Assault-Weapons Ban Would Not Have Prevented the Tucson Shooting

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Assault-Weapons Ban Would Not Have Prevented the Tucson Shooting
By Kevin D. Williamson

<!--INFOLINKS_ON-->As usual, the ghouls at the Brady Center follow hot on the trail of a murder; in this case they are arguing that, had the federal assault-weapons ban not been allowed to expire, the Tucson shooter would have had a hard time buying the magazine he used in the gun with which he shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. It is certainly not true that, as Salon put it, ?Weapon in rampage was banned under Clinton-era law.? The weapon in question, a 9mm Glock 19 pistol, was not banned; neither were the 31-round magazines the shooter used. What was banned was the manufacture or importation of new magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds.
That is not hair-splitting, inasmuch as high-capacity magazines for Glocks were and are commonplace ? almost as commonplace as Glocks themselves ? and remained so even while their manufacture and importation were banned. Most Glock 9mm magazines are usable in any Glock 9mm pistol, regardless of model. Glock makes at least four different 9mm pistols at the moment ? 9mm being one of the most common calibers ? and a high-capacity magazine sold for almost any of those could have been used in the Glock 19. Third-party manufacturers make them as well, and have made them for years and years, meaning that AWB or no AWB, finding one is not very difficult. The only difference the AWB is likely to have made is that the shooter would have had a used magazine instead of a new one (assuming he did in fact have a new one), and he probably would have paid five bucks more for it.
Nor is it true that, as the Brady Center claims, ?Glock pistols are particularly easy to fire, letting off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger.? All semiautomatic weapons let off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger; that is the definition of a semiautomatic weapon. The Glock 19 does not have a particularly light trigger pull ? its standard trigger-pull weight is 5.5 pounds? and a great many high-quality modern handguns have adjustable triggers, anyway, for a variety of reasons. Many women and people with less hand strength, for example, prefer a lighter trigger.
Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Center, says: ?Our gun laws are so weak that someone who couldn?t get into the military, who was kicked out of school, and who used drugs walked into a gun store and was able to immediately buy a semiautomatic weapon.? That is true. And the implications of his complaints are . . . what, exactly? That military rejects should be barred from gun ownership? That the military should be required to share its psychological evaluations of rejected recruits with law-enforcement authorities? That people expelled from high school should have their rights curtailed? That we should implement national drug tests and curtail the rights of those who fail to pass them? That we should make it easier to declare people mentally incompetent and strip them of their rights?
The shooter had one gun with a 31-round magazine. He might as easily have had three guns with ten-round magazines. Or a pipe bomb, or a truck full of fertilizer. The focus on the gun, as usual, distracts us from the question of the killer. And that often turns out to be a really interesting question.
Most criminals do not commit a mass murder for their first crime, and, indeed, Jared Lee Loughner is reported to have been arrested several times ? without having been convicted of a crime. Did the police drop the ball? No one can say at this moment. We are not yet privy to the details of those arrests, but we have good reason to believe that our law-enforcement agencies are not very good at identifying future killers, even when they have them in custody. (That is not necessarily a criticism of our police and prosecutors, merely a recognition of their limitations.) A New York Times study of 1,662 murders committed between 2003 and 2005 found that more than 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. The Independent Institute cites a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story finding that not only did most of that city?s murder suspects have a criminal past, a fourth of them were on either parole or probation at the time of the killing. This suggests that what is called for is not stricter gun control, but stricter felon control.
But human beings have a great capacity for degeneracy, whatever prior restraints we put on them. From that Times report:
After four years as commander of the Brooklyn North homicide squad, Lt. John Cornicello said the murders in his section of the borough had begun to run together. Yet from memory, he rolled off the details of several: The good Samaritan shot for his Lincoln Navigator after offering a ride to a group of stranded people. The ?.40-caliber killer,? a serial murderer who shot and killed but did not rob four shopkeepers because he believed they were Middle Eastern.
?More and more, they seem to be the result of stupidity,? Lieutenant Cornicello said. ?Take the Potato Wedge Killer.?
In that recent case, a customer at a KFC restaurant became incensed when he did not receive enough starch with his fried chicken order. After demanding both a refund and an order of potato wedges, he later confronted the cashier with whom he had argued and stabbed him to death.
If the Potato Wedge Killer had been inspired by a demand for s?mores, you can bet that Keith Olbermann would be blaming Sarah Palin for that one, too. But he didn?t use a gun, so the Brady Center took no notice.
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
Per Tucson police spokesman, shooter was stopped only while he attempted to reload after discharging 31 rounds. A ban on the high capacity clip would have limited the casualties.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The shooter had one gun with a 31-round magazine. He might as easily have had three guns with ten-round magazines.

This is just stupid to me. Why is a private citizen allowed to purchase (by having a drivers license and answering five simple questions - without serious verification) a magazine that allows 31 rounds to be fired off in a matter of seconds? What, is it important to allow a person to slaughter an entire herd of buffalo these days?!?

More to the point, why is a private citizen allowed to have a gun with a ten-round magazine? In case he's a REALLY bad shot when trying to protect himself from someone breaking in?!?

:shrug: :facepalm:
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
The shooter had one gun with a 31-round magazine. He might as easily have had three guns with ten-round magazines.

This is just stupid to me. Why is a private citizen allowed to purchase (by having a drivers license and answering five simple questions - without serious verification) a magazine that allows 31 rounds to be fired off in a matter of seconds? What, is it important to allow a person to slaughter an entire herd of buffalo these days?!?

More to the point, why is a private citizen allowed to have a gun with a ten-round magazine? In case he's a REALLY bad shot when trying to protect himself from someone breaking in?!?

:shrug: :facepalm:

Chad,

You have moved from a 31 round clip to a 10 round clip?

In CA, that's what our limit is.

It is a pain in the ass at the range to constantly reload, and reload and.....

It also really sucks that there are some excellent firearms the CA Residents are not allowed to purchase and own because of the HiCap ban.

I know your reply is:

"Lumi, Why do you need such a firearm?"

"Why not?"

http://www.eaacorp.com/

Witness Polymer Pistols can be
converted to 22LR, 9mm, .40SW,
.45ACP & 10mm

The Taurus Judge

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yNFJuTUXB4o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yNFJuTUXB4o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Glock Gen 4

Only Law Enforcement can have this gun in the Peoples Republic of Kahlifornia
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
"Why not?"

How about because a 10 round clip would have saved lives. If banning high capacity clips saves just a single life, then it is clearly worth you having to reload more often while at the range.......

What would you be saying now if the 9 year old girl was your granddaughter, not Dallas Green's?
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Lumi... is the Taurus Judge banned in Kaleefornya and if so, why?

CA law defines the .410/.45LC handguns as short barrel shotguns. The barrel having rifling or not does not change it's classification as a SBS in CA.

The Taurus Judge, MIL Inc Thunder Five and Thompson/Center Contender with .410/.45LC barrel all fit the SBS definition laid forth in PC 12020(c)(1)(A) and (B).



CA Penal Code 12020(c)
(1) As used in this section, a "short-barreled shotgun" means any of the following:
(A) A firearm which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell and having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.
(B) A firearm which has an overall length of less than 26 inches and which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(C) Any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.
(D) Any device which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell which, when so restored, is a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C) inclusive.
(E) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C) inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, can be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

CA Penal Code 12000
(f) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun," "pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" from also being found to be a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle, as defined in Section 12020.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Chad,

You have moved from a 31 round clip to a 10 round clip?

In CA, that's what our limit is.

It is a pain in the ass at the range to constantly reload, and reload and.....

LMAO!


Ed McGivern is also known as the world's best pistol shooter, with multiple guinness records, and was well known for his feats, such as -
* He could break six simultaneously hand thrown clay pigeons (standard trap targets) in the air before they hit the ground.
* He could hit a tin can hand thrown 20 ft. in the air six times before it hit the ground.
* He could shoot-drive a tack or nail into wood.
* He could shoot the spots out of playing cards, or even split a playing card edge on.
* He could shoot a dime on the fly.

And what did Ed shoot?

S&W and Colt revolvers. No semi-autos for him; he left them to the baggy-pants gang bangers.

And how fast can you reload a revolver?

Answer:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cY9CyA9s41c?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cY9CyA9s41c?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

So, grow up, leave the HiCap Glocks to the ghetto bangers, and get yourself an adult handgun. S&W
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Your analogy is stupid, shocking...

Becuase I own a car can I drive it like a Nextel Cup driver also?

I also drive a truck, so should I enter the Baja 1000 too?

LMAO, do it while you look in the mirror or when you pull your pants down.

Put some pepper on it, when it sneezes, grab it....
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
CA law defines the .410/.45LC handguns as short barrel shotguns. The barrel having rifling or not does not change it's classification as a SBS in CA.
OK, thanks.

I know we disagree on some gun rights, but then, this argument's as old as the Bill of Rights itself, so there's no point in rehashing the same old talking points.

Peace out.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Your analogy is stupid, shocking...

Becuase I own a car can I drive it like a Nextel Cup driver also?

You can get an old slant-six Plymouth, paint it blue with #43 and pretend you're Richard Petty.

And you can get yourself a Glock and pretend you're a shooter...until it goes off in your pants pocket. Or hang-fires as thankfully happened in Tucson.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Chad,

You have moved from a 31 round clip to a 10 round clip?

In CA, that's what our limit is.

It is a pain in the ass at the range to constantly reload, and reload and.....

It also really sucks that there are some excellent firearms the CA Residents are not allowed to purchase and own because of the HiCap ban.

I know your reply is:

"Lumi, Why do you need such a firearm?"

"Why not?"

Only Law Enforcement can have this gun in the Peoples Republic of Kahlifornia

Your last sentence makes me think more of California, for the record. After reading this, I'm sorry, but I still haven't read ANYTHING that explains to me why as a matter of general welfare for citizens that a person should be allowed to have this kind of firepower, ESPECIALLY since there is so little required and asked of them in some states. Like Arizona, for instance. And your post makes me MORE opposed to it, if anything. Sorry, I could care less if you have to reload a little more often to practice shooting at whatever targets you choose to shoot at. The sad thing is - more and more these days - some people are choosing human beings as their targets, and the simple fact is if they couldn't easily obtain these things - or not at all, legally - it would save the lives of innocent people.

Why not? Is that a rhetorical question? Hey, it might be cool to own some enriched uranium, or some mustard gas, so, why not? There are countless reasons "why not." Why not doesn't cut it for me. I know it does for you, because you want a stockpile of weaponry for whatever reason(s), and you think they're great and snazzy. I don't think you'll snap some day, but to be honest, I wouldn't want to live next door to you. I'm sure a lot of people don't worry about a lot of people that have guns and want more of them, until it becomes a "pain in THEIR ass" when somebody shoots them and a few others in the name of whatever cause they think is important that day, week, lifetime, whatever.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Your last sentence makes me think more of California, for the record. After reading this, I'm sorry, but I still haven't read ANYTHING that explains to me why as a matter of general welfare for citizens that a person should be allowed to have this kind of firepower, ESPECIALLY since there is so little required and asked of them in some states. Like Arizona, for instance. And your post makes me MORE opposed to it, if anything. Sorry, I could care less if you have to reload a little more often to practice shooting at whatever targets you choose to shoot at. The sad thing is - more and more these days - some people are choosing human beings as their targets, and the simple fact is if they couldn't easily obtain these things - or not at all, legally - it would save the lives of innocent people.

Why not? Is that a rhetorical question? Hey, it might be cool to own some enriched uranium, or some mustard gas, so, why not? There are countless reasons "why not." Why not doesn't cut it for me. I know it does for you, because you want a stockpile of weaponry for whatever reason(s), and you think they're great and snazzy. I don't think you'll snap some day, but to be honest, I wouldn't want to live next door to you. I'm sure a lot of people don't worry about a lot of people that have guns and want more of them, until it becomes a "pain in THEIR ass" when somebody shoots them and a few others in the name of whatever cause they think is important that day, week, lifetime, whatever.




Do you and fluffy go to the same school of stu pid analogous thought?

Do you own a firearm Chad?

I understand you want to be a school teacher so you can join the club wielding union thugs and even more than now you can quit all rational thought and just have the unions do it for you. But enjoy it while you can, it's fun now while you are being brain washed in college while you take your revisionist college courses. Then you can pass on to the little balls of clay.

Every time a tragedy happens you bleeding hearts and bunny huggers piss yourselves and want everything banned, regulated, taken away.


Let's just face the truth here.

If this had happened at a Republican Congress Person Chat, round #2 never would have left the chamber.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Whatever you think, illum. Over-react much? :rolleyes:

I may have gone a bit overboard with the comment about not wanting to live next to you. Probably shouldn't have said that. But it seriously would concern me, and I would guess many others as well. Many who don't hug trees and piss themselves in times of trauma.

Seems this line of questioning has hit a little close to home for you. I don't remember calling you names, freaking out about professions or political beliefs, reducing my questions to some kind of "stupid analogy" level. Of course my points about mustard gas and enriched uranium were ridiculous and said for effect, but it was in response to what - in my opinion - was a simplistic avoidance of a real question. Which I understand, because I don't get why it should be protected in this day and age.

I feel quite good about what I'm doing these days, and being able to think and act for myself. I know that I'm pretty rational and think I generally respond that way. Brain-washed? Revisionist history? Been to college lately? Have any idea what you're talking about? Or are you brain washed or perhaps a little threatened by the thought of spending your time thinking about things and not most of your waking time worrying about what people are going to do to you or who is out to get all of us. Appreciating knowledge and learning more about all kinds of things, or just reading conspiracy theories and anti-government propaganda? Any of the sites have any revisionist-history commentary on them? Nah, THAT'S ridiculous, right?

Hey, if your rant makes you feel somehow better about yourself, cool. My question is still on the table, and if the best thing you can come up with is the scintillating, insightful commentary of "because I can," then so be it. Get on with your bad self. :0074

For the record, today in one of my classes, a professor did give their opinion about the war in Afghanistan being unnecessary, and clearly is a pretty liberal leaner. It's the first time in going on three years that I've heard anything like that that didn't come with a stronger caveat than "it's my opinion," which she did say. I think it was off point and pretty needless. But one comment like that in nearly three years ain't bad, IMO. It was a class on rhetorical writing, which is pretty interesting.

Not as interesting as target practice down at the range, I'm sure, but it's interesting to me.

Peace, out.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
If this had happened at a Republican Congress Person Chat, round #2 never would have left the chamber.

John Hinckley managed to get six shots off whilst surrounded by by Secret Service agents and Republicans. Being Republican didn't help Jim Brady at all.

Leon Czolgosz put two rounds in McKinley whilst surrounded by Republicans.

Of course "slow load" Lumi wasn't in either crowd. If would have been different if he had been.

The second round would have been into the top of his foot as he attempted to draw his Glock from his baggies.

Say, Lumi - why do all you semi-auto boys hold your guns sideways? Do you like getting hit in the face by the ejected brass?

004gun_468x377.jpg
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
But of course bullets don't stop real men -

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, John F. Schrank, a saloon-keeper from New York, shot Roosevelt once with a .38 caliber revolver. A 50-page speech folded over twice in Roosevelt's breast pocket and a metal glasses case slowed the bullet. Amidst the commotion, Roosevelt yelled out, "Quiet! I've been shot." Roosevelt insisted on giving his speech with the bullet still lodged inside him. During his speech Roosevelt stated, "It takes more than one bullet to bring down a Bull Moose" thus further perpetuating Roosevelt's image as a larger than life President and the nickname of the Progressive Party, the Bull Moose Party established in June 1912 after Roosevelt responded to reporters questioning his health stating, "I am as strong as a Bull Moose".


Progressive Party? That proves it. TR was a whiny coward pussy.
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
And you can get yourself a Glock and pretend you're a shooter...until it goes off in your pants pocket. Or hang-fires as thankfully happened in Tucson.
.............................................................

quite a few years ago I was with a friend at a firing range. Glocks are made in Georgia if I am not mistaken.

He let me use his new glock and I probably fired 100 rounds through it that day. The thing jammed on me five times and when I asked him about it he said yeh it does that alot.

I have never owned a Glock.

Glad that one this dude had jammed up on him.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Brain-washed? Revisionist history? Been to college lately? Have any idea what you're talking about?
This is a commonly held view of the right. If you're liberal, surely it's because you've been indoctrinated by the liberal elitists of academia.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top