NP Rank:
Controlling guns should be an unnecessary step toward elimination
Controlling guns should be an unnecessary step toward eliminating them, though it isn’t.
Incrementally, Representative Carolyn McCarthy wants to reduce the danger a clip at a time, reducing the number of bullets held in a clip. Why do people need guns? Why do people need automatic guns with high capacity clips? What is the intended purpose?
What is a gun enthusiast? What is the psychological profile of a gun enthusiast?
“Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill
By SHIRA TOEPLITZ | 1/9/11 5:57 PM EST
One of the fiercest gun control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson, Ariz., Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition clip the gunman used.
McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) said he’s preparing to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.
“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.“
Gun control activists said it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of the ammunition allegedly used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed that the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he nor the congresswoman offered any further details.
“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the National Rifle Association — excuse the pun — the ammunition to come at me, either.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/...338.html#ixzz1AjvcEFY7”



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (13)
at 07:51 on January 11th, 2011
Source: freerepublic.com
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 09:02 on January 11th, 2011
So a gun enthusiast is a deranged psychopathic serial killer. Hmmm. Or did I miss the intent of the above profile?
at 09:42 on January 11th, 2011
A gun collector who collects them like salt and pepper shakers for historical consideration and display like swords or something, I might understand.
I can't understand the purpose of a civilian buying an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. I can barely understand someone justifying a purchase for self-defense. So, you tell me, why do you own a gun (if you do)?
I used to have a 12 gage and a 410 shotgun for the purpose of shooting squirrels, rabbits, and pheasants. I gave that up as a teenager when I left the farm.
I know people who had much more firepower and who were enamored by their 357 magnum and such, but those were the craziest people around and I wanted to be out of their shooting range.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 11:40 on January 11th, 2011
My Dad had shotguns, he was a big bird hunter and loved duck season. He'd go deer hunting with me and used sabots. Made me laugh. He knew when I had no intention of taking the shot and was just admiring the deer through my 10x scope and he would let that old cannon go off scaring my deer into cover and then come over to me cursing about missing the shot, like I didn't know what was going on. Me, I have a BAR semi-auto 30:06 now. Before for years I had bolt action 30:06 I grew up with. I've never had a magazine larger than 5 rounds. Never saw the need. I wouldn't call myself an enthusiast. I enjoy target shooting and deer hunting. There is something visceral about the hunt. Even when I return much of the time empty handed I'm still elated. Taking the shot is something I consider each and every time. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. The reasons are many and only another hunter understands. Then my military career was all about weapons and I carried both rifle and side arm. I can't remember the number of times I wanted to throw that hand gun away. It was the most bothersome dead weight of all the kit I had to carry. I feels sorry for the policemen/women who have to wear their side arms eight and more hours a day. I don't see why civilians need a handgun or why they want semi-auto replicas of military automatic rifles either or 30 round mags. But I also don't see them as the problem. I don't believe that access to guns in general causes criminal use of guns. I also don't think the 'right to bear arms' is essential to up holding a free nation but, if that is the argument that defeats the metrosexual liberal urbanite from criminalizing gun ownership that I say trot it out more often.
at 11:59 on January 11th, 2011
Those were the days, now let's move forward.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 06:07 on January 12th, 2011
You can't move forward when the anti-gun crowd has no respect for the legal gun owner and their rights under law. Attacking the legal gun owner and campaigning to take away their use of ownership or creating more hoops for them to jump through isn't going to relieve the criminal use of fire arms. Criminal use of fire arms is a policing issue not a ownership issue. The Police forces need to approach this problem with all the rigor they have with the war on drugs or, -since both are related issues affecting society combine them into a single concerted effort. Here's another idea. How about campaigning for a minimum ten year sentence tacked on for all crimes involving fire arms? Or do you already know your liberal judges wont go for punishing the poor victims any harder than a slap on the wrist?
at 10:19 on January 11th, 2011
Going to the range and shooting, or going hunting, do not make a person more or less dangerous. It is possible to kill someone with a newspaper, if you know how. Does this mean I should not be allowed to carry The Times onto a train, for fear I might be deranged? I agree that many of the firearms out there should not be available for civillian use. The prospect of hunting a bear with a 5.56 assault rifle does not appeal to me, the bear will probably just get annoyed and eat me, then limp off somewhere else to die. And a fifty cal. is overkill for just about anything in the civilian world. But going out hunting, or target shooting, does not make a person a danger.
Even where firearms are not readily available, people who want to kill will find a way to do it. Gun crime is almost negligiable in Scotland, for example, but they have had to make it illegal to carry a blade of any kind. My Swiss Army knife was frowned upon, all because stabbings in Glasgow bars and nightclubs were so common. Short of manditory psych assesments for everyone in the country, and instantanious lock up as soon as someone is deemed a threat, there is not much that can be done to stop violent crime.
Limiting access to firearms and ammunition, as well as controlling what firearms are available, will reduce the number of incidences. But to say that all firearms, or entusiasts of shooting, are a danger is a very serious case of a sweeping definition, and fallacious basis for an argument. But then, if I were wearing a shoulder-hoslter, with a Sig-Sauer loaded and ready everywhere I went, or a hechler and koch sub-machine gun in my brief-case, attractive as they may seem to the enthusiast, I can see how that would make people uncomfortable. At best, "gun control" is a grey area.
at 12:02 on January 11th, 2011
There is a direct correlation between the increased capacity of gun clips in the US and numbers of death by criminals using them compared with siginificantly fewer in Europe where the clips are regulated to be smaller.
at 13:13 on January 11th, 2011
In Canada there are restrictions on the size of the magazine as well. There is no need for a thirty-round magazine, let alone three or four of them, in the civilian world. The weapons that they fit into are not usually viable for hunting much other than humans. And yet you can go out and buy a drum magazine that will hold even more of that. I agree that the number of deaths would decrease if the criminals did not have these things. Even more if they did not have automatic weapons. I had a friend living in Washington who inherited an MP40 that his Grandfather had smuggled back after the war. I can understand the appeal of something like that, to a collector of historical items. A brand new MP5, however, or an M16, which is fully functional is probably going a bit too far.
However, this does not mean that firearms in general should be prohibited. Control access, limit the ammount of rounds that will fit into the magazine or clip, prohibit certain types of firearms. But telling a farmer he cannot have his twelve-gauge anymore, and that if he wants to shoot rabbits or birds, that 22cal is a no go, use a slingshot, is going a bit too far. Also, people who shoot at ranges, or hunt, should still have a right to do so, and access to the means. This doesn't mean having a gun-rack on the pickup, fully loaded while driving through the streets of New York, or letting a woman keep a sawed off shotgun in her purse for "protection," of course. It is all about common-sense and reasonability.
at 12:04 on January 11th, 2011
The argument that killers will find another way is worn out. Let's remove the easiest nmeans so they are not slaughtering so many at once.
at 13:25 on January 11th, 2011
While I agree that we should keep firearms controlled, and out of the hands of criminals as much as possible, I stand by the "worn out" argument, because it still holds. When I was in College, though this was years ago, I took a criminology class. At that point, per hundred people, Canadians were more likely to get stabbed than Americans were to get shot. Things have definately changed, and the ammount of firearms related violent crime back home in Vancouver has gone up astronomically. Usually using those same automatic weapons, with massive magazines, which are illegal in Canada to begin with.
I agree that the possibility of criminalsmowing down a crowed of people, rather than stabbing one or two, seems a much less appealing prospect from a utilitarian perspective. But at the same time, being stabbed is considered by many a more traumatic experience. Better to prevent crime all together. More police, more human contact with each other. If I know someone who is a threat to themself or others, I should be able to report that, and that person should not be given the opportunity to build a bomb in their basement, or buy an AK47 over the internet, or show up at a political rally with a weapon of any kind. But the fact of the matter is, a rifle is a tool, it cannot, on its own, kill someone. It takes a person to aim it and pull the trigger. There are people out there who should not be allowed chain-saws as well. Or box-cutters, for that matter. The key is keeping control over access, not sweeping bans on firearms.
at 13:48 on January 11th, 2011
I understand your point.
at 16:29 on January 11th, 2011
There would be another insurrection if guns were outlawed cold turkey. Let's see where we are in 100 years.