Congress Must Rein in Gun Industry in Response to Giffords Assassination Attempt

So far few facts are known except the most horrifying: A Member of Congress is shot in the head while reaching out to her constituents and is rushed to surgery; six others are shot to death, including a judge and a nine-year old child; numerous others are injured.

America's gun culture claims its latest victims.

Initial news reports are that the man who shot Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others used a Glock semiautomatic pistol equipped with an extended magazine -- such magazines can hold up to 32 rounds of ammunition that can be fired without reloading.

These high-capacity ammunition magazines were banned before Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004. Despite protests by law enforcement and public officials, the gun lobby and its supporters on Capitol Hill dismissed the ban on assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines as an infringement on their right to own any gun of their choice -- no matter the risk to public safety. As NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has told us, the "guys with the guns make the rules." Today, one more guy with a gun made the rules.

Such rhetoric turns lethal in a nation where anyone with a grudge and a credit card can outfit himself with the most lethal firearms for sale on the civilian market in the world.

Members of Congress are now the latest victims held hostage by America's gun culture. Congress should act immediately to reinstate an effective ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines and move quickly to pass an effective assault weapons ban.

If the attempted murder of one of their colleagues does not force Congress and President Obama to face the gun issue, what will?

 

Follow Josh Sugarmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VPCinfo

Comments

[Lindsay814]

03:27 AM on 01/12/2011

I am amazed by the response to my comment on conservatives' use of the phrase "original intent" when denouncing things such as health reform, when they ask "where in the constitution is socialized medicine?" or other such nonsense. YET, when it comes to the Second Amendment, they always say that the Founders wanted us all to have the most advanced weapons available to us, including guns and ammo that can kill dozens of people by firing off 30 rounds without reloading. My comment, an attempt to underline conservative hypocrisy on the Constitution, was then taken over a cliff by a couple people who accused me of wanting to ban all modern technology and endanger the remainder of the Bill of Rights. ABSURD. Bounds of reason people, nobody is saying that, except for those who wrongly speculated that it was an implication of my comment. I am not trying to take away your .45, the internet, or your rights. But I am saying that the Second Amendment does not say that people have a right to weapons and ammunition that can kill dozens of innocent people within minutes. And the reason is because I don't believe that anyone 200+ years ago could have conceived of 21st century weapons' capabilities. Again, no civilian needs a weapon that can fire 30 rounds without reloading, and anyone who thinks they need it for protection from our elected government is ridiculously paranoid.

[Dimensio]

10:30 AM on 01/12/2011

Again, no civilian needs a weapon that can fire 30 rounds without reloading,

 "Need" is not relevant.  The AR-15 rifle that I purchased included two thirty-round capacity magazines as standard accessories.

[Lindsay814]

12:25 PM on 01/12/2011

And you probably don't need that rifle anyway. If I may ask, what do you use it for?

[OldSFMJT]

11:42 AM on 01/12/2011

Lindsay814 wrote: "Again, no civilian needs a weapon that can fire 30 rounds without reloading..."

And, what, pray tell, qualifies you to specify what tools are appropriate for another person's defense of self, family and property? Are you an expert in the subject of personal defense? Maybe defensive firearms? Maybe just firearms in general? Or, are you just spouting of emotionally?

Oh, and by the way, your beliefs about what the Founding Fathers believed are pretty much without merit. They were pretty thorough about sharing their thoughts in their contemporaneous writings.

Old SF MJT

[Lindsay814]

12:35 PM on 01/12/2011

I think the obvious fact that nobody needs to put 30 bullets into an intruder to protect their family qualifies me to say that. I have ZERO problem with people who want to have a gun in their home to protect their family from would-be thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., in fact my boyfriend has one that we keep in our home just for that purpose, but have thankfully never needed. But how many bullets do you have to be able to fire at once before you'll be satisfied that you have enough ammo to protect yourself? If you could fire off 100 rounds without reloading and I said that was absurd, would you tell me the same thing? That you need all 100 to protect yourself? At what point would someone like you be willing to draw the line and say enough is enough? Or would you ever? What's wrong with having a rational compromise that limits a firearm to 15 rounds? How would you be any less safe if that were the case?

As far as my beliefs on the Founding Fathers, I'm pretty sure that they did not have a crystal ball to see into the future of weapons technology. Certainly they must have known that weapons technology would have advanced, but are you actually saying you believe they could conceive of weapons like the one used in Saturday's shooting?

[Otto Smith]

01:59 AM on 01/12/2011

Amazing how quickly people start shifting blame from the killer to the tools of the killer.

Make everything dangerous illegal... wait, everything can be dangerous in the hands of a crazy man!

Remember the Romans? They had no guns back then... I'm sure there were no murders back then.

[Lindsay814]

05:16 AM on 01/11/2011

You know what's really obnoxious about gun-lovers' citing of our "Constitutional right" to own as many guns as we want? It seems like it hasn't occurred to them that when the Second Amendment was written, automatic weapons didn't exist. So I say that to get back to the "original intent" of the Constitution, which conservatives often claim they want to do, we should make it clear that the Second Amendment actually gives every American the right to own a flintlock musket, not countless assault weapons that can fire 30 rounds without reloading.

[Berettasskeeter]

09:21 AM on 01/11/2011

So, you agree then, in accord with your view, that ALL electronic media must be eliminated? That ALL internal combustion engines must be eliminated? That any industry using other than water, air, or hand-power must be eliminated? I hope you don't have a job that depends on any of those things!
Semper fi

[CapeJack]

10:14 AM on 01/11/2011

I fear your reason, logic and common sense falls on deaf ears. Committed liberals simply cannot relate to such complicated thinking.

F & F

Semper FI!

[Roy E Pearson]

10:56 AM on 01/11/2011

No, it just means that there is no constitutional right to have purchasing these items as protected. That internal combustion engine has pretty stringent regulation and you can not just drive it anywhere at any speed. Pretty much the same with all modern or since 1789 items. \

Gun advocates want us to believe that the men who wrote the Constitution would today advocate no prohibition on any guns. That is absurd if you have read enough about these men. I think most of them would fall slightly to the right of center now, but they believed in Government and it role in containing the extremes.

Last people who believe that collecting arsenals of weapons is going to protect them from some imagined oppression of Government need to come down out of the hills for a while. If the Government wants to get you, you are already got.

The only thing that the pathological lust for guns does to us is make us all less safe.

[miltonc4l]

02:19 PM on 01/10/2011

"the gun lobby ... dismissed the ban on ... high-capacity magazines as an infringement on their right to own any gun of their choice."

I assume you consider the NRA part of the gun lobby. They've made it very clear that they accept the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968, which effectively ban automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns and other weapons.

"... anyone with a grudge and a credit card can outfit himself with the most lethal firearms for sale on the civilian market in the world."

Not true. Using a credit card would mean buying from a licensed dealer. To make a legal purchase, the buyer would be subjected to a background check through the NICS. This would disqualify purchases by, among other things, felons, the mentally ill and those subject to a restraining order.

[Roy E Pearson]

12:51 PM on 01/10/2011

Laws will not alone do the job. It must become socially unacceptable to resort to violence. When the people of the thirteen colonies came together to adopt the Constitution they did so with relative civility and with out violence. It was a voluntary action to accept the rule of law to insure domestic tranquility.

Today the respect for law, those that make laws, and those who enforce laws, has diminished to a low that is unacceptable. People with power and narrow agendas have caused this deterioration.

We as a country have become lazy and apathetic. It is too easy to assign blame to a convenient "Them". We have become weak in our worship of money and all the material things of the Disneyland we live in.

In the United States we the people are the Government. When we disrespect the Government we disrespect ourselves. When we hate the Government and those who serve us in elected positions, we hate ourselves.

When you let others do your bidding with out close oversight and clear instructions, then it is your fault when you are cheated by the person in whom you put your blind trust.

The only way out is for each individual to peacefully and respectfully accept responsibility for their part in Government, and to keep close in mind that we share rights that are not absolute. Your rights end where another persons nose begins. The Civil War of Us and Them will lose us all our rights.

[shp]

01:48 PM on 01/10/2011

This is part of an e-mail my 70 plus mom sent me:

HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2010

Scenario 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.

1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2010 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatize­d students and teachers.

Scenario 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies

2010 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged them with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

The liberal "wussiefic­ation" of America hasn't done anything to remove violence from any part of our society. Instead, what was deemed behavior in the past as just "normal," is now dragged out as a criminal manner instead of just a part of growing up.

Maybe, just maybe, if kids growing up today were allowed to "blow of steam" in a controlled manner we wouldn't be having this discussion­.

But, no, we couldn't have that.

[radmo]

02:11 PM on 01/10/2011

Get ready to be "tarred and feathered"......in a politically correct verbal manner, of course. I actually agree with you. Good points.

[schotts]

02:11 PM on 01/10/2011

Excellent post and right on. Although I can say as recently as the mid 80s, students at my high school would come to school with their rifles and shotguns in their cars as well. Although the high school is in a suburban area of a large Rocky Mountain city, one could be hunting within an hour drive of school and they would go before or after class. I was one of them. Even in the 80s at a suburban high school, nobody took much notice of "Jack's" shotgun in the rack of his pickup. They knew he was a decent kid that liked to hunt after school. Today, just like you said. Thrown in jail with Federal charges.

[toocoolfoschool1234]

05:09 PM on 01/10/2011

Very good point Roy. We must not keep asking the government to solve all our problems, while at the same time, not paying attention and making sure it is done right. It is our responsibility to keep America a free functioning democracy. If we are not involved how can it be?

[Roy E Pearson]

09:48 AM on 01/11/2011

Sadly, most of the other replies are just part of the Us/Them mentality. We must also find a way to become one people, a nation indivisible. That needs to be adhered to or removed from our Pledge of Allegiance.

[Just4]

11:22 AM on 01/10/2011

I doubt that you're going to convince citizens to give up their right to keep and bear arms because of the actions of one crazy person...

[JustMeinNJ]

10:57 AM on 01/10/2011

this is an issue for each state. it's really none of the Fed's business.

[dvkrlsn]

12:57 PM on 01/10/2011

You must have missed the McDonald decision--I have a suspicion that many laws in Jersey are going to fall

[caesarf]

01:54 PM on 01/10/2011

Yes-for instance in AZ it's ok for almost anyone to own a semiautomatic handgun-no background check, lo license, no safety instruction. Gun lovers take comfort in that fact.

[Old Jarhead]

02:26 PM on 01/10/2011

You are correct that "almost anyone" is allowed to own a semiautomatic handgun. Those that are not allowed would be felons, those adjudicated as not responsible due to age or mental illness, and those who are currently the subject of a protection order or are convicted family abusers. What else do you think needs to be added to the list?

[semper paratus]

10:33 AM on 01/10/2011

What if a legally-licensed concealed carry permit holder was in the crowd that day and was armed...how quickly do you think s/he could have diffused the situation?
How many lives could have been saved (or would you rather have waited for the police to finally show up)?

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

[JustMeinNJ]

10:55 AM on 01/10/2011

i think one of the guys that sat on the sh00ter said he was carrying. he said he was going to sh00t him but since they had him pinned to the ground there was no need. i think prior there was just no time.

[schotts]

11:31 AM on 01/10/2011

That is correct. Joseph Zimudie was one of the three or four that ultimately held him down. I saw an interview of Joseph last night; yes he is licensed to carry a concealed weapon and was carrying that day. He was in a store next to the Safeway and heard shots and came running out. He said - in his own words - he ran out to help and knew he could help given he was carrying a weapon. Unfortunately, it was too late and the carnage was done and Loughner was already on the ground.

[caesarf]

12:25 PM on 01/10/2011

There were armed people in the crowd. Seems like some unarmed people diffused the situation very well with incredible selfless actions that are to me heroic. Do you think that these people who managed to take down a lunatic with a semiautomatic handgun are any less heroes because they did so without firing a shot?

[schotts]

01:40 PM on 01/10/2011

The details if others in the crowd, and close enough, to take action is not clear, however, it appears that is not the case. As I wrote above, Joseph Zimudie was armed but not in the immediate vacinity. Nonetheless, he immediately (and selflessly) decided to take action running to the scene but by the time he got there, Loughner was already subdued. They are all hero's and I don't think anyone is assigning a higher or lessor degree of heroism to anyone.

[Old Jarhead]

02:33 PM on 01/10/2011

Why would you even ask that? Of course they are hero's. And there may have been armed people in the crowd who DID NOT SHOOT as they could not get a clean shot. If they were a lot farther away than the others, would you not agree they did the right thing, and didn't shoot? But, as I am sure you will agree, many posters here think anyone who carries concealed is just "itchin' to shoot" their firearm, which this incident proves is incorrect.

[Paul Spomer]

10:09 AM on 01/10/2011

If you make guns illegal... then only criminals will have them. If you disagree then you are not being honest. Definition of a hypocrite: Someone who wants to legalize marijuana and criminalize guns.

[fo3angels]

11:11 AM on 01/10/2011

Paul, in addition to the "outlawing guns means only outlaws will have them" idea, there is (to me) that critical constitutional component. That said, however, rational and reasonable regulation that is intended to address the safety of ALL Americans needs to be developed. It is not reasonable for someone to have a high capacity magazine, though 10 rounds in a handgun (not rifle) excludes certain normal models from the market which have 13 round clips. I personally woudl hope to never be in a situation where I needed more than a couple of rounds to repel an intruder - it is highly unlikely that I will ever actually be in a firefight! As for rifles, normally used for hunting, modifications that make them more appropriate for urban assault (shortened barrels, stocks, increased magazines) should not be allowed. For hunting, if you need more than a couple of rounds to get the job done, improve your aim with practice or just don't go. I think 5-6 rounds there with hunting rifles (not counting the venerable old .22 in that) is sufficient. Yes, the .22 can be used for illegal activity, but it usually is not - by average criminals anyway.

[danielboone]

12:38 PM on 01/10/2011

We already have enough gun regulations, we can't hardly keep up with them. How does that Gun free zone work near schools?

[Berettasskeeter]

02:10 PM on 01/10/2011

Magazines, reliable ones, can be made by ANY metal-working shop. How will you regulate those shops?
One of the rifles used to kill Bonnie and Clyde was a Remington model 7, originally intended as a semi-auto hunting rifle. Law enforcement got one look at it and asked for high capacity magazines. That did not change it's intent to be a hunting rifle. The rest is cosmetics! Just the same as putting mag wheels on your car or a cap on your truck bed, strictly cosmetics.
Semper fi

[greeneyes51654m]

01:48 PM on 01/10/2011

Absolutely true.

[whitedog4]

09:46 AM on 01/10/2011

Q: "If the attempted murder of one of their colleagues does not force Congress and President Obama to face the gun issue, what will?"
A: Nothing, short of aliens coming 'round and showing us 'the light' or something.... digsusting, horrifying, senseless murder, this is. Two weeks from now it'll be business as usual. Pathetic. Anybody remember Virginia Tech? What changed from then? Fort Hood? What changed? Nothing. Pathetic. These incidents go unheeded and are small change in the big money/power game, folks. Pathetic.

[Ohio9]

10:19 AM on 01/10/2011

The real pathetic people are the ones who want to restrict our constitutional rights for every crime or attempted crime. Just as every attempted terror attack on airplanes brings in new legions of abusive airport proceedures in the name of "security", after every shooting spree the ambulance chasing gun banners come out of the woodworks hoping to force their agenda down our throats.

[caesarf]

01:58 PM on 01/10/2011

I think the real pathetic people are the crazy dudes who get their hands on a gun and go shoot people.

[whitedog4]

03:32 PM on 01/10/2011

Hi, thanks for commenting. I have a question: would you be opposed to a really strict system that allowed only tested, screened, proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt sane people to have guns AND strictly regulated ammunition sales? I like your thought about the airlines (we should all be interviewed, not x-rayed) and wondered what you think about a system where folks would have to extensively prove their identity, mental capacity, propensity for violence, whatever.. in order to secure a firearm? If you know you'd pass, there's no problem, is there? I know the devil's in the details, but... Just curious - thanks again.

[Dimensio]

10:21 AM on 01/10/2011

Have you an actual suggestion to offer, rather than hyperbole?

[batguano]

09:16 AM on 01/10/2011

I grieve and mourn with all the families who lost loved-ones to this mindless violence, but I believe
the real issue here is hatred and intolerance; violence instilled/encouraged by those who cynically inflame the passions of the ignorant and feeble-minded, not “guns” per se. The hatred peddled by right-wing talk-radio hosts, Politicians self-serving divisive rhetoric, the WBC "god hates" psychotics (and other “religious” bigots) masquerading behind religion, the racist fringe, and a host more who shout "FIRE" in a crowded political theatre of political intolerance/polarization, ignorance and press disinformation. Instead of shifting the responsibility for these crimes by blaming "guns", thus giving those really responsible a free-ride, how about naming those purveyors of hate who can and do influence the weak-minded with their constant hate-speech and “religious” bigotry/hatred? Those who cynically use a right-wing message of intolerance and hatred are the ones who should be arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy or criminal incitement to violence, as we have seen numerous times, and spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison; guns are only a convenient instrument (albeit very deadly and effective for mass-killings) that could be replaced by other means if people bent on the deaths of others are really intent; the self-serving hate-mongers are the real killers. Millions of responsible people own guns for various reasons; they just don’t kill people for a mindless hatred.

[Berettasskeeter]

02:12 PM on 01/10/2011

I didn't see it, so I suppose the hatred peddled by left-wing talk-radio hosts is not a problem?? Ed Schutz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, etal.?
Semper fi

[maveet]

02:13 AM on 01/10/2011

As a formerly American Australian, I started looking at these comments, and am so gutted by this shooting, and aghast at the need to continue to bow down before the right to bear arms, that I'll post my remark and get out of here.

You people have NO IDEA how bizarre your Wild West values are to the rest of the world. Why is it that most of the civilized world does not have the need to pack heat??? GET A GRIP!!

Do I feel better now? no, but i'm outta here now. Namaste.

[RevJimIII]

02:50 AM on 01/10/2011

In a population of 300+ millioin, we will have violent criminals, this does NOT make he majority of our citiezens members of your imaginary 'wild west' scenario.

[LJ Burgess]

05:07 AM on 01/10/2011

Let's see, let me Google "murder in australia" and see how Utopia works.

[toocoolfoschool1234]

05:28 PM on 01/10/2011

Violent crime went up after they passed their gun legislation.

[vascopyjama]

01:34 AM on 01/10/2011

To get Congress to do anything you have to bribe (sorry, lobby) them to do it.

[danielboone]

12:45 PM on 01/10/2011

Thank god the Conservatives are in charge of the House, no gun laws will pass!

[Old Jarhead]

01:37 PM on 01/10/2011

Some may pass, though I doubt there will be any of the kind Mr. Sugarmann is seeking. I think it will be laws that actually increase the rights of citizens of the US, not abridge them.

[spiderseye]

01:30 AM on 01/10/2011

Rather than increase security measures in congress maybe we should do away with them altogether and leave them open to the public at large? Maybe it would force our politicians to be more civil and accountable for their actions?

[1RPB1]

01:08 AM on 01/10/2011

I’d like to publicly thank one of the heroes, Joe Zamudio.

If you don’t know who that is, and why I’m thanking that hero:
(You can verify at YouTube, CNN, azcentral.com or the Dateline interview

Joe Zamudio held down the shooting suspect, and secured the gun. (looks to be a young college-aged fellow)

Dateline: (available at msnbc video “Is Congress’ heated rhetoric responsible?”
at 2:56 to 3:36
I had my hand on my gun, but I didn’t pull it out
“You never drew your gun?”
No, I didn’t need to.

azcentral:
Four people instrumental in disarming Arizona shooting suspect
“Patricia Maisch, Roger Salzgeber, Bill Badger and Joseph Zamudio.”

Youtube:
Shooting witness What I saw – Joe Zamudio – CNN video

On behalf of all affected by this:
Thank you Joe for mitigating the potential damage that the shooter could have caused.

[OdinsEye]

01:48 AM on 01/10/2011

All of those who reacted not only in tackling the gunman, but also with immediate care to the wounded deserve thanks and applause. So too with some of the folks who called 911 and remained calm and gave concise information to the operators.

[RevJimIII]

02:54 AM on 01/10/2011

I second your motion, there were some amazing responses to this tragic event. The resilience and responsibility of many of our citizens is an amazing thing and we are all lifted by their response.

[TimFromEngland]

04:19 AM on 01/10/2011

He deserves thanks certainly. But doesn't the fact that he was able to disarm the gunman without using his own gun undermine one of the arguments against gun control. In the aftermath of incidents like this we often hear things like "if only it hadn't been a gun free area, someone could have taken out the gunman". In this situation I guess a number of people present were carrying guns - it didn't stop the carnage and guns were not used to overcome the gunman.

[dvkrlsn]

01:00 PM on 01/10/2011

no it doesn't--especially when it is a single victim against a group of attackers

[OdinsEye]

01:55 PM on 01/10/2011

The gunman was already being held down and being grappled with and disarmed by others. Had he gotten there a just a second sooner, he may had the window of opportunity to shoot the gunman, but as it was, he did not. Remember, he had to run over there.