What happened in Tucson, if you were there?
Seconds felt like an eternity for those on the scene; taut cracks of sound the human mind interprets as construction noise, random shouting and people in motion. Like a short, confined, devastating earthquake or tornado that struck for no particular reason and uprooted lives.
We all heard the news coverage together, but until you spend a lot of time researching a tragedy, you don't get that sense of how small and short and focused an event one of these mass shootings is, how subject to random chance, and how dramatically different such an event can play out if a single element changes.
Because of a film project I undertook more than a year ago, I understand that now. In summer 2009, I was moved by the compelling testimony of Colin Goddard, who was shot four times in his classroom at Virginia Tech in April 2007. Since the tragic incident which left 32 people dead and 17 injured, Colin has become a leading activist for sensible gun laws. Our documentary, Living for 32, tells Colin's experience, from victim to advocate.
After listening to Goddard and other survivors recount their memories of that tormented day, listening to law enforcement experts describe the type of incident those survivors experienced, I developed a deeper understanding of what transpires in mere moments that play out like hours. I also have learned how, with a single alteration, the situations could have been less terrible -- or how they could get even more terrible.
One such scenario was what could have happened if Goddard hadn't dialed 911 on his cell phone the moment his teacher told him to, just before she lost her own life. If he didn't call 911 and get the phone to another student when he was shot, the police response might have been delayed by precious minutes, allowing the Virginia Tech killer to take the lives of more innocent victims. We'll never know, but there's a terrifying logic to the argument.
And in that regard, Tucson could have been less deadly if the killer had fewer bullets to fire before having to reload.
It was all about the ammunition magazine. You don't need a computer simulation to realize that if you exchange Jared Lee Loughner's 33 round ammunition magazine for a 10-round one, the outcome is altered, and people who died may have survived instead. Which ones? I don't know. Homicide investigators either already know or are working with crime lab technicians and medical examiners to sort out the order in which victims were shot, and at some point it will be laid down in a dark 33-step chronology. But no one disputes that the killer was stopped when he ran out of ammunition, when he was tackled and prevented from reloading.
If you understand how rapidly the magazine of a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol can be emptied, you know what I'm talking about. And I know, because we show it in the film. A police firearms instructor empties a 15-round magazine, reloads, and empties a second one: 30 bullets in 14 seconds, including a break for reloading. Five seconds to empty each 15-round clip, four seconds to reload. That's not hypothetical -- the cameras in our film didn't lie.
The 33-round clip used by the shooter used to be illegal, until the law that the restriction was part of -- the Federal assault weapons ban -- was allowed to expire in 2004 by Congress.
Since the Tucson tragedy, many law enforcement leaders and members of Congress have called for reinstatement of the ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
When would this not be a good idea? When Colin Goddard called for closing the loophole that allows dangerous people to buy guns without a background check at most states in the nation, the gun rights community argued that the Virginia Tech shooter didn't purchase his weapons that way (although the killers at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado did get purchase their guns that way). I reject that argument as beside the point, but even if we were to accept that, then here is a case where the proposed law fits the crime it seeks to prevent like a glove. If Jared Loughner didn't have a high capacity magazine, he wouldn't have been able to shoot as many people, period.
All elected officials, Republican and Democrat, should support passing the bill introduced by New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, whose own husband was killed, her son injured, because of how many times a gun can be shot before being reloaded.
That killer, on December 7, 1993, emptied two 15-round magazines.
He was tackled while trying to load a third.
It sounds gruesomely familiar.
It was all about the ammunition magazine."
If the author really believes this statement, i feel sorry for her.
Anyone with at least average firearm handling abilities can fire 30 rounds from three 10 round MAGAZINES (stop calling it a clip!!) as they can with one 30 round MAGAZINE, save for maybe a few seconds.
The variable here is the decision of those who choose to intervene. Had no one chose to intervene, Loughner could have just as easily reoladed 10 round mags at will and systematically killed his victims. As did Cho at v-tech.
Ignore the current state of mental health reporting. Ignore the social and socio-economic factors contributing to violent crime. Ignore the fact that firearms are used at minimum of about 80,000 times in self -defense per year in the US.
Just keep blaming inanimate objects.
Sad.
I also find it interesting that, considering that about 80% of violent crime in the US is gang/drug related, that you'd still focus on inanimate objects instead of the social and socio-economic disparities more responsible for violent crime in the US.
I also find it interesting that, considering our nearly 80% criminal recidivism rate, that you'd give a free pass to career criminals and again, blame inanimate objects.
And you wonder why gun control is losing traction and funding?
1-"Goddard hadn't dialed 911" - If Goddard hadn't been in a gun free zone or under the correct name a "victim dis-armament zone".
2-"If you understand how rapidly the magazine of a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol can be emptied" - Fired and reloaded by a trained officer. How accurate was he? Thanks for basing your proof on a video that we can't link to. THANKS!
3-"The 33-round clip used by the shooter used to be illegal"- Wrong again HuffPo. Manufacturer of new high capacity magazines was illegal. Previously manufactured were still legal, therefore, these magazines would still be availble to someone with ill intent!?
4-"closing the loophole that allows dangerous people to buy guns without a background check"- But almost all of the cases mentioned did go through a background check!? Maybe if there were 2 background checks, then it would have worked...
So let's pass laws, then when the next shooting happens, with a 10 round magazine, we can talk about how a 5 round magazine would be better, or limit it to 1 round.
I will not stand by and watch as you pass tiny law after tiny law. Tiny laws that make you feel good and do not solve anything. Tiny laws that make it harder for good citizens to understand what is legal. Tiny laws that are "reasonable". Tiny laws that get you to YOUR end game of banning guns.
Right now the main bill on the table is a high capacity magazine ban by Carolyn McCarthy. She also put through the bill for the NICS background check. The federal background check that Jarred went through and passed with flying colors. I am tired of people saying, "if we just had this law...".
Gun Grabber McCarthy got the background check she wanted and IT DIDN'T WORK. Now she wants a magazine ban, and guess what IT WON'T WORK!!!
As a former resident of Chicago I have seen these "tiny bills" pass and what they do.
Chicago first passed a law that required all handguns to be registered. Then a few years later passed a law that basically said new handguns need to be registered before you own them (name one other thing in life that you have to register BEFORE you own it!) then it was coupled with wording that says you can only register guns you own. And magic, multiple tiny laws that resulting in new handguns being illegal so over time, as legal handgun owners moved out of the city of passed from old age the number of legal handguns went down. So tell me why does Chicago have one of the highest murder rates in the country?
Tell us what you think a large capacity, high capacity, or extended magazine is and show your reasoning for setting this threshold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI
Where exactly can we find common ground re: regulation? What types of background checks/ waiting periods are/ would you be in favor of? Are there any specific types of weapons/ magazines you yourself are in favor of having laws against?
Despite what some people advocating more gun control would have you believe, automatic weapons are already tightly controlled, extremely expensive, and hardly ever used in the commission of a crime. So-called "assault weapons" are also a red herring, because they are used in a very small fraction of crime, and really aren't anything other than medium-powered rifles that have some modern features which some find frightening.
Background checks and registration are out of the question. Remove the "right to keep and bear arms" from the Bill of Rights and then I would be ok with background checks and registration. But at this point requiring either is as much of an infringement as requiring either in order to exercise your right to be free from unreasonable searches seizures or your right to Due Process of Law.
Weakening one amendment weakens them all. And whether you like it or not, *all* our rights find their roots in the constitution. A major shift in culture to provide for the rights of minorities is awesome, don't get me wrong - but it's meaningless unless it's bolted onto the constitution.
Maybe we should apply that ill logic toward all of the Contsitutional Rights. I mean, someone who feels law abiding people should be penalized without cause, in my mind, needs their own psychological exam before exercising their rights to free speach. And probably voting.
You have to assume that he wouldn't have used a more powerful caliber weapon if limited to 10-round magazines.
You have to assume he wouldn't have carried two guns.
You have to assume that someone would have been able to grab a short little 10-round magazine out of his hand as easily as a foot-long magazine.
You have to assume that anyone would have been prepared to tackle him by the time he emptied his first or second magazine.
You have to assume that he would have used the same "tactics" (i.e. getting close enough to his victims for them to grab him).
You have to assume that a 10-round magazine would have been just as likely to fail as a 33-round magazine.
I can do that with three 10 round magazines, and I have slow magazine changes.
"The 33-round clip used by the shooter used to be illegal,"
Wrong.
"If Jared Loughner didn't have a high capacity magazine, he wouldn't have been able to shoot as many people, period. "
Wrong. He could have reloaded quickly, could have used multiple guns, could have used a much more powerful gun, could have used a 5 round deer rifle and killed dozens more, could have used a single match and killed hundreds more.
What is high capacity and who should decide what is and what isn't? Should a gun grabber get to decide the maximum amount? Or perhaps it should be firearms experts?
Is my AR-15 that came with 30 round magazines standard high capacity? What about my Browning Hi-Power that came with 13 round magazines?
Is 10 the limit you would put on them? Or maybe it's 5?
Then he made poor choices.
So, I ask again: Tell us what you think a large capacity, high capacity, or extended magazine is and show your reasoning for setting this threshold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuIbujpLWA&feature=related
I see you completely jumped past the little news report and went straight for the bulging jugular of an anonymous, over-the-top, commentator.
Do you have any salient points to make?
Semper fi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9NDnqS5h9k