TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.wbap.com/rssItem.asp?feedid= ... d=29630472

This is the fiancee' of Gabby Giffords "Director of Outreach".

...there is nothing you can do with 10 bullets that you can do with 30,” she told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “

Where do we start? I suggest the police. Trial run of 20 years. If it works we can expand it in 2031.

This is a good example why we don't let family members sit on the jury in the trial of their loved one's killer.

Chas.

Big Tuna wrote:Where do we start? I suggest the police. Trial run of 20 years. If it works we can expand it in 2031.

I added my comment


As you know, Jared was only stopped because someone could grab his magazine. Colin Goddard, a Virginia Tech survivor, was unable to grab any of Cho's short 10-round magazines and he reload many times because the smaller ones reload faster and are impossible to grab..

I thank God that Jared in Tucson used one of those huge foot-long magazines making it harder to reload and making it easier to grab, than Cho at Virginia Tech and George Hennard at Lubys when they used short "regular-sized" magazines which no one could grab, and reloaded several times.....think about that a minute.

This was the only "bystander stoppable" mass shooting because the magazines were easier to grab. The small magazines no one can grab because they can be reloaded faster and they're too small to grab.

Those "high capacity magazines" ... probably saved lives.

Kelly O'Brien, who was engaged to Gabe Zimmerman wants to get rid of the kind which resulted in the ONLY mass shooting stopped by bystanders being able to grab the magazine, and make all future mass shootings more like Virginia Tech with higher body counts?

O Kayyyy

No offense intended, RPB, but I would never criticize a victim nor would I attempt to argue the point in the comment section. Victims speak from their grief and are not seeking rational debate but an outlet for their pain. Nothing wrong with what you did. I choose not to engage in those forums. There are plenty of other opportunities to take on the loons without hijacking someone's pain.

Having lost cousins in California who were murdered in their home by a crackhead, I didn't a month later push for looser California gun laws.

People like Colin Goddard I have no respect for since he has to propagate "his opinion" in order to keep getting paid as a Brady Employee now..

However, Kelly IMHO was just brainwashed drinking Brady Koolaid. I'm not directly criticizing her, but her logic. After losing loved ones, people shouldn't make important decisions for about a year until the grief process is over. She's just not thinking clearly now. I don't know a more polite way to say it though.

Another person posting said it well

The problem with this argument is that it makes about as much sense as reducing the volume of the gas tank in car to prevent drunk driving. While no one in their right mind would blame access to a car or how much gas is in the tank of it for the behavior of a drunk driver and demand that we reduce the volume of gas a car can hold they just can't wait to blame guns or the size of the magazine in one for behavior of a deranged lunatic like Loughner who could have just as easily driven a car into the crowd.

She chose to make herself a "public figure" and issue a nationwide "position statement" on Good Morning America ... I didn't make her do that ... I just responded, which she should expect if she chooses to do that.

I'm sorry for her loss, but she chose to take an illogical action, and people are bringing that to light.
I'd probably have commented if she pressed for all magazines to be a foot-long too. Those things would be tough to conceal.

...we've all been suffering a loooooooooooooooooong time for the irrational "thinking" of a victim's loved one...can everyone say "Sarah Brady"? Raw, unbridled emotionalism needs to be contacted at some point with reality...though I agree it should be after the funeral...

RPB wrote: After losing loved ones, people shouldn't make important decisions for about a year until the grief process is over. She's just not thinking clearly now. I don't know a more polite way to say it though.

I would have to agree with you on this one. My father was murdered when I was 12. He was shot 8 times. My initial reaction after finding out the news was that "I hate guns." I actually kicked my pellet gun which was in my room in half in reaction to the news. This after being raised in house with guns and up to that point very much enjoying hunting. You are correct after some time to cool down and collect myself I did not blame guns. I blamed the person responsible for my fathers death. Shortly after a traumatic incident such as this a victim or their family will not be in the right mind to dictate policy of any sort. While they are free to express their opinions, but I do not think that any rational person should take that knee-jerk reaction too seriously. If they continue to hold the same beliefs long after the incident that is their choice, but until they have time to calm down and really think about what happened an who/what is responsible they should not be taken too seriously.

Thats just my two cents.

RPB wrote:She chose to make herself a "public figure" and issue a nationwide "position statement" on Good Morning America ... I didn't make her do that ... I just responded, which she should expect if she chooses to do that.

Oh give me a break. You know as well as I do that if her view was different she would not have been on GMA. She didn't choose anything. The news media interviews every witness and relative in an incident like this and selectively culls the ones who fit their predefined narrative. The only thing this girl has done is respond to questions in a way that made her very attractive to the news media. She is a victim, not an activist. Should she later choose to become an antigun activist, then by all means, oppose her at every turn.

Read this carefully:

Photo Courtesy - ABC News(NEW YORK) -- Nearly one month after she lost her fiancé Gabe Zimmerman to a bullet in a Tucson, Arizona parking lot, Kelly O'Brien called on the Arizona state legislature to pass a bill that would reduce the amount of bullets in a magazine to 10.

“I absolutely support it. Most people own hand guns for self-defense and there is nothing you can do with 10 bullets that you can do with 30,” she told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “And it is so sad to see 19 people gunned down in just 15 seconds by one of these extended capacity clips.”

Note that the first sentence does not quote O'Brien. It's the news editor's interpretation of her answer to a question. In the second sentence, she is responding to a question - do you support Arizona passing the hi-cap magazine ban? I can guarantee you that the media knew the answer they were going to get before they asked the question in a televised interview. Had she said, "Absolutely not!" you wouldn't even know her name.

She chose to go to the GMA studio to be on nationwide TV discuss how many bullets should be in a magazine.
No one dragged her there against her will. Hence, the video starts with that topic. She could have chosen not to opine on that and only discuss her loss. I mean she sounds illogical "It's suicide to see 19 people gunned down ..."?
She wants to "honor" her fiance by limiting magazine capacity.
"Jared was stopped when he ran out of bullets"

Actually he was stopped because he used a foot-long mag.

Yes, I blame reporters, too. But she chose and said her words. Her opening and closing was all about limiting mag capacity, that was why she went there.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/tucson- ... 194&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RPB wrote:She chose to go to the GMA studio to be on nationwide TV discuss how many bullets should be in a magazine.
No one dragged her there against her will. Hence, the video starts with that topic. She could have chosen not to opine on that and only discuss her loss. I mean she sounds illogical "It's suicide to see 19 people gunned down ..."?
She wants to "honor" her fiance by limiting magazine capacity.
"Jared was stopped when he ran out of bullets"

Actually he was stopped because he used a foot-long mag.

Yes, I blame reporters, too. But she chose and said her words. Her opening and closing was all about limiting mag capacity, that was why she went there.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/tucson- ... 194&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

{{{sigh}}}

baldeagle wrote:I can guarantee you that the media knew the answer they were going to get before they asked the question in a televised interview. Had she said, "Absolutely not!" you wouldn't even know her name.

Seems to me even conservatives still give the MSM way too much credit. The MSM lies about everything, and the anti-gun narrative is one of their most tightly administered themes. They've been lying about guns and self-defense for at least 40 years --mostly by controlling which views get aired. Some of it is pretty obvious. For instance, the criminal use of firearms is a daily national story --from kids taking guns to school to frat party shootings. However, when a gun is used by an ordinary citizen in self-defense, the story remains a local one. GMA in particular has a known history of suppressing views that don't support their anti-gun narrative.

baldeagle wrote:Victims speak from their grief and are not seeking rational debate but an outlet for their pain... I choose not to engage in those forums. There are plenty of other opportunities to take on the loons without hijacking someone's pain.

But the news media DOES choose to chase the victims and hijack their pain. I know violent crime, having lost a woman I was to be married to one Christmas. She was raped/robbed/left to die while off visiting relatives in San Diego. I have no good words for the media covering her story. They tried to make me THEIR victim.

I know the pain. I know the vultures. Thankfully that was a long time ago, and time does heal wounds.

Ok.

I'm not "insensitive" but I'll explain a bit.
Prior to a trial, lawyers file documents called "Motion in Limine"
Those are areas or things or topics which shouldn't be brought up nor discussed.

If a witness starts discussing a topic on the list of items contained on it, they have "opened the door"

Areas I'd not normally discuss, I may discuss if a person "opens the door"

So, for example I might never discuss John Woods' phobias, but he opened the door, John Woods indicates he feels intimidated and persecuted, and discloses a resource for help.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content ... aled-carry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"John Woods, executive director of Students for Gun-Free Schools, experienced the Virginia Tech shooting as an undergraduate student. He said resources, such as the Behavior and Concerns Advice Line, are key in preventing campus incidents."

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content ... -143067952" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not a diagnostician, I was just pointing out what Sarah Thompson, M.D. stated, and if John has those symptoms and wants help, he is free to seek help if he feels a need for it or desires it.

If John wants or needs to talk, there are people available; I'm not judging his mental status, just sayin' help is available if HE feels he needs it. Obsessions do occur in many forms, hoplophobia is real, and I pointed out two papers on the subject. I'd rather go by "see something, say something" than ignore everything which seems to be a dangerous trend nowadays.


So if some "victim" of a tragedy chooses to use their victimization (they could always "just say no" to media) they opened the door. I'll be as considerate as possible, I'm not without compassion, but if they aren't thinking straight, I'll attack the logic instead of the person.... if the person may need counseling, like depression/obsession/PTSD etc lasting over 2 years etc, then it becomes an illness for which they may want to seek help.

I do feel sorry for Kelly, she isn't even making sense. "nothing you can do with 10 bullets that you can do with 30"
her logic is way off right now. I made no personal attack on her, only against her flawed logic.


I have previously pointed out that John, may have "experienced" the VT shooting while off Campus, as we all "experienced" 9-11 planes flying into buildings, even though we were in Texas at the time. He "opened the door."