Tucson Massacre: Do We Blame The Gun?
Glock: American as apple pie (except it's Austrian).
On Tuesday in SoCal Sen. Barbara Boxer finally came out and said what a lot of liberal politicians were probably biting their tongues about: Let's take another look at national gun control laws in the wake of Saturday's Tucson massacre that killed 6 and injured 14, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Suspect Jared Loughner apparently got his Glock and extended magazine, which allegedly allowed him to keep pulling the trigger in a crowd that had gathered to see Giffords, legally, free-and-clear, in the weeks preceding the attack.
Boxer wants to see some changes on a national level. But is that the answer?
Boxer said a federal assault-weapons ban, which could have prevented Loughner from obtaining that extra-capacity ammo clip, needs another look. And she wants to ban people with records of mental illness from being able to buy guns:
"We need to address the application of the federal law banning people with serious mental illnesses from owning guns. The law needs to be implemented better so that those with mental illness get into the FBI database and do not get guns."
Our commenter of the day, NRA4ever, calls b.s., saying that laws don't hold crazy people back when they want to destroy life, no matter what they're holding in their hand. Laws already on the book, the argument goes, tell us not to shoot at a congresswoman and murder a 9-year-old girl and other bystanders. What's the point of more language? Action speaks louder than legislation.
"Instead of punishing the gun for the crimes, why don't you put blame where it belongs and punish the criminal. Enforce the current laws instead of creating more feel good laws. Banning guns to protect people from shootings is like banning airplanes to protect people from hijackings."
What do you think?