Giffords Shooting Leads Two Lawmakers to Carry Guns

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -guns.html

WASHINGTON - Two lawmakers said Sunday they'll pack heat back home after the deadly attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The decision by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) raises new questions about whether lawmakers should carry guns for self defense - or need to. [Photo Gallery: Gabrielle Giffords Shooting in Arizona.

At some point you are responsible for your own safety. Good for them.

Good for them. They are going the right way rather than those who want to ban gun from law abiding citizens. I like Heath Shuler. I wish he would have beat out Pelosi for minority leader.

I agree... It's a shame in this day and age they have to arm themselves against the wackos...But as I suggested in one of my earlier [allegedly 'hateful'] posts, if a few of them get mowed down, it might make some of the other violent types reconsider.

I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker. That is, in the Arizona situation, would Giffords having carried a gun have helped her? I doubt it. In a public speaking event like that, a congressperson would have their mind on other things, like answering questions. Would they be scouring the audience wondering who was planning an assault?

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

Scruffy wrote: I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker. That is, in the Arizona situation, would Giffords having carried a gun have helped her? I doubt it. In a public speaking event like that, a congressperson would have their mind on other things, like answering questions. Would they be scouring the audience wondering who was planning an assault?

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

It could of been a deterrent at the very least. Not much you can do when some random person walks up to you and shoots you in the head.

Scruffy wrote: I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker.

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Martin Ent Inc wrote:

Scruffy wrote: I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker.

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

Spoken like a true liberal.

My point is that the lawmaker, in most speaking situations, would not be able to assess the situation and speak at the same time. The politician would be busy answering questions, speaking, etc. A police detail, or even body guards, would be better equipped to protect the politician (with weapons) than the politician would be. Does that make it clear?

Scruffy wrote: I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker. That is, in the Arizona situation, would Giffords having carried a gun have helped her? I doubt it. In a public speaking event like that, a congressperson would have their mind on other things, like answering questions. Would they be scouring the audience wondering who was planning an assault?

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

I have been busy and frankly lost interest in all the unproductive bickering so I haven't followed any of these threads. Did they say if she was the first to be shot? If not then she or others in her party would have had time to draw and fire at the assailant before he got off 19 rounds and maybe saved a few of those who died.

Scruffy wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote:

Scruffy wrote: I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker.

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

Spoken like a true liberal.

My point is that the lawmaker, in most speaking situations, would not be able to assess the situation and speak at the same time. The politician would be busy answering questions, speaking, etc. A police detail, or even body guards, would be better equipped to protect the politician (with weapons) than the politician would be. Does that make it clear?

And if a politician is trained with their weapon and they see a man shooting people walking towards them, then they would have time to draw the weapon and fire back and maybe prevent a lot of what happened. Who pays the bodyguards at all the events around the country? The politicians or the taxpayers?

Firing back when in a crowd of people is something you are trained NOT to do.