Well, I guess I have to keep an open mind on this one. I certainly believe that supporters of anti-gay legislation are often deeply closeted, simply because there have been so many cases where Republican law makers have been caught with their willys out in same sex situations. So, it’s not totally unreasonable to believe that anti-gun people are also projecting their own flaws, although I think I’d have to see more than one instance of gun control advocates losing it and firing away before I’m willing to leap to the same conclusion as the author here.
But…the thing here is that time and time again we have seen that people with poor impulse control are going to reach for guns if they’re available and here’s another example. So how do you weed them out? Self-selection?
“Are you in favor of gun control? Yes? Well, then you can’t have a gun.”
Obviously not a 100% foolproof method.
So aside from basking in schadenfreude, I’m not sure the author of the article is making the point that he was hoping to. It’s really more like “Hey, here’s an instance of a man who advocated for gun control and hey, he was right, cause people be crazy.” No shotgun available? He’d likely be in a whole heap less trouble.
Sure, not everyone has anger management issues. But clearly, some people do, and it only takes a few angry people with guns to cause a lot of trouble. Maybe we could restrict guns only for those people who have anger management issues… except that the NRA goes crazy whenever anyone proposes requiring background checks.
The story references a shotgun. Aside from maybe a tubular magazine limit that would have slowed but not prevented him from firing, I bet we end up seeing it essentially is a weapon he could have gotten for hunting in such rabidly pro-gun places as the United Kingdom. Maybe he’s a hunter but opposes all the hot button issues that get him painted as anti-gun. Deer hunting is more than moderately popular in his state.
The Detroit Newsis saying that it was a rifle and that there’s a whole lot of he said/she said going on. The reporter says that State Sen. Virgil Smith has said that he did it, but later in the article a police spokesman says “We do know there were shots fired,” . . . “However, I cannot and will not say they were fired by the senator.”
If they got the number of bullet holes in the car right, there was a lot of shooting. “Evidence technicians later found three suspected bullet holes in the vehicle’s hood; two in the driver’s side headlight; two in the driver’s side front fender; and one each in the driver’s side door, windshield, and rear driver’s door pillar, the report said.” That’s ten all told.
According to the Detroit Free Press, Democrats are calling on him to resign. Aleast one Republican is saying it’s a matter for the police and too early to be thinking of disciplinary action. Progress Michigan (group “holding public officials accountable”) is calling for him to resign “If allegations against him are true.” That sounds like someone called them for a quote.
The News Herald says it happened on Mother’s Day, but the other papers are saying it started after 1 A.M., so he may be in the clear, there.
Pro-gun currently Democrat here with all the related biases. There are two different groups of anti-gun Democrats in my experience. One are quite sincere in wanting private firearms ownership either ended or drastically curtailed across the board; no exceptions and no loopholes. I don’t feel that way but I have a certain respect for it.
There is another group however and this could very well be an example of that type. Those feel that (insert the name of your favorite group here be it racial, financial or political) should not have access to firearms but the right kind of people should and always will. There I have no respect.
Which is the majority within the DNC and the party as a whole right now? I’m not so sure. Which is one of the many reasons I’m rethinking my registration (voter) and political support.
Now the news is calling it an assault rifle, and a witness reported hearing around 20-30 shots, which I’m pretty sure means an extended clip, unless our boy had the presence of mind to bring spare ammo.
So, he’s an anti-gun Democrat who owns an assault rife :dubious:
From their graph, I see about 11,000 homicides per year involving guns, and about 600 accidental deaths per year involving guns.
This page lists about 21,000 suicides involving guns.
So strictly speaking, ElvisL1ves is correct: there are over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the US, although the relevance of suicides to this discussion is debatable.
No, I don’t have to accept that. There are many things I don’t see “happening” (:rolleyes:) to me.
If you see yourself as having that little self-control, then it probably is wise for you not to own any guns. You probably ought to stay away from women and kids, too, as you are probably a whim away from being a rapist or molester. You probably shouldn’t own any pets, either, as you could have a bad day at work and come home and torture them all to death. Your lack of self-control is good justification for you restricting yourself, but it is no reason to restrict me.
Yet. Many others have thought that way too, right up until they found out otherwise.
Not so much me, since I choose not to have lethal means of acting. I have to wonder about YOUR self-control, though, and that of many others you see in the news pretty much every day. I recognize that I’m human, and that you are too. Do you?
