Brain doctor takes AR-15 to airport to buy coffee.
Face it, you knew it was in Arizona even before you hovered over the link.
Do click the story to see the “researcher’s” peculiar smirk. (steronz beat me to the story by 5 days, but I’d already typed all this in before noticing. 
)
[QUOTE=Reuters]
An Arizona medical researcher arrested after taking a loaded assault rifle into the Phoenix airport said on Monday he was making a political statement and did not intend to harm anyone.
Authorities said Peter Nathan Steinmetz pointed the weapon at a terrified woman and her daughter on July 25, after striding around Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport with the weapon slung over his shoulder.
On Monday, Steinmetz spoke publicly about the incident for the first time.
“Put simply, I decided to make the point that a peaceful citizen can openly and responsibly carry a firearm - including an AR-15 - for the protection of themselves and their community,” Steinmetz said in a statement read to reporters.He maintained that he was not pointing the gun at anyone at the airport and is “an educated and responsible gun owner” who had the safety on at the time.
[/QUOTE]
Gun nuts are beyond stupid. They don’t even pretend to have comprehensible positions. The Brickhead bragged about his (“need” for a) concealed carry license, then admits the license was just for a loophole to let him buy an N+1’th gun. Another Doper couldn’t civilly explain his “need” for a silencer. I guess their leader, C. Heston, couldn’t decide whether it was the Second Commandment with no context, or “ethnic diversity” that made America’s need for guns so special.
Now that Heston’s dead, I guess G. Zimmerman (or the jerks who “needed” assault rifles in a restaurant) is their new idol, though they hem-haw to deny it.
Google to learn why intelligent Americans who have their brain miswired enough to let fear dominate their thinking, also tend to have such stupid ideas on economics, homosexuality, etc.
ETA: Despite the title, I understand GOP and Gun Nuts are not the same set. Still, observation of the BrickHead idiocies, etc. suggests strong correlation.)
I haven’t been in this thread much, so my apologies if these have already been covered.
Four guys are sitting around an apartment drinking. One gets a pistol, points it at his roommate, and asks “do you trust me?” The best answer would have been “No,” because the guy with the gun then shot the other guy in the torso, killing him. According to the article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
The police found other guns in Wildharber’s bedroom.
In a separate story, a suburban St. Louis woman was sentenced yesterday to seven years for involuntary manslaughter in the June shooting death of her boyfriend. From the Post Dispatch article:
The parents of the deceased said their son had aspired to be a gunsmith. In his obituary, they asked for donations in his memory to “the N.R.A. or any gun rights organization”
It’s time for this country to get tough on youth crime. For example here’s a 7 year old who shot his 8 year old cousin in the face “accidentally”.
The parents of the 8-year old were remiss in not arming him. The he would have been able to “stand his ground.”
(Watch out. The gun nuts are almost imbecilic enough to identify the problem thusly.)
From the Kansas Historical Society site Kansas in 1876 - Kansas Historical Society :
Huh. Well, bullets sure are a lot faster now.
Sheriff Deputy Shoots Daughter, Mistakes Her For A Burglar
Of course, this might never have happened if he was just an ordinary civilian without firearms training.
I’ve hardly held a gun, except for rare target practice, and have sincere questions about proper behavior. Should the homeowner, whether sheriff deputy or not, have issued a verbal challenge or something first? He could hardly be sure he was in a “self-defense” situation. Is he justified in shooting to kill if there’s a 1% chance he’s about to be shot? 0.01% chance? (I realize he won’t have time to weight the odds, but is there a “rule of [del]thumb[/del] trigger-finger” ? )
This is what I wonder. It seems to me that way too many people, including police, have a shoot first, ask questions later attitude. This attitude is much more concerning to me than the prevalence of guns.
Just made an account here to clear one thing up.
There is no evidence of any of the household guns in the Kellermann et al study being the same ones used in the homicides.
In fact:
http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/5/1/64.short
In short the original study didn’t bother to determine if any of the guns were the same ones used in the killings, in a subsequent study by Kellermann in 1998 he looked at 438 assaults and homicides occuring in the home, the vast majority were committed with household guns that the perp brought into the household. Not a gun kept in the household.
This study should no longer be cited critically.
Holy shit. What a loon. I’d feel safer if this asshole was locked up for the rest of his life. Or at least for the rest of my life.
The story to which you link says that the lunatic was arrested in an earlier incident in which he went to the airport with a loaded gun.
Here’s the truly insane part:
From the story:
He lets his kid carry a gun. A real gun.
You know what? I used to be kind of open-minded about the gun issue, but now I think it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. No more arguments about what it means or what it permits or what state laws should allow or not allow, or who should be able to carry a concealed gun or an openly displayed gun.
Let’s just repeal the fucking amendment. Or amend it. Let people have their hunting weapons and shotguns, and carry them when they’re hunting. And that’s all. No handguns, no walking around streets and airports scaring the shit out of children, no more.
Let’s be done with it.
Just copy paste Canadian laws which are perfect.
Require licensing, training and safe storage. This creates accountability. Gun culture is by far the biggest problem.
Lots of guns up here but people respect them far more. It is possible to have lots of guns and little crime committed with them, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, Switzerland, and Austria being good examples. 
You people don’t realize how important guns are to protect against home invasion. For example here is a 63 year grandmother who critically injured an intruder she thought broke into her home:
Minor point–it turned out to be her 7 year old grandson.
Sounds good, but I really wish it would be mandated as a consequence of owning guns, not as a prerequisite. The big difference in the US is the presumption that possessing weapons is a fundamental right that can only be compromised for narrow and specific purposes. Or as one pro-gun bumper sticker puts it: “Free men don’t ask permission to bear arms”.
In the narrow sense that a lot of people really don’t want to give up owning guns, and that makes it hard to ban them. People look at gun crime statistics and think that if only you could just get rid of guns, that would solve the problem. The flaw in that is that there are really two gun cultures in the US: the middle-class one and the lower-class one. Gun crime and violence is not randomly distributed throughout the population. The middle class has relatively little problem with guns, while the misuse of firearms is concentrated in the poor, minorities, habitual criminals and chemically dependent people. Yet since as long as guns are legal the dysfunctional will misuse them, gun control advocates go after the low-hanging fruit of the law-abiding. This is like Prohibitionists saying nobody can have a drink since as long as alcohol was legal there would be skid-row bums passed out in the gutter. The law-abiding and responsible HATE being held collectively guilty along with the worst of society.
And by every statistic, the US has more non-gun crime, violence, and other social problems than those countries. My home state of Minnesota has a gun crime rate comparable to Canada’s, despite firearms being easier to obtain. If Minnesota and other low-crime states could secede from the US, we’d be oasis’s of peace, while the worst states would look more like Columbia.
Blame it on the anti-gun liberals. In a sane world the 7-year old would be armed and could have stood his ground.
Many Americans would applaud cops’ decision to kill a black man holding a toy gun, but he should have been armed with a real gun.
In Tulsa, an unarmed teenager is shot for the crime of dating a white cop’s daughter while Black. Even if that’s a capital felony, he deserved a formal lynch mob rather than a drive-by killing. If he’d been armed he could have shot the father preemptively.
More and more news stories like this, but the trend is clear. America obviously needs more guns.
Forget to mention cops in your list?
Here’s a 3 year old boy who found a gun and shot himself in the head–and is in critical condition:
You might think the father would be distraught with grief, a constant vigil at the hospital.
You would be wrong: the father ran off with the gun.
Yes, you can always trust a trained law enforcement officer to use his gun responsibly. That must be why Georgia restored this one’sgun rights after using his to sodomize a woman who had called in a domestic assault by her husband.
Isn’t it great that 9 year old girls can find a place to fire automatic weapons? I mean, how fun is that?
And I’m sure that nothing bad would happen. A 9 year old is plenty strong and experienced enough to handle the recoil from such a weapon.
I really wish she’d taken out her parents as well, who were no doubt proudly watching their baby girl get her Rambo on.
I mean WTF!!!
Can someone explain how a recoiling gun can kill someone? I can’t picture what happened.