Tucson Massacre: Do We Blame The Gun?

By Dennis Romero Wed., Jan. 12 2011 at 7:07 AM

Glock: American as apple pie (except it's Austrian).

On Tuesday in SoCal Sen. Barbara Boxer finally came out and said what a lot of liberal politicians were probably biting their tongues about: Let's take another look at national gun control laws in the wake of Saturday's Tucson massacre that killed 6 and injured 14, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Suspect Jared Loughner apparently got his Glock and extended magazine, which allegedly allowed him to keep pulling the trigger in a crowd that had gathered to see Giffords, legally, free-and-clear, in the weeks preceding the attack.

Boxer wants to see some changes on a national level. But is that the answer?

Should this guy be able to buy a gun?

Boxer said a federal assault-weapons ban, which could have prevented Loughner from obtaining that extra-capacity ammo clip, needs another look. And she wants to ban people with records of mental illness from being able to buy guns:

"We need to address the application of the federal law banning people with serious mental illnesses from owning guns. The law needs to be implemented better so that those with mental illness get into the FBI database and do not get guns."

Our commenter of the day, NRA4ever, calls b.s., saying that laws don't hold crazy people back when they want to destroy life, no matter what they're holding in their hand. Laws already on the book, the argument goes, tell us not to shoot at a congresswoman and murder a 9-year-old girl and other bystanders. What's the point of more language? Action speaks louder than legislation.

"Instead of punishing the gun for the crimes, why don't you put blame where it belongs and punish the criminal. Enforce the current laws instead of creating more feel good laws. Banning guns to protect people from shootings is like banning airplanes to protect people from hijackings."

What do you think?

Tags:

Barbara Boxer, Glock, gun control, gun laws, Jared Loughner, NRA, Tucson massacre

We Recommend

Red

Gun contol only disarms law abiding citizens. There is a law against buying a gun if you are declared mental unstable, ENFORCE IT!! Blaming guns for crimes commited by people is ridiculous, if guns are responsible than alcohol is responsible for drunk driving, not the driver, pens misspell words, and spoons make people fat!!!!

Xiuli Lin

http://tinyurl.com/25dnfq5

Mr X

Boxer doesn't want gun control, she wants them banned, and is not honest enough to say so. We have passed endless gun control laws. But the best bang for the Buck was Three Strikes, which took a lot of bad people off the Street. The People supported Three Strikes, while Boxer and other anti-gun people did not. She does not really care about crime. She just hates guns. In light of Arizona, John Lennon and the Hinckley shot at Ronald Reagan, there ought to be some way of barring these mentally unstable people from owning guns. But its not so easy: who decides if they are stable? How long does the "finding" last? Will local officials seize on a restriction like that to bar anyone who was ever in a fight with their spouse,had a DUI, criticized a teacher or spoke out at a public meeting? (the answer we know is "yes.") And if they are too unstable to own a gun, why can they have a car? Why can they vote? The California Supreme Court says we cannot detain and medicate people who are not a danger to themselves or others. So what test is used to bar guns from people like the Arizona fellow?

Fred

This is a mental health issue.

responsible gun owner

As a gun owner in CA, I have only one thing to say: enforce the laws on the books by providing the funding necessary to implement those laws fully and effectively. This is more a mental health issue than it is a gun control issue. Before knee-jerk liberals jump down my throat on this, please understand: I voted for Obama, I voted for Brown, I'm pro-choice and I think Palin's an opportunistic twit. We don't need more gun control laws in CA. In fact, I'd say we've crossed the line in our state and definitely infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

And please: while it may seem like a small detail, it's a magazine, not a clip. Maybe I'm quibbling here, but people who don't agree with you will find any reason, however trivial it may be, to discount your opinion as ignorant and therefore unworthy of consideration. Lastly, the notion that magazine capacity matters is somewhat besides the point. Someone who's really intent on causing a lot of damage will either bring more magazines or bring more guns.

While the analogy that some draw between this and "what if he used a car to kill all those people?" is specious at best, I do have to ask the question: if someone with a gun were present, would fewer people have died?

Kavansurf

People with a gun were present. This is Arizona where everyone and his brother is packing heat! but it didn't matter this man was out to kill the congresswoman and as many supporters as possible. If he didn't have a gun i am sure he would have found some other way to do what he did.

I also am a CA gun owner and did not vote for brown or feinstein or boxer. As much as I detest boxer she may have a point on removing gun rights from the mentally ill, I would think that was a given!