Mark Kelly talks about his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, on Piers Morgan tonight. He says

his wife owns a gun. But she sees a need for some restrictions.

Personally, I see no need to own one. But I hope that any sensible gun owner would see that the shooter in the Gabrielle Giffords incident should not have been able to get one.

Among the reasons for the huge disconnect in the entire gun thing, is that on one side are people like me, who don't own guns, who see no need for one. On the other side there are those who own guns and who think gun ownership is entirely reasonable. And also, there are those who hunt. I happen to have a co-worker who every year hunts, usually brings down an elk which they consume. While that is totally foreign to me, I choose to view it as I do from the viewpoint of someone who crochets but has friends who knit. We do somewhat different things with the yarn, but we aren't enemies.

I choose not to hunt. But I eat meat. The meat I eat isn't obtained by hunting, but it's still meat.

I don't think I need a gun to defend my home. Others thing they need one. Both sides need to see that the other is completely reasonable, and probably does not need to change.

We can all agree on that.

Now, what rules need to be in place to keep that from happening, while not infringing on the rights of the sane and responsible?

In this nation, we generally prefer to stay on the side of liberty and freedom, while aknowledging that some people will abuse this. So far, it beats the alternatives.

and if there are more restrictions, when will we hear the "guns are unregulated" meme again?

it was a failure of those around him getting him help or notifying the police. In Canada and Europe, he would still could have legally got a gun because those around him failed to inform police and mental health services.

Hence the problem with keeping people like Loughtner away from guns.


This problem can be applied generally to the entire population. That teacher? Yeah, he's a pedophile, only nobody except him and his victims know it. That clerk? Yeah, he's part of a gang that cases and robs stores, only he's never been arrested. That valet? Yeah, he's part of a car-theft ring, but he's never been suspected.


People without criminal records are either honest, lucky, or smart.

if there is a failure it would appear to start with his mother. She worked for the Sheriff's department. His run-ins with the law were minimized. His bizarre behavior overlooked.

No one who came out of the woodwork after the shooting, even those who were ready to proclaim to any open microphone that as soon as they heard the news on their car radio, they thought, "it must be Jared," did anything.

No one tried to have him evaluated, committed, examined or anything. That he was a habitual user of dope is pretty clear. That he showed up for an Army physical, having been told long enough in advance that he would undergo drug testing and HE still pissed hot for dope.

Seems like all of those persons, without the benefit of hindsight, did not think he was crazy enough to do a single thing about it. Nothing, zero!

And perjured himself on the 4473 when he lied about not being an unlawful drug user.

One can primarily lay the blame for that, at the feet of the parents.

1. He lived under their roof, dependent upon them for money.
2. He acquired enough money from them, and drug dealing, to acquire two very expensive weapons.
3. The parents knew he was kicked out of college as a danger to the school.
4. The parents knew all about his mental health issues.


All it would have taken, in that state, is 48 hours of involuntary committal to a mental health facility, via a judge, or the parents, and he would never have been able to buy those guns, in any state.

I'd not have sold him one based on his looks. He just LOOKS crazy to me. But what do I know. ;)

In the mean time, I found the following quote, I forget where I found it, but it certainly sounds plausible to me. :)

An unarmed person speaking of the benefits of gun control is like a eunuch speaking about the benefits of sexual abstinence.

I have read quite a few of your posts on other gun fora and I think you'll be a welcome addition here

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So we shouldn't give an inch because they'll just want to carry everywhere, carry almost anything, carry them openly with one concealed, etc. Then, they'll want legislation that allows them to shoot an unarmed burglar in the back who is fleeing. God knows what more they'll want next to satisfy their cravings.

support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I believe that a majority of gun owners feel as I do.

I have not heard the other side define reasonable or sane restrictions very often.

BUT, they need a solid definition of "reasonable".... who gets to do that? As noted earlier , the devil is in the details. I do agree that the dude who shot Giffords should never have had a weapon of any sort say nothing of a gun, and agree that the failure is mainly in people around him who knew him and knew he had a gun did nothing to stop this tragedy from occurring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alj9MLQB0Gw

Gabrielle Gifford's husband, Mark Kelly, says a couple of things including that they haven't talked much about gun control legislation and he doesn't think her position has changed much including her support for the right to own and bear arms with restrictions.

Most gun owners see the need for some restrictions.

I respect Mark Kelly as a spokesperson for his wife, but let's let Gabrielle Giffords speak for herself on this and other political issues.

I think it's fair for him to have a voice as well, granted he was not shot, but having your wife shot is a life changing event for him as well.

I sense that some people would like to spin his words to suit their agendas on guns (both sides) and I think we should just wait for Giffords to address this issue herself.

A point worth considering is the fact that, as you noted, a spouse has suffered a life changing event. With 110,215 people shot & killed in the US in 2008 there are likely as many as 500,000 children, parents, siblings, good friends as well as spouses who have been subjected to a life changing event.


http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

the number killed is about ten percent of that.

110,215 people shot & killed in the US in 2008 includes both the number of people who suffered Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries (78,622 or 71% ) and Firearm Deaths (31,593 or 29%) according to WISQARS . http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

55 percent were suicides, which would have happened anyway.