Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Fox 9 News interviews's John Pierce re Arizona gun laws

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

    Fox 9 News interviews's John Pierce re Arizona gun laws


    Gun rights advocates like John Pierce say neither Arizona's loose gun laws nor limiting the number of rounds a gun can carry could have prevented the shooting.

    "This isn't a gun crime... This is a crime by a disturbed individual. Yet again, throwing out warning signs. And nobody picking them up," said Pierce.

  2. #2
    Regular Member WantsToCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Auburn/Lewiston Area Maine
    Pierce gave a good interview. Just like I've said before about banning of high cap mags, it wont stop crime; just law abiding citizens that want to have it for Fun,Just cuz, range shooting, ect ect. (not that a reason is important.
    Last edited by WantsToCarry; 01-12-2011 at 08:32 PM. Reason: Spelling

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Quote Originally Posted by WantsToCarry View Post
    Pierce gave a good interview.

    I think in hindsight an even better tactic would be to omit the information about warning signs being missed.

    Fox even positioned it as though pro-gunners and anti-gunners agreed that preventing nut-jobs from getting guns was a good policy objective. Fox also positioned back-round checks as missing mental problems.

    Trust me on this until you can do your own checking: The very last thing we want is so-called mental health professionals getting involved. That profession is rife with psuedo-scientific nonsense, and it is far too easy for a mental stealth professional to just say "no" than risk professional reputation and financial liability by saying "yes" and getting it wrong.

    Insane individuals are a part of life on planet Earth. There is no way to predict whether a borderline non-institutional case is going to start shooting until he makes a credible threat, which is something that is already illegal and actionable.

    Weird people and creepy people deserve to be able to defend themselves. Also, who decides what is "too weird" or "too creepy"? Or, "too unbalanced"? And, what about all the weird people, or creepy people, or unbalanced people who don't shoot anybody?

    The real question is whether government should have the authority to intervene in the first place. Not whether unbalanced people, creepy people, or weird people should be prevented.

    It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that government cannot be trusted to protect rights. I conclude the only thing that should be done is prosecution of a crime, not another fallacious prior restraint that doesn't work. Such only serves to give government more power to move the line further later.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-12-2011 at 09:26 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Colorado Springs. CO
    The individual who committed these murders is just one more of the many thousands of murderers among us who have no hesitation when it comes to acting-out their thoughtless, sociopathic violent cruelty. This incident of mass murder took 6 lives - and almost ended 14 more -all at once- in a matter of seconds. We recognize that notorious "serial killers" are not rare. The difference here is that this "serial killer" acted out in just a matter of seconds , while usually their crimes occur over weeks,months, or even years - but the victims still add up - well into the double digits.

    Murderers can be cunning, shrewd, and disarming. I suspect this murderer did his best to conceal his intent on Saturday morning - right up until he acted. Do we really think he would not have been able to conceal his evil propensities from detection during a 15 minute appointment with a psychologist ? He apparently satisfied the Sheriff's Office that he did not pose any serious threat to public safety.

    Evil is Evil. That's WHY it is called Evil - kind of an all encompassing term used to explain otherwise unfathomable, and inexplicable acts of cruelty that are all to common place in this world.

    The only sure defense against such evil is to be constantly aware of its existence, be on the look-out for any manifestation of its presence, and have a strategy for thwarting its aims. We would all like to live in another , more peaceful and loving "world" where this sort of madness doesn't exist, but we must try to survive - for the present - in this REAL world. When we choose to live in wishful denial that such evil is present in our society , we will consistently be caught off guard and suffer tragic consequences. This incident captured the attention of a nation, but how many other innocents throughout this nation have needlessly fallen prey to murderers since Saturday morning with hardly any national attention given to their tragedies ?

    This form of terrorism should not be unexpected, although I expected the profile of the terrorist(s) would be that of a Muslim Jihadists type. Regardless, this was an act of terrorism directed at the electorate while engaged in political discourse. The result is the same "top-down" (Rep Peter King) , "bottom-up" (the act of an anarchist- terrorist), followed by the "inside-out" knee-jerk impulse for Nanny McGov to "protect us from guns !" - when it is our responsibility to protect ourselves - with guns when necessary.

    We need to say NO ! - to such acts of terror, and NO ! -to being bunkered-down inside Congressman Peter King's vision of a (New York style) 1,000 foot Gun-free political zone, where "the police will have more power....." - as if they need more power.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 01-13-2011 at 12:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts