Blaming the Tucson massacre on Sarah Palin is absurd; blaming it on U.S. gun laws is merely misguided.
We’re not surprised that liberals are using this horrific bloodbath as proof that America needs tougher curbs on firearms and ammunition. We just wish they would keep their facts straight.
Advertisement
Here’s what we know about accused killer Jared Lee Loughner: He purchased his weapon, a Glock 19 pistol, after undergoing a routine background check. While Loughner had repeatedly shown signs of mental illness, he was not listed in the FBI database of those Americans ineligible to buy guns. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that he certainly should have been treated for major psychiatric disorders. But on the day he entered a Sportsman’s Warehouse to acquire his Glock, Loughner had no formal history of insanity or schizophrenia. After several run-ins with campus police, he had withdrawn from Pima Community College (PCC) rather than seek medical clearance from a mental-health professional.
He never was treated, much less declared mentally incompetent under the law. On paper, then, Loughner did not seem an obvious threat to public safety. While Arizona has famously permissive gun statutes, the Tucson killer would have been able to buy his weapon in states with much tighter laws.
Besides denouncing Arizona, gun controllers are also condemning George W. Bush and Capitol Hill Republicans, who allowed the Clinton assault-weapons ban (AWB) to expire seven years ago. “The type of magazine used by Mr. Loughner was once banned in the United States,” says the Washington Post editorial page, echoing many others. “But that brief era of sanity came to an end in 2004, when Congress refused to renew the assault-weapons ban passed in the summer of 1994.”
This argument is misleading at best and outright false at worst. As NR’s Kevin Williamson has noted, the AWB merely prohibited “the manufacture or importation of new magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds” (our emphasis). Existing 31-round magazines were still available for purchase. The AWB outlawed their creation, but it did not ban their sale or possession.At no time during the ban were such magazines difficult to come by. Let us repeat that: Even if the AWB had been extended in 2004, Jared Lee Loughner would have been able to legally purchase a 31-round clip.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) are now preparing legislation to forbid the sale of such clips. Meanwhile, Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) is sponsoring a measure to criminalize the conscious possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of federal lawmakers and other officials. These are predictable responses to a terrible tragedy, but we doubt that either bill would do much to prevent the next Tucson. Violent psychotics intent on committing mass murder will alwayspose a huge danger to society, regardless of whether they can legally buy 31-round magazines or legally bring a weapon near a politician.
Indeed, if the ghastly events in Arizona are to prompt a “national conversation” about anything, let it be a conversation about the mentally ill, and about how we treat those who reject the treatment they desperately need. The gun-control proposals being floated in Washington would do very little to boost public safety. At the same time, they would curtail the Second Amendment freedoms of peaceful, law-abiding citizens — the type of citizens who tackled Loughner in the midst of his rampage and thereby saved many lives. Knee-jerk legislation is rarely a good idea. The current moment is no exception.
"Indeed, if the ghastly events in Arizona are to prompt a “national conversation” about anything, let it be a conversation about the mentally ill, and about how we treat those who reject the treatment they desperately need."
Good idea, lets pass some laws so we can finally enforce treatment on the left for their many delusions.
We better act fast though, if we don't we will be wearing the loose fitting pajamas and playing cards in the cuckoo’s nest, because everyone knows that anyone who disagrees with them has to be crazy.
The above is written only to illustrate where the left would lead in any conversation to constructively solve the problem of treating unwilling victims of genuine mental illness.
You see, in any subject, we are the problem and our elimination is the only solution.
You can easily guess the next smear from the left: conservatives are _scapegoating_ the mentally ill over this tragedy, at the same time they are _robbing_ the state of the funds needed to treat them.
I expect this new left meme to appear sometime today.
Why would Congressman King want to pass a law prohibiting people from carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a congress critter? Seems like he ought to submit a bill requiring everyone to carry a weapon when within 1000 feet. When everyone is packing that might give a potential shooter pause.
This hobgoblin fear of large capacity magazines is irrational. An empty smaller capacity magazine can be exchanged for a new full one in a second or two, maximum. And, the larger capacity magazines are more likely to malfunction in use than smaller ones (not that that would have been a bad thing in this instance).
Continuing to ban the manufacture and importation of 31 round magazines would greatly reduce the number of 31 round magazines. Perhaps Laughner would have settled for a smaller magazine where the larger one not so easy to come by. This is all speculation and the Arms ban was pragmatic. No one is saying the Weapons Ban would have prevented the tragedy, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile legislation.
Jared Lee Loughner was tackled **after** he had fully discharged is 31-round clip and was attempting to reload. Many fewer people would have died if he had only been able to purchase 10-round clips.
We draw a line on the types of weapons we let people buy. Hand grenades could be used for fishing, but we keep them illegal anyhow. Hunting and self defense do not require high capacity or military weapons.
While Rep. King's proposal is certainly ridiculous (someone who intends to murder won't be deterred by a 1000-foot restriction) I don't know that the 10-round max/clip is so unreasonable. It certainly has been the case that killers have been stopped when they paused to reload, even if that only takes a couple seconds. Even though he might have been able to get 31-round clip despite a ban on sales, such a ban would certainly make them harder to find.
In response to the added gun law requests, IMHO, we need only to enforce the laws we already have! Rep Pete King's suggestion of banning firearms within 1,000 feet of a Congressional Member is only going to make the shooter use a rifle, like a sniper! The only remedy I can see is for family members to seek help for those in their families that are unstable & if the family members won't do it, then it's up to the city/county authorities to do so. Especially if they have already had contact with the individual as is the case with the Tucson Sheriff's Dept. This person should have at the least, been held for a psych evaluation during one of the run-in's with law enforcement. I also want to share something to think about: To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and forks and spoons make people fat! Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!! (Re-posted from another friend's status message. Feel free to do the same.)
