Arizona Senator brings gun to senate, points it at reporter to demo laser sight

[CptStern]

only in america ..or perhaps afghanistan, iraq, sierra leon, somalia etc

An Arizona state senator’s handling of her gun is drawing criticism from a fellow lawmaker.

An Arizona Republic story about Anthem Republican Lori Klein’s carrying of a gun in her purse while at the Legislature said she showed off its laser sighting by pointing it at a reporter interviewing her in the Senate lounge.

According to Klein, the gun has no safety but there was no danger because she didn’t have her hand on the trigger.

http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_986b307a-ac13-11e0-86a3-001cc4c03286.html

Democratic Sen. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix said Klein’s handling of the gun was unsafe and that it was unconscionable for her to knowingly aim a loaded gun at someone.

He called for an ethics inquiry and said lawmakers should be prohibited from taking guns into the Senate.

jesus ****ing christ ya think?

 

[ríomhaire]

The only time a gun is safe is when there are no bullets in it.

 

[Vegeta897]

First rule of gun safety...

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

 

[Smoke]

I can still beat you to death with a gun that is empty of bullets.

 

[lord_raken]

NEVER point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy or kill! Its people like her who give gun owners a bad name. She should know better!

 

[CptStern]

gun was loaded

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ng_loaded_gun_at_journalis.html#ixzz1Ru8tmdVu

 

[Krynn72]

Bringing a gun to the senate house is retarded. Bringing a gun that doesn't have a safety to the senate house is pants on head retarded. Pointing said gun at someone while its loaded should be a criminal offense.

 

[Stigmata]

Depending on the public's reaction over the next few days, this could be an accidental test of complacency towards the presence of armed government forces in metro areas. :V

 

[CptStern]

"Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, as she unzipped the loaded Ruger from its carrying case to show a reporter and photographer.

hot pink instrument of death

americans are retarded when it comes to guns

 

[unozero]

What gun did she have?
They're are very few guns without a safety iirc.


edit:Stern stfu

 

[CptStern]

it's this gun

and I wouldnt expect you to understand as you're one of the retards

 

[lord_raken]

americans are retarded when it comes to guns

I might have agreed with you were it not for the sizable majority of gun owners who are very smart about guns and gun safety.

Edit: I literally face-palmed when I saw the gun. Its a WEAPON not an accessory! You dumb bitch!

on top of that, that type of gun is nearly useless. Its accuracy it crap, the small frame makes it hard to control, and the .380 cartridge is essentially a neutered 9mm (which has a deficit in power to begin with).

 

[CptStern]

gun advocates always try to reassure people of that but then there are example like this one that says otherwise. a senator no less, in a government office pointing a gun at a member of the press during a freakin interview on gun laws no less

in any event that's not really what I meant. what I meant is that americans are retarded when it comes to guns because for the most part they seem to completely overlook the dangers of allowing pretty much anyone with a pulse the right to own a gun in the name of some ideal that may or may not even apply to modern americans.

 

[Mogi67]

What gun did she have?
They're are very few guns without a safety iirc.


edit:Stern stfu

your a ****in idiot. it doesn't matter if there was a safety. you don't point a loaded gun at someone, and you don't whip out a piece in the middle of the ****in senate floor.

 

[A2597]

gun advocates always try to reassure people of that but then there are example like this one that says otherwise. a senator no less, in a government office pointing a gun at a member of the press during a freakin interview on gun laws no less

in any event that's not really what I meant. what I meant is that americans are retarded when it comes to guns because for the most part they seem to completely overlook the dangers of allowing pretty much anyone with a pulse the right to own a gun in the name of some ideal that may or may not even apply to modern americans.

I know many people who own guns. From family, to friends.
None of them would even *think* of pointing an UNLOADED gun at someone. It's just plain not done.

 

[Krynn72]

your a ****in idiot. it doesn't matter if there was a safety. you don't point a loaded gun at someone, and you don't whip out a piece in the middle of the ****in senate floor.

I'm all for Unozero bashing, but come on. You're name calling just because you imagined him saying something that he very clearly didn't say. Being curious as to what gun doesn't have a safety is not even remotely suggestive that Uno condones the action of bringing it to the senate and pointing it at someone. I was curious as to what gun it was too, and googled it to see if it was true, because I couldn't imagine what kind of pistol would have rails to attach a laser sight, yet lack a safety. Its a very odd gun.

on top of that, that type of gun is nearly useless. Its accuracy it crap, the small frame makes it hard to control, and the .380 cartridge is essentially a neutered 9mm (which has a deficit in power to begin with).

I love how people say shit like this. As if you need a high caliber firearm to kill a lightly armed (if armed at all) person in plain clothes at extremely close range. A shitty gun with a .380 is more than enough for anybody to "protect themselves" in muggings/holdups/break-ins/law-makings/etc.

 

[Vegeta897]

americans are retarded when it comes to guns

Yeah the actions of this dumb woman who bought the gun for nothing more than accessory value is totally a valid reason to say all americans are dumb with guns.

 

[unozero]

your a ****in idiot. it doesn't matter if there was a safety. you don't point a loaded gun at someone, and you don't whip out a piece in the middle of the ****in senate floor.

Where did I say it was okay for her tp point the gun at him?
I was wondering what gun it was.
You ****ing idiot.

 

[lord_raken]

I love how people say shit like this. As if you need a high caliber firearm to kill a lightly armed (if armed at all) person in plain clothes at extremely close range. A shitty gun with a .380 is more than enough for anybody to "protect themselves" in muggings/holdups/break-ins/law-makings/etc.

I never said it wasn't capable of killing, I said it was a crappy gun. I cited poor accuracy and difficulty of control as well as criticizing the .380. A 22 is one of the most dangerous rounds out there but it won't drop an attacker very quickly. The point of a defense handgun is to stop your attacker and the more powerful the round you use the more likely that will happen. A 9mm with glazer rounds will drop almost anyone.

If you can fit a .380 gun on your person you can conceal a 9mm subcompact. There is no real reason to buy a .380.

 

[CptStern]

I know many people who own guns. From family, to friends.
None of them would even *think* of pointing an UNLOADED gun at someone. It's just plain not done.

a loaded gun is ok?

If you can fit a .380 gun on your person you can conceal a 9mm subcompact. There is no real reason to buy a .380.

but it's cute. that seems to be her motivation

 

[Krynn72]

I never said it wasn't capable of killing,

on top of that, that type of gun is nearly useless.

So nearly useless = capable of killing. So what the **** is a useful gun? Do other guns mow your lawn for you or something?

The gun will kill or incapacitate somebody. THATS ALL YOU NEED. You don't need a gun that can blow a 6 inch hole in someones chest just in the name of self defense. The whole "this other gun will 'drop them' quicker" is just a load of horseshit, internet-based fantasy. Show me some real statistics you have that shows that hits from a .380 doesn't do the trick in stopping an attack, whereas hits from a 9mm in the same spots do. I bet you can't, because your information comes from rumor, just like all the other gun fetishists on the internet.

In a real world, self defense situation, it wont ****ing matter if your gun is .380 or 9mm.

 

[ríomhaire]

Wait. Wait. Wait. This woman hasn't been arrested yet? What the flying **** America?

 

[lord_raken]

So nearly useless = capable of killing. So what the **** is a useful gun? Do other guns mow your lawn for you or something?

The gun will kill or incapacitate somebody. THATS ALL YOU NEED. You don't need a gun that can blow a 6 inch hole in someones chest just in the name of self defense. The whole "this other gun will 'drop them' quicker" is just a load of horseshit, internet-based fantasy. Show me some real statistics you have that shows that hits from a .380 doesn't do the trick in stopping an attack, whereas hits from a 9mm in the same spots do. I bet you can't, because your information comes from rumor, just like all the other gun fetishists on the internet.

In a real world, self defense situation, it wont ****ing matter if your gun is .380 or 9mm.

Way to take those two parts out of context to make them look like a contradiction. Let me put it in simpler terms. 9mm hits harder than the .380, the rounds are similar in size and there is not significant difference between the guns that shoot them.

Check out these two guns

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p238-two-tone.aspx

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p290-two-tone.aspx

The 9mm even has the longer barrel.

and here is a link demonstrating why the 9mm is better

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aast9mmv380a.htm

Overall, the 9mm provides a 40 percent greater wounding effectiveness (based on wound channel surface area) than does the 380. When equivalent bullet designs in the two cartridges are compared directly, the distinction is obvious. The 380 is simply not in the same performance class as the 9mm, even though the subjective experience of firing the two pistols is very much the same.

A 40% difference in wounding capability, sounds like a big difference to me.

This article was originally published in Shooting Times magazine.

The guns are much the same

They shoot the same

The 9mm is more effective

There is no rational reason to get a .380.

 

[ríomhaire]

Why the hell do you need a more effective gun? Are you going hunting to kill people?

 

[Stigmata]

A 9mm round has an average wound volume of 2.35 square inches, but a .380 only has a wound volume of 1.31? I don't know about you, but to me, that 1.31 looks a lot like a 0.

:|

 

[lord_raken]

Why the hell do you need a more effective gun? Are you going hunting to kill people?

No. When you use a gun in self defense, you use it to kill. The goal is to destroy the person attacking you, and for that you want the most effective weapon that is practical for concealed carry. When comparing the .380 to the 9mm the 9mm is the most effective and practical. You could use a 22 if you wanted but it wouldn't stop the attacker (he'd die latter in some back ally after killing you and running away).

You could make arguments about how just pulling a gun can be enough, and it might, but if you pull it you'd better be ready to use it and if you use it you want to be sure it will do the
job.

A 9mm round has an average wound volume of 2.35 square inches, but a .380 only has a wound volume of 1.31? I don't know about you, but to me, that 1.31 looks a lot like a 0.

:|

Interesting piece of information. Thanks.

 

[ríomhaire]

No. When you use a gun in self defense, you use it to kill.

A) No you don't. You just need to prevent the person from attacking you any longer. None fatally shooting them would tend to do that to most people.
B) Are you telling me that if you unloaded that gun into someone's chest it wouldn't kill them?

 

[Stigmata]

This isn't videogames, raken. If you get shot with a .22, it doesn't mean you get to limp around with unimpeded accuracy until the instant you finish bleeding out.

 

[Calhoun]

No. When you use a gun in self defense, you use it to kill.

Not when you wound someone, you aren't. When someone is wounded, they can still attack you. When you kill them, they cannot. Would a .380 going through his brain or his heart leave him any less dead than a 9mm? You would really try to shoot your attacker in the arm, or the stomach, or the leg but not the chest?

 

[lord_raken]

A) No you don't. You just need to prevent the person from attacking you any longer. None fatally shooting them would tend to do that to most people.
B) Are you telling me that if you unloaded that gun into someone's chest it wouldn't kill them?

A) A gun is not a tazzer of pepper spray. It is not a deterrent. It is a lethal weapon designed to kill and if you pull it out in self defense you'd better be ready to kill another human being. If you shoot someone you shoot to kill, weather or not they survive is up to a number of factors but that does not change the fact that you tried to kill them. If you are looking to use measured and minimal force to stop an attack, use pepper spray. A gun is meant to kill.

B) That's not what I'm saying. the 9mm will do a better job of stopping the attacker. The 9mm has a better chance of stopping the attacker with one shot than the .380. Even then they may survive, but they will stop.

This isn't videogames, raken. If you get shot with a .22, it doesn't mean you get to limp around with unimpeded accuracy until the instant you finish bleeding out.

It took Ronald Reagan several minutes to even realize he had been shot by a 22. It won't drop you right away but it can bounce around your rib cage and you can then die of internal bleeding latter.

Not when you wound someone, you aren't. When someone is wounded, they can still attack you. When you kill them, they cannot. Would a .380 going through his brain or his heart leave him any less dead than a 9mm? You would really try to shoot your attacker in the arm, or the stomach, or the leg but not the chest?

If you wound them and they stop, that's great. But if you shoot a man you'd better be ready to deal with having killed him. A head or heart shot from nearly any gun will kill the attacker, but they are VERY hard to pull off reliably in a high stress short notice situation. In self defense you shoot for the torso as it's the easiest thing to hit. You might hit the heart but you are more likely to hit a lung, the stomach, or some less less vital area. In that case, the larger the wound the better chance he will stop attacking.

 

[Calhoun]

You might hit the heart but you are more likely to hit a lung, the stomach, or some less less vital area.

When your attacker is moving left to right, you could end up missing or hitting the lung or something else. I don't know how you could ever end up hitting him really low in the stomach while aiming for his chest though unless he's jumping up and down or something.

While putting a shot into his heart might be complicated, it isn't impossible. Especially if the attacker is standing still (likely if he's shooting at you or about to shoot at you) or coming directly at you. This might be close to impossible or entirely impossible if you haven't had any practice with your weapon, becoming familiar and confident with it, but you shouldn't carry it around if you aren't familiar and confident with it.

 

[Higlac]

Even if you are confident in your ability to handle a gun, not all situations are are ideal. If you wake up at 3 A.M. with someone strange standing in your bedroom, lights off, how confident would you be in your ability to pull off a difficult shot?

Also, that Senator is a ****ing moron, you never point a gun at something unless you intend to shoot it.

 

[A2597]

Even if you are confident in your ability to handle a gun, not all situations are are ideal. If you wake up at 3 A.M. with someone strange standing in your bedroom, lights off, how confident would you be in your ability to pull off a difficult shot?

Also, that Senator is a ****ing moron, you never point a gun at something unless you intend to shoot it.

Having shot guns a couple times at a range, and placing myself in that situation:

1st reaction, pull gun, point, and let them know quite clearly to stop or I'll shoot.

If they fled? No worried. Froze? Direct them to keep distance, and raise the light level. Became aggressive? Shoot. Leg shot preferable, but not that hard to pop off a couple rounds at a target. (And hit it). Especially only a few feet away from your person.

 

[Maestro]

God damnit, can we just stop making and sustaining these threads already?

 

[Stigmata]

Having shot guns a couple times at a range, and placing myself in that situation:

1st reaction, pull gun, point, and let them know quite clearly to stop or I'll shoot.

If they fled? No worried. Froze? Direct them to keep distance, and raise the light level. Became aggressive? Shoot. Leg shot preferable, but not that hard to pop off a couple rounds at a target. (And hit it). Especially only a few feet away from your person.

Too late, when you started talking he already shot you!

 

[comradesean]

Having shot guns a couple times at a range, and placing myself in that situation:

1st reaction, pull gun, point, and let them know quite clearly to stop or I'll shoot.

If they fled? No worried. Froze? Direct them to keep distance, and raise the light level. Became aggressive? Shoot. Leg shot preferable, but not that hard to pop off a couple rounds at a target. (And hit it). Especially only a few feet away from your person.

Never aim for the leg. If you're in a situation where you must fire your gun then you fire to kill.

 

[Krynn72]

A 40% difference in wounding capability, sounds like a big difference to me.

This is exactly what I mean by "internet-based fantasy," you read this shit (perhaps not even on the internet) and it gets spread through rumors that it actually means something. In practical terms, there is very little difference between a 1.31in^3in and a 2.35in^3 wound volume. The only thing that really matters in a self-defense situation in the shot placement, as there are only a handful of locations on the human body that will stop someone from attacking you.

A report done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation says the following:

Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collappse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.

In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure ando/or the brain is deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly delayed in the aftermath of a serious injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the well known "fight or flight" syndrom. Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must first be percieved, and second must cause an emotional response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender.

He does go on to say that penetration depth in a soft body must be 12 inches for officer use, which a .380 FMJ surpasses, and a HP round is close enough to not matter unless you're shooting at a whale of a person. But even then, its clear that the wound itself doesn't really matter unless you hit the central nervous system, which either round can do. You argue that there's no reason to use .380 when you can use a 9mm, I argue that there's no reason not to. The only practical use of a bigger wound is to have a bigger hole to stick your dick in as you jizz over the fact you just killed somebody. For most people that's unnecessary, and for women its entirely irrelevant.

Theres a great part in the forward that you should really read.

The selection of effective handgun ammunition for law enforcement is a critical and complex issue. It is critical because of that which is at stake when an officer is required to use his handgun to protect his own life or that of another. It is complex because of the target, a human being, is amazingly endurable and capable of sustaining phenomenal punishment while persisting in a determined course of action. The issue is made more complex by the dearth of credible research and the wealth of uninformed opinion regarding what is commonly referred to as "stopping power".

So to sum up my argument, me and Mr. FBI guy here are calling bullshit to your theories on the practical effects of things like "stopping power" and "wound indexes".

 

[GreatEmperor]

gun advocates always try to reassure people of that but then there are example like this one that says otherwise. a senator no less, in a government office pointing a gun at a member of the press during a freakin interview on gun laws no less

in any event that's not really what I meant. what I meant is that americans are retarded when it comes to guns because for the most part they seem to completely overlook the dangers of allowing pretty much anyone with a pulse the right to own a gun in the name of some ideal that may or may not even apply to modern americans.

Wait a minute, arent you in Canada? The place where its pathetically easy to get a gun permit and guns are ****ing EVERYWHERE, so that is all for huntin eh? Also your dumbass conservatives are bitching about gun registration almost as much as ours. Although all you chromosome deficient people up there never have to worry since theres only 1 person per square mile.

Dont listen to this guy, hes just bullshitting everyone into throwing away their firearms so he can come back here and help the royals take Michigan or something

 

[Raziaar]

That would be a felony crime right there if the reporter didn't want her to point it at them.

 

[Bad^Hat]

What kind of gun should I get if I want to shoot a thread to death.