that's the sense I took it in. That holster up you're Wild West mentality is what I object to also. And the author says a semi-automatic is a WMD, not a hand gun, and last weekend's events prove it.

• tburcher | Jan 16, 2011, 10:02 AM EST

  The author needs to check out his facts before making inflammatory statements. The murder rate in the US is 5.6 per 100,000. In Europe, where those nasty 'WMDs' (seriously now, equating a hand gun with WMDs?) are nearly outlawed, it's 5.4 per 100,000. A tenth the number of the US? Hardly.

• colkelley | Jan 16, 2011, 09:54 AM EST

  Once again Cahir O'Doherty provides us ample proof he is a lying idiot. Wal-Mart no longer sells any firearms of any type to anyone. "Noticeable mental problems" which were not "noticeable" to a police officer who stopped him just a short time before the shooting (are you psychic, Cahir?). "Strap it to his thigh" - he had it hidden under a long coat because it is a LARGE pistol and he had a 12" extended magazine (another lie, Cahir). Cahir provides his own definition of "WMD" accepted only by himself and tells yet another outright lie when he says "...even the most mentally unbalanced person can very easily obtain weapon..." when anyone who has been diagnosed or treated for mental illness CANNOT purchase or possess a firearm. Cahir, one of these days you and the truth will occur at the same place and time and the universe will come to an end.