You could say a lot of things about the words of former Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, the lead sponsor of SB 1070, the ol' "get ridda the browns" law.
The shooter was wearing body armor, and a gasmask, and had a fucking AR-15. Anybody that fired a handgun would be dead (haha) obvious from the muzzle flash, and shot shortly thereafter, so they'd have little chance to add to the casualties.
You say that as if you think the Chamber of Commerce exists primarily to promote the interests of a broad spectrum of businesses in this country, and not first and foremost to promote the Republican Party.
I think the <a href="http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/health_and_science\/human_nature\/2011\/01\/friendly_firearms.html" target="_blank">guy</a> the gun nuts held up as an example of why they were right in the Giffords shooting is actually a fairly comprehensive case study in why they&#039;re completely and utterly wrong:
He was in the drug store when he heard the first shot, ran into the scene with his safety clicked off, saw the actual hero who&#039;d disarmed Loughner, decided not to draw and shoot because he didn&#039;t want to be mistaken for a second gunman (wise choice) and instead tackled the good guy, wrestling him against a wall. With a gun with the safety off in his jacket pocket, where an accidental discharge would almost certainly have injured one of them.
The only difference his gun made in the end was it was a factor in his running into the scene. His presence there really didn&#039;t do anything good - the gunman was already being subdued, but he set that effort back. Had he fired his weapon at the person he was considering firing at, it would have been at least one more innocent victim. Worst case, it would&#039;ve allowed Loughner to regain his weapon and continue the attack. Everyone involved was basically highly lucky that he had enough awareness of the dangers of gun use in that situation <em>not to use his gun</em>.
To mix national metaphors, the yarn he&#039;s spinning <em>is</em> a load of bollocks, so yes, I&#039;d say you&#039;re about right.
But sex == ebil!
Homer libel!
&quot;Now, watch this shot...&quot;
Oh, there you go again, thinking rationally. [The GOP has no use for your kind.]
No, an old hermit. <a href="http://www.netglimse.com/ce..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/peter_noone...">http://www.netglimse.com/ce...
Jesus. I can guess what the father&#039;s &quot;unspecified medical issue&quot; following that was.
Now, there&#039;s a point.
As I mentioned a few posts back, nope.
The shooter was wearing body armor, and a gasmask, and had a fucking AR-15. Anybody that fired a handgun would be dead (haha) obvious from the muzzle flash, and shot shortly thereafter, so they&#039;d have little chance to add to the casualties.
This is the clarity of thought we need in this debate.
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Okay, I should google it, but wasn&#039;t that a hook in &quot;Blood Work&quot;?
If only we could fit that on a bumper sticker.
You say that as if you think the Chamber of Commerce exists primarily to promote the interests of a broad spectrum of businesses in this country, and not first and foremost to promote the Republican Party.
Why would anyone want to live in a country where you must bring a weapon to go to the movies?
I think the <a href="http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/health_and_science\/human_nature\/2011\/01\/friendly_firearms.html" target="_blank">guy</a> the gun nuts held up as an example of why they were right in the Giffords shooting is actually a fairly comprehensive case study in why they&#039;re completely and utterly wrong:
He was in the drug store when he heard the first shot, ran into the scene with his safety clicked off, saw the actual hero who&#039;d disarmed Loughner, decided not to draw and shoot because he didn&#039;t want to be mistaken for a second gunman (wise choice) and instead tackled the good guy, wrestling him against a wall. With a gun with the safety off in his jacket pocket, where an accidental discharge would almost certainly have injured one of them.
The only difference his gun made in the end was it was a factor in his running into the scene. His presence there really didn&#039;t do anything good - the gunman was already being subdued, but he set that effort back. Had he fired his weapon at the person he was considering firing at, it would have been at least one more innocent victim. Worst case, it would&#039;ve allowed Loughner to regain his weapon and continue the attack. Everyone involved was basically highly lucky that he had enough awareness of the dangers of gun use in that situation <em>not to use his gun</em>.
To mix national metaphors, the yarn he&#039;s spinning <em>is</em> a load of bollocks, so yes, I&#039;d say you&#039;re about right.