• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP's Gun Raffle In Giffords' District Sparks Hot Debate

Is this raffle in extremely bad taste?


  • Total voters
    40

Layla_Z

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
1,012
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Pima County (Arizona) Republican Party's decision to raffle off a Glock 23 .40-caliber handgun has generated some sharp criticism because not only is Pima County part of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' district, but also because the gun used in January to kill six people and wound 13 others, including Giffords, was a Glock.

GOP's Gun Raffle In Giffords' District Sparks Hot Debate : The Two-Way : NPR

So a Glock is the only thing they could think of to raffle?!? Really!?! Wouldn't a better choice be something that everyone would want? Oh, and it is insanely insensitive.
 
Unless you are raffling money, then you can't raffle something every one wants since not every one wants everything. There is nothing inherently wrong with raffling a gun, though I sure would be less than interested.
 
Yes, it is in extremely bad taste, and not to mention extremely stupid too. I would try to come up with something wittier to express that, but this just doesn't merit the effort.


I think this is just an example of blaming the object instead of the person who acted.


A very, very good friend of mine was murdered years ago, shot in the back of the head with a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum.

A few years later, at a range, another buddy offered to let me shoot his Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum. I didn't recoil in disgust and say "No! That's the kind of weapon that killed my best friend! I hate them!"

Not at all. I said "sure, thanks, I've never shot one of those before..." It's an inanimate object... the proper subject of my disgust is the scumbag who pulled the trigger.
 
Extremely bad taste, a hunting rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but this murder machine come with 3 magazines.
 
... the proper subject of my disgust is the scumbag who pulled the trigger.
OK, so are all crazy people scumbags, or just the ones that shoot people? Too bad there wasn't a way to find out if he was a scumbag first, but then what would we have done. Oh, I think I rcall that some people knew it earlier.
 
Extremely bad taste, a hunting rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but this murder machine come with 3 magazines.

The hyperbole is strong with this one.
 
GOP's Gun Raffle In Giffords' District Sparks Hot Debate : The Two-Way : NPR

So a Glock is the only thing they could think of to raffle?!? Really!?! Wouldn't a better choice be something that everyone would want? Oh, and it is insanely insensitive.

Arizona is very pro gun ownership. Has been a open carry State for years. If I am not mistaken the State passed a law this year on allowing concealed weapons without permit.

So would it make a difference to you if the fund raiser and raffle was in a different Congressional district in Arizona?

I am more concerned that the gunman (Jared Loughner) will not be held accountable for his action. Yes, I know he is one sick person. Even the most insane make decision. Though the decisions may be based on some other form of reality.
 
Extremely bad taste, a hunting rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but this murder machine come with 3 magazines.

Do you drive? If so, bet your type of car has killed someone. It is a murder machine. Good grief.

and yes I own firearms, one happens to be a glock
 
Last edited:
I think this is just an example of blaming the object instead of the person who acted.


A very, very good friend of mine was murdered years ago, shot in the back of the head with a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum.

A few years later, at a range, another buddy offered to let me shoot his Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum. I didn't recoil in disgust and say "No! That's the kind of weapon that killed my best friend! I hate them!"

Not at all. I said "sure, thanks, I've never shot one of those before..." It's an inanimate object... the proper subject of my disgust is the scumbag who pulled the trigger.

That is not a good analogy to this.

A better analogy would be if your buddy at the range offered to let you shoot a target that was photoshopped from a picture of the back of the head of your friend who was killed.

I've got nothing against the selling of handguns. It's just that this act isn't innocent by any means. It was done by the local Republican Party in the district of a Congresswoman who was shot and the raffle is the same type of gun. All of those elements clearly show that all they're trying to do is some snarky act to make some headlines. It also shows what ****heads they are.
 
That is not a good analogy to this.

A better analogy would be if your buddy at the range offered to let you shoot a target that was photoshopped from a picture of the back of the head of your friend who was killed.

I've got nothing against the selling of handguns. It's just that this act isn't innocent by any means. It was done by the local Republican Party in the district of a Congresswoman who was shot and the raffle is the same type of gun. All of those elements clearly show that all they're trying to do is some snarky act to make some headlines. It also shows what ****heads they are.

I disagree with you last statement. It shows how easy some fall into conspiracy theory thinking. I'll ask you, would it be ok to raffle the glock if it was in another Arizona congressional district?
By the way I have all the respect in the world for Congresswoman Giffords.
 
That is not a good analogy to this.

A better analogy would be if your buddy at the range offered to let you shoot a target that was photoshopped from a picture of the back of the head of your friend who was killed.

I've got nothing against the selling of handguns. It's just that this act isn't innocent by any means. It was done by the local Republican Party in the district of a Congresswoman who was shot and the raffle is the same type of gun. All of those elements clearly show that all they're trying to do is some snarky act to make some headlines. It also shows what ****heads they are.

I can't agree that your version of an analogy is valid either, as it makes assumptions that the AzGOP deliberately intended this is a slap in the face to Giffords, and particularly since this is NOT the exact model of gun Giffords was shot with. It was a 9mm Glock, this is a .45 and a different model number. Lots of people own Glocks, they're extremely popular... someone said Giffords herself owns a Glock, I don't know if that's true or not but I wouldn't be surprised.

A little insensitive? Perhaps. But definitely not the monsterous insult some here are trying to make it out to be.
 
Do you drive? If so, bet your type of car has killed someone. It is a murder machine. Good grief.

and yes I own firearms, one happens to be a glock

I think you're stretching it with the car example, especially because cars are not designed to kill people.

Try again.

And on a sidenote, I don't own any firearms myself, but I do own kitchen knives!
 
Last edited:
Extremely bad taste, a hunting rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but this murder machine come with 3 magazines.
You don't get it, a Glock is about quality, it's a beautiful gun, a precision insrument. A cheap ass Kalicnikov or however you spell it can kill people too but who wants that piece of crap. By the way a shotgun is arguably the most dealy anti personel gun there is. Seven rounds of 00 Buck, nine 30 cal slugs a piece, do the math.
 
OK, so are all crazy people scumbags, or just the ones that shoot people? Too bad there wasn't a way to find out if he was a scumbag first, but then what would we have done. Oh, I think I rcall that some people knew it earlier.


That didn't make a lot of sense... perhaps you could have worded it a bit more clearly.

Of course "all people" are not scumbags. Nor are just the ones who shoot people scumbags... I have a much broader definition of scumbag than that. :lol:

Yes, some people knew that the Giffords' shooter was probably nuts.... unfortunately, it wasn't brought to the attention of the authorities by them in a timely manner. The shooter was never involuntarily committed or declared mentally incompetent or otherwise "caught by the system" prior to the shooting. It's an imperfect world, **** happens sometimes.
 
I think you're stretching it with the car example, especially because cars are not designed to kill people.

Try again.

And on a sidenote, I don't own any firearms myself, but I do own kitchen knives!

Not really. Cars, guns, kitchen knives are inanimate objects. Yes they were designed for different purposes. It is the person using the object that does the killing. Yet, I would guess that cars killed more people in the US than guns did in the last year. How someone is injured or murdered is a mute point.

Back to the thread. I will say the Republicans could have used a bit more sense in the raffle item, but some are "blowing" this way out of wack.
 
It doesn't bother me. You can't find a town anywhere in the country where at least one person has not been shot. I'd be more concerned about closing the loophole in our society where sociophaths and schitzophrenics can purchase firearms in the first place.

They're going to raffle something that will bring in the most money. Guns are big ticket items out west. Just because the representative of that district is democratic (this time... it is usually republican) doesn't mean that the district should automatically be a gun-free zone. To put a partisian spin on a damned raffle is going a bit far, in my view. Republicans like guns. In AZ, so do most democrats. If they're trying to raise money, guns will be involved.
 
.... I'd be more concerned about closing the loophole in our society where sociophaths and schitzophrenics can purchase firearms in the first place.
.


Yup, but that's not so much a gun-control issue as it is a psycho-control issue, and it is a complicated matter.

First of all, someone has to be diagnosed as having a mental disorder. Then, someone in a position of authority has to recognize that this person is not simply someone with a minor mental illness (LOTS of us fall into that category, just most of us haven't been diagnosed as such), but someone who is bughouse nuts and a probable threat to others.

That isn't easy. Most mental illnesses have a range of severity; Person A may be mildly bipolar but harmless... Person B may be extremely bipolar with highly aggressive tendencies when he's off his meds. They both have the same illness, but to a different degree. I'd be opposed to simply banning everyone who was ever diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun... that would discourage people from getting counceling and take rights from people who are no threat to anyone. Probably 90% of people who have been diagnosed with some minor mental illness are no more threat to others than Joe Average.

You have to seperate out the real loons and psycho-killers from the folks who just have anxiety attacks or minor neurosis. This is a tricky business and might be a little subjective. Futhermore you have to insure communication and cooperation from various departments and services and individual shrinks with the court system, and there has to be due process before someone is stripped of a Constitutional right.

Then there's the issue of just how easy it is to get firearms from the criminal black market, even if you're banned from legally buying them. :shrug:

Hey, I'd like to keep real loonies from getting guns too.... I'm just saying it is a complicated issue, and even if everything goes perfectly there are no guarantees.
 
Extremely bad taste, a hunting rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but this murder machine come with 3 magazines.

Yeah Federal Marshalls are murderers. That's what they carry. what insane psychobabble
 
Yup, but that's not so much a gun-control issue as it is a psycho-control issue, and it is a complicated matter.

First of all, someone has to be diagnosed as having a mental disorder. Then, someone in a position of authority has to recognize that this person is not simply someone with a minor mental illness (LOTS of us fall into that category, just most of us haven't been diagnosed as such), but someone who is bughouse nuts and a probable threat to others.

That isn't easy. Most mental illnesses have a range of severity; Person A may be mildly bipolar but harmless... Person B may be extremely bipolar with highly aggressive tendencies when he's off his meds. They both have the same illness, but to a different degree. I'd be opposed to simply banning everyone who was ever diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun... that would discourage people from getting counceling and take rights from people who are no threat to anyone. Probably 90% of people who have been diagnosed with some minor mental illness are no more threat to others than Joe Average.

You have to seperate out the real loons and psycho-killers from the folks who just have anxiety attacks or minor neurosis. This is a tricky business and might be a little subjective. Futhermore you have to insure communication and cooperation from various departments and services and individual shrinks with the court system, and there has to be due process before someone is stripped of a Constitutional right.

Then there's the issue of just how easy it is to get firearms from the criminal black market, even if you're banned from legally buying them. :shrug:

Hey, I'd like to keep real loonies from getting guns too.... I'm just saying it is a complicated issue, and even if everything goes perfectly there are no guarantees.

In states with lax gun control laws, I think that people just need to accept the fact that once in awhile a deranged lunatic will be able to more easily get his/her hands on a gun and kill a bunch of people in a random, bloody rampage. Maybe you call it a fact of life? I dunno...

I don't think there'll ever be a "great" way of identifying these people, there's just too many variations of mental illness, unfortunately. People are much too random and unpredictable.

Also, although it may be 'easy' to get firearms from the criminal black market, it's always going to be much easier (for the person w/out a violent criminal record) to buy one legally.

For instance, I'm pretty sure most middle class accountants, ect, don't have a "hookup" to call in the black market to score some firearms if the law prevented them from buying one legally. What are they supposed to do, post a code-worded craigslist ad? Hang out on a street corner in the bad side of town?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom