Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tucson, Juarez and an Assault Weapons Ban
The Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol that Jared Loughner is accused of using in his rampage in Tucson, Ariz., is, according to Glock's website, "ideal for versatile use through reduced dimensions" and is "suitable for concealed carry." The site continues, "Compact and subcompact Glock pistol model magazines can be loaded with a convincing number of rounds," from the standard 15 up to 33. The shooter was able to kill and wound to the extent that he did, with six dead and 13 injured, because he had a semiautomatic, concealed weapon, along with the "extended magazine." He was attempting to reload the weapon with another extended magazine when a brave, unarmed woman knocked his next clip from his hand.
Jared Loughner confirmed Glock's claim that 33 is a "convincing" number of rounds. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., doesn't need convincing, though. Her husband, Dennis McCarthy, was gunned down on the Long Island Rail Road on Dec. 7, 1993, when Colin Ferguson pulled a semiautomatic pistol out of his bag and methodically made his way along the afternoon commuter train, randomly shooting passengers. He too killed six people and wounded 19, including McCarthy's son, Kevin. Ferguson was tackled, as was Loughner, while reloading his weapon. In both cases, the act of reloading the gun created a pause in the shooting that allowed unarmed citizens to take action.
Carolyn McCarthy mourned the loss of her husband and nursed her critically injured son back to health. He had been shot in the head. Carolyn McCarthy then decided to go further, to try to heal the nation. She lobbied her Long Island member of Congress, Republican Daniel Frisa, to support the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He refused. McCarthy had been a nurse for 30 years, and a lifelong Republican. Turning her anger into action, she switched to the Democratic Party, ran for Congress against Frisa and defeated him in 1996. She has been in Congress ever since, and is one of the staunchest supporters there of common sense gun laws.
The 1994 law prohibited a number of weapons outright, as well as extended-capacity magazines like Loughner used. The law expired in 2004 under President George W. Bush. In response to the Tucson shooting, McCarthy is introducing the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices Act. In a letter to other members of Congress seeking co-sponsors, she says the bill "will prohibit the transfer, importation, or possession of high-capacity magazines manufactured after the bill is enacted," and, thus, "the increased difficulty in obtaining these devices will reduce their use and ultimately save lives."
The ban on these bullet clips is a start. But ultimately, the guns themselves-semiautomatic weapons-are the personal weapons of mass destruction that are designed not to hunt animals, but to kill people. These guns need to be controlled. By controlling them, we will reduce violence not only in the United States, but across the border in Mexico as well.
In Ciudad Juarez, just 300 miles from Tucson, directly across the border from El Paso, Texas, Mexican officials say more than 3,100 people were killed in drug violence last year, the bloodiest year to date. In May 2010, President Felipe Calderon spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and called for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. According to law enforcement officials, 90 percent of the guns picked up in Mexico from criminal activity are purchased in the United States.
Susana Chavez was a poet and activist in Ciudad Juarez. She popularized the phrase "Not one more dead." She was buried last week in Mexico, just as the bodies of Tucson's youngest victim, 9-year-old Christina Greene, and federal Judge John Roll were being prepared for burial in Arizona. A month earlier, anti-violence campaigner Marisela Escobedo Ortiz was shot in the head while maintaining a vigil to demand that the government take action in pursuit of the killers of her 17-year-old daughter, Rubi Frayre Escobedo.
The U.S. group Mayors Against Illegal Guns has just released the results of a bipartisan survey, which found that 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support background checks on all gun sales. The group maintains a website, Close the Loophole.org. Gun shows, the ready access to semiautomatic weapons and the additional availability of extended-capacity magazines are a recipe for the massacres that occur every few years in the U.S., and every few weeks in Mexico.
In the wake of the Tucson shooting, amidst calls for bipartisanship and civility, now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to join together to pass a permanent ban on assault weapons, and make us all safer.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
34 Comments so far
Show All"These guns need to be controlled. By controlling them, we will reduce violence not only in the United States, but across the border in Mexico as well."
Amy,
Has banning drugs and controlling alcohol and pharma meds worked to reduce drug addiction - something that kills far more people than guns?
I'm perplexed when I hear progressives running around talking about how the war on drugs is a failure then in another breath they want to initiate a war on guns and think that by banning *this* product it will somehow work.
If you're gonna ban anything... ban the manufacturers who MAKE the weapons from making them. Because if you ban people from buying these types of things while the manufacturers are able to continue making them then you will only create a bigger black market. Duh.
markpaddles:
I think that you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare drugs to guns. People become physically and emotionally addicted to drugs while guns do not cause a physical addiction. In addition, gun owners would still have access to a whole plethora of guns even with the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loop hole. Even if semi-automatics were banned, you would still be able to buy many varieties of guns. Amy is not calling for the banning of all guns or even of most guns. As for banning the gun manufacturers, you have to be joking?
"I think that you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare drugs to guns. People become physically and emotionally addicted to drugs while guns do not cause a physical addiction."
-- Agree to disagree. See Obedient Servant's comment to see that guns do have an emotional addiction of sorts.
Also, the main point that I'm trying to convey in my comment is that banning things **that people want** does not work! Can you agree with that? Or can you provide an example that shows how a governmental policy of banning things *that people want* has worked? The alcohol prohibition was a disaster and gave more power to mobsters. The ban on drugs is failing miserably. There is a gov't policy that prohibits gay marriage. Is that working?
"Amy is not calling for the banning of all guns or even of most guns."
-- I understand that. But how many progressives do you know that want a complete ban on guns?
"As for banning the gun manufacturers, you have to be joking?"
-- I'm not joking. I'm also not delusional and know that this will NEVER happen in our society that is driven by profits profits profits. But by saying something like this it is an attempt to shift the framework from the personal issue to the manufacturer and profit issue.
Look, the same type of framing exists when people talk about recycling. The debate is shifted to 'Hey, it's your personal responsibility to recycle so you can help save our ecosystems.' But notice how the discourse NEVER talks about the responsibility of the corporations who destroy the earth digging up the minerals, the corporations who MAKE the products and put things into plastics, aluminum, etc. Why is this? Why don't the corporations STOP making things with plastic? Because it's profitable... just like the manufacture and sale of guns.
There are so many issues that I take with your post that I don't even know where to begin. But let me give it a try.
"Laugher was addicted and it was the *primary* reason he finally did as he did,"
-- Addicted to what? Marijuana? That is a load a crap! Loughner (that is how you spell it) hadn't smoked pot since 2008 according to a close friend and his MEPS urinalysis had NO traces of marijuna. Read here. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011
/01/jared-lee-loughner
-friend-voicemail-phone-message
"he is insane to do what he did and I consider that FACT to be the *primary* reason... Laughner was a decent, intelligent, talented teen, (until) he (started) using marijuana.. Prior to that he'd never displayed ANY symptoms of schizophrenia, not until he became addicted to that mind altering drug."
-- Yes, he is purported to be insane. But, you don't know enough personal information about Loughner's life to make such a ridiculous claim that marijuana was the reason his life went downhill. What an absurd statement.
And, Wow!! Now they're blaming the reason for Jared's insanity on marijuana too? That's funny. It keeps getting more and more ridiculous by the minute! I can already hear the new and improved reefer madness commercials beginning to spin. What's your motivation and reason for jumping on the blame marijuana bandwagon?
"And,,,, (590) out of every (600) diagnosed Schitzo were heavy marijuana users as teens... That is accurate figures from the AMA."
-- It is erroneous to imply that marijuana is the cause of schizophrenia. The reason is because while there are 590 of the 600 schitzo's in their study who used marijuana... there are MILLIONS more who have smoked marijuana habitually in their younger years and are perfectly normal human beings. I can back that up with personal experience of smoking it in my younger years and being around massive amounts of people who did and still do as well.
"It's out there for any kid to use and that's the *primary* problem we really should be very concerned about."
-- Umm, sorry. But I disagree. The primary problem is seeking out WHY kids seek to escape their lives by getting high. If we start understanding the why's we might actually start getting to the roots of our problems, instead of blaming a wonderful plant for the 'primary' problems of kids in our society.
Also, your sentence leads back to the idea of trying to ban something (marijuana) when as I already stated - it just doesn't work. When I was younger I didn't smoke pot to be cool, or because it was glamorized by rock stars and movie stars. I smoked it because I was anxious, confused, lonely, and sad at how fucked up the world was. Pot made me feel better. IMHO, I was much better off getting through those confusing years using pot, rather than some bullshit chemical anti-depressants - which are much harder to ween the body off of than pot. I had friends who had parents who were militant in restricting their kids from anything and everything. Guess what? The kids did it anyway. My parents were the opposite. They took the time to educate me and try to understand me. When they found out that I smoked pot they sat me down to talk about why I was smoking it. When I told them some of the reasons they kind of chuckled and stated, "We understand. That is why we will drink a few glasses of wine after a hard days work. Please just understand how to be responsible with it and your choices and know that it is illegal and you could face jail or fines." My friends who rebelled against their parents never had honest conversations with their parents. And, btw, they are ALL perfectly normal adults with families and careers.
The elders of this country are failing MISERABLY in guiding and understanding the youth in this country.
Good for you, markpaddles.
I couldn't take this old-school "Reefer Madness" editorializing seriously enough to respond to it.
It's straight out of the Harry J. Anslinger playbook. ;)
Thanks, Obedient Servant. I thought about just ignoring the comment, but when I read bullcrap like that I just have a hard time letting it slide.
Take care
"You sure did say lot, what nerve did I hit? Oh yes, the MARIJUANA part."
-- The only nerve you hit was my bullshit detector. Generally when people spout off things that are false I tend to have a desire to set it straight. And sometimes that takes a few paragraphs to explain.
Am I all worked up about it? Not in the least bit. I actually kind of chuckled at your comment when I read it because I found it to be so absurd as to almost be a joke.
"You used it to (escape reality) and yes it make people feel good, many then go on to "better" feeling drugs."
-- While it is certainly true that 'some' go onto 'better' drugs and ruin their lives... there are MILLIONS more that do not. Like I said... your argument is illogical. But you can't see that, can you? Instead you want to blame a plant for the 'primary' reason for our societies problems - a plant in which you have probably never even tried.
"You are lucky that you aren't totally brain damaged, many who used marijuana are, as the link I wll post here for medical reports states. And one can be addicted to something and only use it daily, or every few days or when ever thy can get it... We disagree."
-- No offense, but you're a total moron when it comes to understanding marijuana and its effects. Have you ever tried it? I highly doubt that numerous states would have voted for medical marijuana laws if it caused brain damage. Why do you spread false information? I know hundreds of people (doctors, lawyers, carpenters, plumbers, engineers, and many more types of working class people) who smoke it whenever it suits their needs and they all live perfectly normal lives. None of them have brain damage; none of them are schizophrenic. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -which I WITNESS EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE - proves you wrong.
So, yes, we disagree... and nothing you say will make me think otherwise. Have a nice day.
"Everything I said about marijuana comes from medical journals."
-- Well, considering you feel the need to tell me my life experience is wrong, that hundreds of people I know who smoke it are wrong, and that the 15 states who voted for medical marijuana to be legal are wrong (which equates to about 60 million or more people who voted for it) - then here is a few medical findings that show the BENEFITS of cannabis.
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20100218/
medical-marijuana-has-merit-research-shows
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles
/RussoChronicCannabisUse.pdf
More personal EMPIRICAL evidence: My girlfriend's father is a retired doctor who was diagnosed with MS. Do you know what helps him get through the bad times? Yeah, cannabis. He did the research and now he can function in everyday life with the help of it.
"4.5) million diagnosed schitzos and 590 out of every 600 said they were heavy marijuana users. It has been medically proven marijuana use by teens can cause permanent brain damage. Not everyone."
-- It is illogical to say that marijuana is the cause of schizophrenia because millions and millions more who smoke it do NOT become schizophrenic. Do you even understand what an illogical argument is? It is true that people with a schizophrenic disorder are prone to negative effects from marijuana (that is what your study finds), but millions and millions more DO NOT develop schizophrenic disorders - ie. there is NO casual link between cannabis use and schizotypal traits. So, why should the millions and millions of people who BENEFIT from cannabis be persecuted and suffer because of a small percentage of people who are prone to schizophrenic disorders?
"How stressed were you as a teen, have a child to raise, lotta bills, poor school grades, other kids pick on you, spouce leave you, lost your job, had pinples? Instead of learning how to cope with reality, stress, you chose to escape it by using a (mind altering drug). If it didn't alter brain cells and brain function, there would be no reason to use it. So what did you learn about how to cope with adversity as a teen? What do you use to combat the (reality) and strsses of life now?"
-- Please keep your moral posturing to yourself, your immediate family and your church group. Just because you believe cannabis is a bad thing doesn't make it so. It is people like you who are a major part of the problems with our society because YOU ignorantly believe that you are in the right and then try to IMPOSE YOUR WAY ONTO THE REST OF US.
"And you say I'm a moron. I say you are pretty sad. And no, I never tried it or any other mind altering drugs, I leanred how to cope without them."
-- Good for you, buddy! I'm glad you are such a perfect person and don't need anything to cope with your life. You are a true Jesus type of person. But, it still doesn't change the fact that you ARE a moron - IN REGARDS TO CANNABIS. And that doesn't equate to the implication that you are a moron in the rest of your life. It's really pathetic that instead of understanding you choose the path of condescension and ignorance. To say that I am 'sad' is a quite a stretch, considering you don't know anything about me. It only shows that you are desperate in your attempts to be right. Let go, my friend... let go of having to always be right... it's quite enlightening.
"As to lawyers and others using pot? In Tucson's Ariz Daily Star, Nov 21, 2010 Sunday's edition is an article about marijuana use. There was a controlled test of a dozen aircraft pilots. They had all fly a flight simulator with no drug use, they all passed the hour long, tough test... The next day they all smoked a joint of marijuana, half failed the identical flight test and crashed the aircraft. Luckily a flight simulator... Just one example."
-- Well, DUH!!! I'm not saying that people should smoke and then go out and fly a plane, operate on a patient, or drive under the influence. I'm also not saying that KIDS should smoke cannabis. They shouldn't until they can develop and better understand responsibility and their choices. It's their PARENTS job to teach them these things, and NOT a gov't policy that bans the substance and persecutes the rest of the population who understand responsibility and moderation.
"If I'm lying, all of the doctors quoted in the link I posted are liars and so are the reporter and editors of the AZ Daily Star who printed their story."
-- You're not lying... you're just naive and believe everything you read, instead of listening to people with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. You must live a very sheltered life... because, again, I know many people who openly admit to smoking it, and every single one of them just laughs at the ridiculousness of people who try to say things like you are trying to say -- using an AZ newspaper article to prove that people shouldn't operate planes while high (duh!) and using a schitzo article that illogically tries to say cannabis is the sole cause for schizophrenia. It always amuses me when somebody tries to pull what you are pulling WITHOUT ever trying it and just believing what some journal tells them. This is the equivalent to a virgin trying to tell people they think sex is a bad thing and feels horrible because they read it is some journal. It's really quite comical.
"Grow up, learn to cope with life, it isn't always fair or easy... Bye, have a "happy" day,,, space out."
-- Again... this just shows how pathetic, arrogant and condescending you have become in your attempt to be right. Your condescension only closes off your own life.
I ran out of word space, and wanted to add one more thing:
The fact that when I say I know lawyers, doctors, nurses, carpenters, etc. who smoke cannabis and then how you equate that to them getting high while working or being high everyday HIGHLIGHTS your total ignorance and prejudice about cannabis. If that statement makes you squirm... take a step back and understand I am NOT implying that this statement applies to the rest of your life. I'm guessing you are a wonderful, smart and loving person in many other areas in your life.
Did you know that a doctor can smoke a joint on a day off and enjoy the relaxing effects of cannabis and then not smoke it for weeks upon weeks because he has a major responsibility to uphold? Why is that? A few reasons... one: cannabis is NOT physically addictive, like tobacco, cocaine or heroin. two: the doctor understands the ideas of responsibility and moderation.
Just because somebody enjoys cannabis once in awhile doesn't mean that they are irresponsible everyday stoners. There are many millions more people who DO understand responsibility and moderation than those who do not. If this were not true our world would be much more chaotic.
The disconnect I think you are having is that you use a few examples of people who DON'T understand responsibility and moderation and then you lump ALL users into that category - it's a wonderful example of the definition of prejudice. Do you do the same thing for people who enjoy a few beers once in awhile? Do you call ALL people who enjoy alcohol in moderation alcoholics?
You blame cannabis for the 'primary' problems in our society when what you should be blaming is the PERSON who doesn't know his head from his ass (ie. he/she couldn't deal with or find help for their inner problems), and the social and parental upbringing that failed this person (ie. notice how you are blaming cannabis for Jared's insanity, instead of focusing on why his parents weren't there for him.) I once watched an ex-heroin addict try to tell a crowd that it was marijuana's fault for ruining his life. What he was doing was shifting the blame onto a plant, instead of just saying that he was a person who didn't know how to deal with life and his inner problems because of his poor social and parental upbringing, so he resorted to using drugs to feel better and avoid his problems.
This shifting the blame onto something else is all pervasive in our society. I find it to be one of the most problematic issues in our society. Because by shifting the blame onto something else you are able to avoid the root causes of the problems; you are able to absolve your personal actions by shifting the blame onto something else. Shifting the blame onto something else is a cowardly technique to avoid taking a deeper look inside of yourself. If more people had the direction and courage to take a deep look inside themselves to find the root problems, instead of shifting the blame onto something else, our world would transform itself into a much better place right before our eyes.
Now, THAT is something we should ponder...
I also want to thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me. It has really helped me better understand the mentality of people who tightly hold onto their taboos, prejudice and ignorance - in regards to cannabis :-)
Take care
Ban both sale and manufacture (speaking of duh).
FWIW, and no offense to JerzyJoe, I think that the addictive quality of firearms is indeed central to the issue of gun possession.
The emotional, psychological, and even intellectual attachment to guns is as close to physical addiction as it gets.
Amerika is surely high on guns. All of the multifarious intellectualized and rationalized arguments supporting the proliferation of these marvellously-engineered and efficient tools for homicide are rooted in this powerful attachment, not the other way around.
I only wish that we aficionados of the noble weed and other salutary recreational substances were as determined and militant as proponents of the gun culture. They won't take "no" for an answer, and I see no prospect that the settled status quo will be undone.
Perhaps because of the eerie, prophetic applicablility to his own tragic and senseless death-- you can hear him ad-libbing "Shoot me!" several times in out-takes made public long AFTER his demise-- John Lennon's seemingly whimsical and surrealistic "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" becomes more and more profound and powerful over time.
An excellent article. I can only hope that the gun assault ban will be reinstated and that the gun show loop hole will be closed. What a country, we can't have single payer health care but guns, the skies the limit when it comes to guns, the more guns the better. The rabid gun trolls will be nit picking Amy Goodman's use of the term bullet clips, as was done in another thread on this topic. They will say she know's nothing about guns so her arguments are bogus. You don't have to be a gun expert to know that our society has a sick addiction to guns, you don't have to be a gun maven to know that something must be done to curb the easy access to powerful guns and extended ammunition magazines. It's not about pettifogging semantics but about innocent people being slaughtered on a regular basis.
JerzyJoe
Intelligently and persuasively well stated. Yours is one of the more saner and insightful voices that one sees on Common Dreams concerning this most volatile issue while so many of our politicians are most loath to tackle this topic as they seem all too eager to acquiesce to the demands and wishes of the NRA.
Its about a culture of violence exported to many nations.
End the culture of violence and few weapons will be used criminally, ships, planes, missiles or guns.
Its telling that the shooting of fed officials prompts this discussion not the killing of the poor.
If you want to stop killing people with guns throughout the world, there's something you can do today, stop paying for them.
Stop the manufacture of true WMDs
Stop manufacturing assault rifles or is the power for mass killing reserved for the State?
Just as large fines on employers will stop illegal immigrations rather than chasing poor people.
Our country was founded by people carrying guns. Settlers had to have guns to protect themselves from native Americans on who's land they were squatting. Guns were used to kill thousands when the North and South had issues over power and economics (oh yeah, and slavery). Guns have always been part of American life. That we reap the wind is unfortunate. But then, many laws of nature can have unfortunate consequences.
I spent my junior year of high school in a Provincial school in Alberta Canada and had to take Canadian history. Canada was not founded by gun carriers, it has not had a civil war using guns, guns are not part of Canadian life, though many people have them. In Montreal and Toronto people don't even lock their doors. Canada has made many mistakes, has practiced cultural genocide on native Canadians and French speaking Canadians. Canada is not perfect. But it is a good example of a country similar in many way to the United States not 'reaping the wind' when it comes to guns.
It's good to be reminded that not all Americans are crazy about guns.
Sorry, I don't play the God, Guns and Gays game.
Meanwhile, the Banksters are stealing more money, the kleptocrats are asset stripping the public sector and imposing austerity, foreclosure rates still on the rise and the economy and currency are slowly but surely collapsing in front of our eyes.
Oh well, guns god gays will distract us while they rape and pillage. Now I'm off to watch the Military Channel on Comcast/NBC/Verizon/ATT.
How nearsighted can you two above me be...............it's not EITHER OR...........ITS both........both problems have to be "solved".
"The ban on these bullet clips is a start."
Unfortunately, the liberal prescription's failures glare at us like the sun. Accusing material things (!) to be our problems, and banning them in a pretense to solve those problems, help the liberals to maintain the most valued liberal treasure:
Freedoms for individuals (elites) to continue influencing (manipulating) the society in whatever ways maximize enslavement of the people, plunder of the earth, and concentration of the people's and the planet's resources in the hands of greed-stricken elites.
As long as we have this gargantuan wealth divide, and an incapacitated, dependent population, we're going to have distraught individuals seeking to return the favor to the elites and their enablers.
wait for the fake left and neo-libs to accuse you of inciting violence.
Assault weapons kill very few people compared to concealed handguns if only because they can't be easily concealed so potential victims are forewarned and can take defensive action.
The ban should be against concealing ALL weapons. Let them be carried openly, like tribal people do. It can only make people respect each other.
For lack of a better place to put this, here is what David Michael Green has to say since I haven't seen him posted here of late.
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Christina_Green's_Civics_Lesson.html
First let's take assault weapons and extended clips away from the police, FBI, National Guard etc. After a year or two the ban can be extended to all citizens.
Some of our most dangerous cities allow no guns.The criminals seem to have them however.
Why does the accompanying picture show a loaded magazine from a high-powered rifle, most likely an AK-47, as the rounds appear to be, approximately, 7.62x39, whereas the article addresses extended capacity magazines for Glock hand guns like the one used in Tucson? There seems to be an attempt to imply that the magazine shown is an extended capacity Glock 19 magazine, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Scare tactics, just like those used by the far right? Oh, my god, just look at those "bullets" in that magazine. Horrible, just horrible! The existing situation as it happened is bad enough without resort to this "subtle sensationalization". You can do better, Amy. All a reporter has is her credibility.
Uh...Susana Chavez was strangled.
‘‘Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.’’
— Heinrich Himmler
One of my favorite writers was/is Jack O'Conner. His idea of the use of firearms is sadly not what is happening in this country or the world today.
If you love the outdoors and appreciate hunting and well written stories about the outdoors, then this site is for you. On the other hand if you think of firearms as 'you don't have enough of them and they need to shoot as many rounds as possible in the quickest amount of time' you will not enjoy this website, as it is too abhorrent to your paranoid thinking:
http://www.jack-oconnor.org/