Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Ban Mass Murder Clips to Make Us Safer

There probably isn't any way to stop people bent on taking a gun to a public place and committing mass murder. At least not in the current climate where the only rights that matter are Second Amendment rights. But could we at least do something to reduce the death toll by banning?

Jared Lee Loughler had an extended clip that allowed him to fire 31 rounds before having to reload his semi-automatic hand-gun. Only when he stopped to reload was an elderly woman able to knock the clip out of his hand and allow others to wrestle him to the ground.

Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is introducing legislation once again to stop the sale, trade, and exchange of high-capacity ammunition clips -- legislation she has introduced yearly since a ban on such clips was allowed to expire in 2004. McCarthy's husband was murdered by a gunman who used one of the clips in a mass murder on a Long Island commuter train in 1993. The legislation wouldn't affect the guns, only an attachment to the guns. And law enforcement would still have access to them, just not potential mass murderers.

These clips are the instruments of mass murderers. They turn ordinary killers into mega-killers. Why can't we do without mass murder clips?


Republican Michigander said...

Leave it to an ex-AP Reporter to be ignorant of firearms and still push for bans. First off, it's a magazine, not a clip. Clips go into the M1-Garand.

2nd, Even during the so called "assault weapons" ban that banned firearms based on cosmetic looks, it was not hard to buy standard (15 rounds for Glock) and extended magazines. Anything manufactured pre-ban was still legal. Also, how will this new ban be enforced? All it encourages is a lot of people to buy them and sell them behind closed doors.

3rd, it takes about 1/2 to 1 second to switch magazines. Anyone that knows what he's doing. With non extended mags, It's even quicker to reload.

Lastly, why does law enforcement need them? They don't need them, unless they are going to repeat the Miami shootout disaster from the 80's. When only the police have firearms, it is a police state.

It's not the Bill of Needs. It's the Bill of Rights, and any new firearms regulations are unacceptable. Luckily, most politicians, and even about 1/3 of the democrats understand that supporting this means they lose their jobs. If gun control worked, Chicago would be safe.

Judy said...

Well, since these items didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written, our founders could not possibly have meant to include them, now could they?

Communications guru said...

Good point, Judy. dan here should look up the word synonym. He will find clip is a synonym of magazine.