Carolyn McCarthy Preps New Gun Control Bill; Pro-Glockers Up in Arms

mccarthy.jpg
LI rep Carolyn McCarthy
There's nothing like knowing there are crazed gunmen out there with elected officials squarely in their sites to focus political attentions. Which is why it will be interesting to see if official Washington has a stronger reaction to a planned political assassination with a semi-automatic weapon -- which is what the FBI says Tucson terror Jared Loughner had in mind Saturday with his .9 millimeter Glock -- than it has had in the past to your standard murderous mayhem.

Long Island congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who went into politics after her husband was killed by a crazed gunman, says she's going to kick off that debate as early as today by introducing new legislation to keep these weapons out of the hands of the deranged. "We need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass," McCarthy told Politico.com.

Let's hope she does better than lawmakers did in the wake of the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech when the best they could come up with was a new law to make it illegal to sell weapons to people already officially declared mentally ill, as had the shooter who killed 33 there.

Although he was clearly a leading candidate for a strait-jacket, Loughner had never been officially deemed nuts, so the current law didn't apply to him.

As Gail Collins points out in today's Times, the Saturday shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others -- six fatally -- at the shopping mall parking lot was deadlier than the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in nearby Tombstone. And Loughner never would've been able to buy his Glock with its extended clip if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban hadn't been allowed to sunset in 2004. Which means, as Collins writes, that if the 22-year-old had been limited to your standard assassin's pistol, we might well have lost a congresswoman, but "not a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Gifford's 30-year-old constituent services director, and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked."

Pro-gun loonies are already staking out their familiar territory, insisting that the problem is the shooter, not the weapon, as rightblogger watchdog Roy Edroso says.

McCarthy, whose son was also seriously wounded in 1993 when gunman Colin Ferguson vented his demons on a crowded Long Island Rail Road car with a semi-automatic Ruger, is also girding for a familiar fight.

"I don't want to give the NRA - excuse the pun - the ammunition to come at me either," she says.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
5 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
plowboy68
plowboy68

Mr. Loughner WOULD have been able to purchase a extended magazine even if the so called "assault weapons ban" had still been in effect. Any "large capacity ammunition feeding device" manufactured before 9/13/1994 would have been legal to purchase and possess. There are thousands in circulation, albeit much more expensive that the "safer" ten round magazines.

Greg Camp
Greg Camp

Your article identifies the weapon used as a ".9 millimeter Glock." .9mm is only slightly larger than a standard syringe. You meant 9mm, which is .36 inches. At least do the necessary research before you attack those of us who own and carry guns.

American Patriot
American Patriot

Both Tom Robbins and Representative McCarthy have some excellent ideas. Add to that the fact that if any armed citizen had been present at any of the aforementioned shooting sprees, the felon would have probably been stopped dead in their tracks. If we had the pre-1950's attitude towards criminals, groups of armed citizens would be able to aid law enforcement in ridding our streets of heavily armed street gangs. Statistics back this argument up over and over again. Every time a town with a gang or home invasion problem allows citizens to fight back against the felons with deadly force, the crime wave goes away. Every time we take guns away from law abiding citizens, the criminals know they will not be opposed and they do whatever they want. Our constitution says we have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by anyone- weather by private citizen or government official. If you want to stop violence against the innocent, you must be willing to take felons and crazies off of our streets on a long term basis. One year in jail for a felony offense is not a deterrent to any potential felon. Ten years will make them think twice. Three strikes and one gets life in jail or capital punishment will stop the felon permanently. Stop coddling criminals, make them accountable for their crimes, and we will see a marked drop in all forms of crime. Continue to allow bleeding hearts to rule the day and the problem will only get worse.

Epac
Epac

Mr. Patriot...sounds reasonable (i.e. - the ol' "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" logic), but with one falicy. Arizona currently has some of the most lenient gun laws on the books. (you have to be the most base of screw-ups to NOT get a gun). So with that said, um...what went wrong? Why didn't all the god-fearin', jezus-lovin', rootin' tootin', gun-happy citizens of Arizona blast this nut to kingdome come before he had a chance to do any damage?? Take your time, we'll wait for your reply.

Mr. Gun Nut
Mr. Gun Nut

Because at a gathering of gun-hating liberals, there just weren't any god-fearin', jezus-lovin', rootin' tootin', gun-happy citizens of Arizona present to stop the guy.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...