Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill in response to AZ shooting

[LAGC]

One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used.
..
..
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.

McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.

“Again, 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 said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

"Never let a good tragedy go to waste..."

[atreides1]

1. It's a good gesture

Just not the right time to do it...it'll be seen as her taking advantage of a tragedy...which is how it'll be spun by the MSM.

Besides, the bill will never get out of committee, much less leave the House.

[gravity556]

3. Yet another bill

screaming for the banning of things she cannot recognize or understand, powered by raw emotion rather than intellect.

tv announcer guy "Mrs. McCarthy, can you describe what a "barrel shroud" is?"

McCarthy "It's the shoulder thing that goes up..."

whistling sound as her credibility plummets toward earth...

[SteveM]

23. Prohibitionists are usually studiously ignorant of that which they seek...

to prohibit. Welcome to DU.

[SteveM]

21. Passing legislation should be more than a "gesture" --

Laws should address real problems with clear goals to be reached and measured.

By and large, MSM has been a rather shameless promoter of gun-control/prohibition, so don't worry about its "spin."

You may wish to review the commentary surrounding passage of the 1968 GCA, wherein one supporter of the law said it wasn't really about assassinations, but about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks while not preventing middle-class people from obtaining them. If you need a cite, Google up 1968 gun control act and blacks.

[badtoworse]

2. I would have expected nothing less from her

A few months back, she was whining about how efforts at gun control were getting no traction. That, of course, was in a relatively normal environment, meaning that any legislation would be considered unemotionally and solely on its merits. She is clearly trying to play on emotions to get something now (i.e. draconian gun control laws) that would otherwise not survive objective scrutiny.

[Kolesar]

20. nasty

whining
clearly trying to play on emotions
draconian

[badtoworse]

30. Your point?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

4. I'm certain she had it put aside for just such an occasion...great publicity, after all.

K&R


mark

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. She is no better than any other ambulance chaser

[PoliticAverse]

5. Thus ensuring increased sales of any such magazines before any ban takes place. n/t

[Hoyt]

6. All the more reason to bite the bullet and pass legislation.

Yes, a bunch of folks -- like the gun advocates on here -- will run out and buy 10 such magazines and a few more tricked out guns to get them through the cold nights. But the sooner we pass meaningful legislation, the sooner we'll see results. It may take 40 years, but it's time to put a break on people arming up like they really are in a "well regulated militia."

[bossy22]

9. it will do nothing

it won't prevent these massacres, it won't prevent someone being shot from a botched robbery, it won't reduce the amount of cops killed by gun fire.

the Virginia Tech shooting investigation panel concluded that magazine capacity would have not affected the situation (cho used the 15 rd mag that was banned under the Assault weapons ban) and that a similar outcome would have occured if he had used a 6 shot revolver

[krispos42]

11. It's a lot of effort to fight a statistical anomoly

About 95% of all homicide incidents only have one victim, 4% have 2 victims, 3 or more only about 1% of the time.


:shrug: The issue isn't ammunition capacity, the issue is drug prohibition and mental-health care. I'm not of the opinion that keeping recreational drugs illegal and supporting the prison-industrial-congressional complex is okay, just as long as the tools of death have capacities of 10 rounds or less. Nor am I of the opinion that not treating the mentally for the sake of private insurance-company profits is acceptable as long as the mentally ill don't kill anybody.

[X_Digger]

12. "It may take 40 years," -- nice caveat

That way if your proposed benefits don't appear for a whole generation you can just say "give it more time.."

*snort*

[Hoyt]

16. Took decades to eradicate smallpox. We can't keep pumping out guns to satisfy/appease the obsessed.

But, I guess we should listen to those who keep buying junk marketed to appeal to their baser instincts and never take any action. Let's just sit back and let every repressed, insecure cowboy walk down the street with a 10 foot magazine sticking out of their waistband.

[X_Digger]

17. Thing is, every year, smallpox went down..

Can you say the same about your proposed changes?

Will we see a decrease in some crime stat, year one? How about year five?

History tells us, "NO!"- look at Chicago and DC, post-implementation of their handgun bans. Look at the UK, and their violent crime rate post gun control implementation.

But be my guest, don't let a few facts get in the way of a strident faith-based argument.

[SteveM]

26. Your gun control proposal seeks "style" result, not a public health result. nt

[cleanhippie]

13. What results will we see?

Considering that gun ownership is at an all time high and that gun crime is at its lowest level in 40 years and still decreasing, what results would come from "more meaningful legislation" and what would that legislation consist of?

[SteveM]

25. For what purpose? To prevent mass shootings? I don't think so...

The accused in the Arizona murders had additional magazines. You would re-invigorate a losing culture war so you could reduce magazine capacities to some magical level. Perhaps it would make you feel good, but the end result would be meaningless "breaks" (brakes?) on people because of your notion of style ("...like they really are in a 'well regulated militia'"). Anyone who wishes to assassinate or engage in mass-murder will find the wherewithal to do so.

A better policy would be to persuade more Congress persons (or other threatened public servants) to encourage their entourage to carry-concealed. This may not stop an assassination, but it might curtail the number of people killed. Would you disagree with the notion that the 20 people shot could have been lowered if others in the Congresswoman's entourage had been carrying? Do you think that all Congress persons have un-armed aides?

Self-defense is a right, and best carried out by the person threatened.

[SteveM]

24. Yep. Prohibitions work that way. nt

[davepc]

8. Boehner will never let it get to the floor.

[SteveM]

27. I think Polosi said much the same thing -- when she was in Boehner's place. nt

[KansasVoter]

10. LOL....the NRA will stop this before it gets started....

The NRA controls congress and the idiot public is too dumb to care.

[cleanhippie]

14. How did that CCW class go?

[one-eyed fat man]

15. How was the class?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=333245&mesg_id=333245

[KansasVoter]

18. Delayed till spring!

[DonP]

19. As an NRA member you'd know.

Don't run away again... let us all know how that class went?

[GreenStormCloud]

29. The public does care. They elected pro-gun legislators.

The anti-gun guys took a beating in the last election. People knew what they were voting for.

[slackmaster]

22. Tacky

:nuke:

[Glassunion]

28. Indeed