iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gun-Control Advocates Resigned To Few Changes In Wake Of Giffords Shooting

First Posted: 01/10/11 12:50 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

Giffords Gun Control

WASHINGTON -- The horrific shooting of 20 individuals, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), at a Tucson meet-and-greet this past weekend would seem likely to prompt legislative tightening of the nation's gun laws, but the early word has been just the opposite.

In the shooting's immediate aftermath, the inclination -- from the sets of cable news shows to the desks of political reporters and the halls of Congress -- has been to dismiss attempts at gun control as futile. Instead, talk has centered around political rhetoric and the motivations of those who used the guns, rather than the accessibility of guns themselves.

So far only one legislative response has been authored. And in terms of reach -- restricting the availability of large-capacity clips like the one used by the alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner -- even its principle backer acknowledges it comes up short.

"I've been in Congress in 14 years," Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) told The Huffington Post on Monday. "I know what I can get passed and I know what I can't get passed. And if I wanted to get something symbolic -- and we are going to reintroducing the assault-weapons ban and that's wonderful -- it won't go anywhere. It won't even get to committee."

McCarthy is arguably the bill's strongest backer in Congress, swept into office in 1996 after the December 1993 shooting death of her husband, in which her son was also severely injured, made her a fierce gun-control advocate. But this is the only piece of legislation she expects to result from the Tucson shooting. Anything more would be a lost cause.

The New York Democrat isn't the only one sour on the future of gun control legislation. Others are even more pessimistic, noting that there appears to be even little appetite to talk about revamping laws in the wake of Tucson.

"The thing is, every gun massacre has its own story and the storyline that follows from it," said Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety and co-founder of the centrist-Democratic organization Third Way. "And with this one, the thing people are focused on, including Third Way, to be fair, is political discourse."

As Kessler noted, that marks a striking contrast from the debates that followed two of the nation's last infamous gun-related tragedies, the school shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Both of those events prompted a sustained political effort to focus the spotlight on gun-law shortcomings. Both, however, were also largely unsuccessful: In response to Columbine, Congress tried and failed to close the loophole allowing individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows; after Virginia Tech, the same effort was made, only to be scaled back following the National Rife Association's opposition to funding for state mandates that would have improved background checks.

The possibility of new regulation has also received little media attention compared to the scrutiny that followed those other tragedies. Just one day removed from the shooting, there was little focus on firearm regulations during the weekly political talk shows. Neither ABC's "This Week" nor CBS' "Face The Nation" included a single mention of the word "gun control" or "gun laws."

On NBC's "Meet The Press," there was no mentions of "gun control" but three mentions of "gun laws." But when Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) suggested that "the highly, highly permissive gun laws that we have in that state ... be examined," he was summarily shot down by Rep. Raul Labrador, a freshman Republican from Idaho.

"Fox News Sunday" offered one mention of "gun control" and two mentions of "gun laws," but during that segment, the Democrat on the panel -- Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) -- practically ran away from the issue.

"I do think we need to responsibly enforce the existing gun laws that place barriers for those who are mentally unstable to gun ownership or gun use," Coons said. "I think, frankly, that we need to move forward toward the biggest challenges in front of us, making sure we get Americans back to work, tackling our deficit and our debt, dealing with the conflict in Afghanistan."

Contrast that to the Sunday-show circuit that followed Virginia Tech. On CBS, there was two mentions of gun control and three mentions of gun law. On "Meet The Press," there was nine mentions of the word "gun control." On ABC, former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) waxed despondently about how politicians "can't just wait for these events to happen" before refining gun laws. Host George Stephanopoulos pressed his next guest, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, on shortcomings in federal laws.

On Fox News, meanwhile, the Democratic panelist -- Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- actually used the platform to reexamine existing gun laws and call for "really serious pieces of legislation" to improve federal databases.

The debate may have been tamped down by Giffords' longtime support for Second Amendment rights. But that hardly disqualifies discussion of the vagaries and gray areas of gun laws. The real explanation is simpler: Gun control is no longer a two-sided political issue.

Failure to pass meaningful reforms in the wake of Columbine and Virginia Tech -- owed primarily to the lobbying clout of the gun-rights community -- has dissuaded lawmakers from broaching the issue with much hope going forward. "Everybody is petrified of the NRA," said McCarthy.

Coupled with a series of recent legal setbacks, which McCarthy admitted have taken the debate over whether everyone has the right to own a firearm "off the plate for now," gun-control advocates now seem among the lonelier crusaders in Washington. In an October Gallup poll, 44 percent of respondents said the laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, matching the record-low number on that question, which Gallup had previously recorded in 2009.

Usually "politicians turn a blind eye to this," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told The Huffington Post's Lucia Graves. "They'll talk about violent video games, or they'll talk about rhetoric -- they'll talk about anything except guns. My main hope with this shooting is that maybe now we'll finally start to talk about the intolerable level of gun violence in this country."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The horrific shooting of 20 individuals, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), at a Tucson meet-and-greet this past weekend would seem likely to prompt legislative tightening of t...
WASHINGTON -- The horrific shooting of 20 individuals, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), at a Tucson meet-and-greet this past weekend would seem likely to prompt legislative tightening of t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,099
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (67 total)
06:51 PM on 01/16/2011
Another assault on the 2nd Amendment- Senator Schumer is trying to use existing laws to ban drug users from owning guns.

NY Senator Proposes Unconstitutional Gun Regulations After Arizona Shooting @ http://look.ac/hvz6jG
photo
Hannalee
haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein
05:53 PM on 01/14/2011
Some time in the future when more of us are killed on a more regular basis--and when it finally penetrates that if Mexican violence comes to us on this side of the border, it's coming along with our own guns--SOMETHING may finally be done.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
10:52 PM on 01/14/2011
"Some time in the future when more of us are killed on a more regular basis--and when it finally penetrates that if Mexican violence comes to us on this side of the border, it's coming along with our own guns--SOME­THING may finally be done. "

If that happens, you'd better be prepared, because if you think that civilian disarmament will save you, then you have learned nothing in your life.
photo
cyclone70
When one facepalm isn't enough
03:56 PM on 01/14/2011
As a firearm owner myself, I have a 22 rifle, and 12 Ga shotgun, and a couple antiques that belonged to my great grandfather, I am not opposed to reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill

and that would be background checks, training classes, licensing and so forth, much like most other civilized societies do.

law abiding and stable citizens with legitimate sporting and personal protection needs for firearms would have nothing to fear from these reasonable requirement
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
omobob
left coast, usa
05:02 PM on 01/12/2011
Suggested fire arms restrictions. ban all clip fed rifles. Bolt action only. ban all clip fed hand guns. Revolvers only. Limit shot guns to 2 shots w/ breaking barrels. Side by side or over under. These modifications make the weapons inherently more accurate, skill full and restrict the number of bullets as well as eliminate a good number of military style weapons. The militARy has use for high caPACITY MAGAZINES, CIVILIANS DO NOT. Signed Hi-Power Competitor and NRA member. Sorry about my cap goof.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Donnie4488
10:10 PM on 01/13/2011
As an NRA member,I feel that your liberal use of the word"ban",weakens the foundation of the organization you belong to.I understand your preference for the bolt-action high powered competition rifle,but as a concealed carry licensee,many of us prefer the power,reliability,and ease of concealment prefer the semi-automatic clip-fed handgun.Do we need 20 or 30 round clips for personal defense?I don't believe so.But instead of talking about banning something,lets find ways to keep guns in the hands of those responsible to own them.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
omobob
left coast, usa
11:02 AM on 01/14/2011
As a a fellow NRA member and Hi-Power Rifle Competitor in have no problem changing ban to restrictions. As for revolver v.s. autoloaders, if you can’t do it in six, 15 or 16 won’t help. Buy a revolver shoot it properly-do not cock the hammer but pull through the trigger, Double Action. They are inherently more accurate.
Have wonderful weekend weekend. 

Have a great weekend.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
omobob
left coast, usa
04:45 PM on 01/12/2011
A personal favorite of mine is to ban all clip fed rifles. Bolt action only. ban all clip fed hand guns. Revolvers only. Limit shot guns to 2 shots w/ breaking barrels. Side by side or over under. These modifications make the weapons inherently more accurate, skill full and restrict the number of bullets. Signed Hi-Power Competitor and NRA member.
12:54 AM on 02/15/2011
As someone who claims to be an NRA member, and ready to volunteer yourself to propose limitations on the rights of others, perhaps someone should explain to you the difference between a "clip-fed" and a "magazine-fed" firearm. You clearly don't know the difference. What you just proposed would not do anything to change the shooting in Arizona.

If you were in fact a "Hi-Power Competitor and NRA member" surely you would know that more bolt-action rifles are actually clip-fed than are semi-automatics or fully-automatics rifles. I believe what you meant to say, (had you actually known what you were talking about) is: "A personal favorite of mine is to ban all MAGAZINE fed rifles."

There is a clear distinction between magazines and clips - Learn it, then next time you climb up on your soapbox, you'll at least "appear" like you know what you're talking about. And before you try to dismiss the differences, past laws have left gaping loopholes simply because their creators didn't understand the distinctions amongst nomenclature. But then I doubt anyone would confuse you for a legislator, just another guy on the internet pretending to have all the answers.

Signed Non-NRA Member But Guy Who Obviously Knows More About Firearms Than You Do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Floridaval
Nature is not judgemental
10:23 PM on 01/11/2011
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Here is a 2nd Amendment suggestion that should not ruffle any feathers. I gave you the link above , so you can read more about it, but here it is:

A proposed amendment

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

So, what do you think?
03:23 PM on 01/12/2011
Good luck with that. The trend is the other way. I like what Kansas did. Any vote you want to put forward would most likely look like that...

http://newledger.com/2010/11/the-second-amendments-great-election-night/

“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Floridaval
Nature is not judgemental
05:51 PM on 01/12/2011
I'd like to now what the "other lawful purposes" are. Any ideas?
12:34 PM on 01/11/2011
I've found that those calling loudest for more gun laws are usually the least knowledgable about firearms. We had a hi capacity magazine ban and an assault weapon ban in the past and they had no effect on crime or the availablity of hi cap mags or assualt weapons. The magazines (clip for those that cannot use the correct terms) only went up in price but they were always available. The assault weapons had the bayonet lugs taken off and some lost their pistol grips but you could still buy AK's, AR's and the rest.
If you want a total ban then be honest and say that you want a total ban. If you want to pass a few ineffectual laws that make you feel good without accomplishing anything then......well....send your resume to the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center. Stress your creative abilities in regards to math, facts and stats.
We live in a free society and some will always abuse our rights. We generally don't penalize law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals and crazies......except for gun crimes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
02:22 PM on 01/11/2011
Your agenda is transparent and ill-advised when you call commonsense regulations affecting guns to be a penalty for law abiding citizens. I am one of the aforementioned and look forward to some addition checks on this proliferation of firearms everywhere.
02:34 PM on 01/11/2011
U45--violating the Constitution is ill advised and the gun control you so desperately want is political suicide
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
02:36 PM on 01/11/2011
You keep call them "common sense", but you have no rationale for doing so, and you continually fail to address the substance of the issue, namely that hi-cap magazine bans did nothing when we had them, and will do nothing in the future. 

In essence, you're basically saying nothing more meaningful than "I know you are, but what am I?"
11:56 AM on 01/11/2011
There will allways be illegal weapons, but controlling those purchased legally should be restricted. This would at least control that number. I don't see why a hunter needs a 9mm Glock, for example. A deer rifle, maybe. I live in a state where guns are practically given away. I think it has to do with penis envy or something. We really do need stricter laws. If not on the guns, then on the bullets. Mega clips of ammo should not be sold anywhere, any time. AK47 are not hunting rifles and should not be sold ever. Restrict what we can and the illegal weapons could be more easily tracked and traced. We just have to stop putting weapons of mass destruction out for sale to the general public. Sell the bullets at state-run stores (like they do whiskey in Utah) and that could lessen the amount of destruction the public can buy. The Assault Weapons Ban needs to be reinstated.
01:33 PM on 01/11/2011
the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting--and lay of the genitalia BS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
02:49 PM on 01/11/2011
It's pathetic how some people resort to ridiculous stereotypes to make their point, much like those who say guns in the hands of all save lives....Don't you agree.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:14 PM on 01/11/2011
Who stated the second amendment is about hunting?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:42 AM on 01/11/2011
Usually in these cases, some government official drops the ball. For example, in the Virginia Tech shooting, there were laws on the books that would have prevented the student from buying a gun, but the law was not enforced. In this case, did the Sheriff's office drop the ball? The kid had been making threats. Why was it not followed up on? We have to enforce the current laws before proposing new ones. Otherwise, the various governments can just refuse to enforce the law, pass more laws, and further restrict the citizens freedoms. We should have the maximum amount of freedom while effectively enforcing the laws on the books.
01:34 PM on 01/11/2011
and the college did not go through the steps to have him adjudicated a danger to himself or others which would have made him a prohibited person
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danivers
"It's all BS, and it's bad for you." - G. Carlin
10:00 AM on 01/11/2011
How does this make sense? I live in a country that is making it easier and easier for regular citizens to carry deadly weapons in their pockets (or over their shoulder) in public, but at the same time also goes absolutely nutty over the "public health effects" of the cigarette in my hand at my local pub.

"Sure, you can carry a gun in your pocket. Nobody even has to know it's there. But for God's sake, man. Put out that cigarette! You're killing us!"

This country has some very strange ideas about the public safety of its citizens.
10:04 AM on 01/11/2011
The Gun Cult has been allowed to intimidate too many people.
03:39 PM on 01/11/2011
so supporting the BOR makes me a cult member Eddie?
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
11:34 PM on 01/12/2011
"The Gun Cult has been allowed to intimidate too many people. "

Yes. We CARE and we VOTE.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
02:44 PM on 01/11/2011
How does it make sense?  Are you really that blind?  Your own words should show you the way:  "You're killing us!"

Cigarette smoke is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths per year in the U.S. alone and serves absolutely no useful purpose.  In contrast, the lawful carry of conceal firearms is directly connected to, at most, a handful of unjustified killings per year, and has enabled hundreds if not thousands of would-be victims to defend themselves and others against violent crimes.
09:59 AM on 01/11/2011
It should be painfully obvious that to the Gun Cult, ram_pages like the one that just happened in Tucson are totally acceptable as long as they get to have as many guns as they want. It's all just "collateral damage", doncha know. :-/
09:52 AM on 01/11/2011
Doncha just love it when the Gun Cult gets all pontifical and pompous about their "right* to blow away anyone they want to?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VioletDatura
_-*-,,~*~_-*-,,~*~_-*-,,~*~
11:13 AM on 01/11/2011
That's a pretty apt description, "gun cult". Looking over the comments on this site, you can see that they spend far too much time looking up minutia in order to justify their obsession.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
02:47 PM on 01/11/2011
Reductio ad absurdum, and ad hominem and poisoning the well fallacies won't make your untenable positions any better.
02:37 PM on 01/11/2011
I see where the 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, my copy of the Constitution seems to be missing a listed right to commit murder
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danivers
"It's all BS, and it's bad for you." - G. Carlin
09:47 AM on 01/11/2011
Everybody likes to think in terms of "tomorrow" when it comes to gun control. Banning handguns and assault weapons WILL NOT fix the violence in the streets by tomorrow or next week or even next year.

But maybe, just maybe, by the time our kids are grown up and have families of their own, they'll live in a world where people still have the freedom to own and use all kinds of firearms, just not the ones that fit easily in to a pocket and can be carried into crowds unnoticed.

If "freedom" is measured by the amount of guns we can carry in public... then I'd rather be a salve.

And yes, I own guns. I've just never felt the need to carry one in public.

And I live in Detroit. What's your excuse?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcarterla
There ain't no shame in my game!
09:16 AM on 01/11/2011
Why is the only open thread one that involves a topic that is impossible to have a valid constructive debate on?
02:37 PM on 01/11/2011
how is it constructive to advocate the violation of the Constitutionally protected rights of others
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcarterla
There ain't no shame in my game!
02:40 PM on 01/11/2011
Thanks for providing concrete proof of exactly what I am talking about.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:57 AM on 01/11/2011
It looks like Congresswoman Giffords is making great progress....My prayers are that she makes a full recovery.