I agree, Carl. The magazines did not shoot those poor people, it was the psycho. If someone close by had been carrying, maybe they could have helped avert some of that tragedy. The gun control groups' and NBC are so shallow in their politicizing of these tragedies. New York has the highest crime rates and the strictest gun laws in the nation, and they and their leaders can't figure it out.

So why allow "psycho's" to have high capacity clips? For hunting? For Self Defense?? Can you honestly give a real reason why a rational person would be so put out to have to reload after 15 shots and had to have 30???

If you need a High Capacity clip to actually shoot anything for legal reasons, then you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because you're a danger to yourself and everyone around you.

This whole argument about the need for citizens to carry guns in public should be revisited. It's time to stop listening to the dim bulbs that claim "the magazine didn't shoot those poor people" and cry that their constitutional rights have been trampled on. The constitution doesn't explicitly give anyone the right to endanger their fellow citizens. In terms of a militia, well keep your gun at home and when the militia needs you they'll call. Enough of this crap!

We NEED high-capacity magazines for hunting. Just last week I was attacked by over three hundred deed and two elk. Or were they moose? Or do you say meese? That's how you do it with goose and geese. Like I was saying, just last week I was attacked by over three hundred geese and two moose. Or were they Freemasons? It's really hard to tell those fellows apart without knowing their secret New World Order handshakes. But thanks to my high-capacity magazines I was able to defend our way of life against Democrats and Commies and Tories and elitists and fellow-travelers. Speaking of which, did you know Lee's horse was named Traveler? And Lee didn't have high-capacity magazines and we all know what happened there.

Knee-jerk reactions are almost always wrong and ill-conceived.

Punishing law abiding rational citizens never stops crime.... EVER.

Why should I have to give up my right to protect myself against anyone who may harm me; i.e., terrorists, gangs, and the way our government is becoming so corrupt and out of control, maybe one day our own military. The only ones being stripped of protection are the "good guys" who just want to defend themselves.

Bullcrap!!

I seem to recall that the injuries and deaths would have happened if even 10-round magazines were used. There needs to be a way to ban nutcases from owning firearms. Of course, many of the tea party movement might fail an objective clinical definition of mentally unstable....

Even if they ban high capacity mags again, they are still plenty available and easy to get. Just because they cannot manufacture them, does not mean they can't sell what they have. They are probably mass producing right now iknowing whats going to happen. During the last ban, i was able to get 6 30 round rifle magazines for an M16. No license needed, no background check, nothing but "cash or charge?". Bad guys kill people, not mags or clips....Teach usage.

Also , if someone close enough had a concealed carry license, they could have ended the shootings within a few shots instead of him being able to empty the whole clip.

And another thing, getting guns is easy too. The FBI Background check only checks federal wants warrants, and felonies. They do NOT CARE IF THERE ARE ANY MEDICAL OR MENTAL DISORDERS! Same with conceal carry law. (Which I completely agree with. I want to have my weapon on hand if my family or friends are endangered by some nutcase) The conceled carry law does not check medical or mental history. You have to pass a writen test and a class and have little range time to show you know how to use it (not that you can use it well.)

Totally agree, a pathetic move to capitalize on the misfortunes of one incident. If this was so concerning to these people why wasn't it being introduced prior to the shootings?

OK boys and girls. The second amendment does guarantee the right to keep and BEAR arms. Bear means carry. I carry a firearm with me everyday. I have a ccw permit. I carry it for one simple reason, the fine men and women in blue can not be everywhere at once. I also do not have millions to hire my own private security, so I take it upon myself to protect myself and my family. I have no desire to ever shoot anybody. I pray everyday that I don`t ever have to, but I am prepared to, if it comes to protecting someones life. If guns are banned people will still find a way to kill other people. Look at the nutjob in England with the crossbow. People are killing each other with sword in Australia, they are considering banning them. You can not legislate the heart.

We fail to remember that only law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals, terrorists, and psychos have no problem circumventing any law that is passed, so if this law is passed, you will be left with criminals carrying weapons with high capacity magazines and law abiding citizens carrying weapons with only 10 rounds. Do any of you think Al Qada will honor hi cap mag bans when they start attacking us here (again)?

You can wait 10-15 minutes for the police to protect you and your family, or protect yourself instantly. The choice is yours....

If these politicians want to accomplish something for the people why are they not addressing our starving and homeless? Instead the jump at the chance to create a law to affect the masses based upon their own personal agenda...gun control. If guns are the reason people die then pencils are the reason for me not getting an "A" on that last exam.

For the constitutional "literalist' who think "well regulated militia" according to the 2nd amendment means any idiot can have as many of any type of gun and can carry it anywhere all with no responsibility/accountablility, that amendment doesn't mention bullets

Jym Allyn: I AM "the people", lest you and the government forget.

Jym Allyn: "A well regulated militia" is part of the preamble in the 2nd amendment.......it gives a reason for the 2nd amendment...

There is absolutely no reason you need 30 bullets in a clip. If you are using your gun for protection and you can't take care of the issue with 12 bullets. You probably shouldn't own a gun.

Where are all you people who feel you need to walk around armed at all times to protect yourselves and your family living? I have made it through 42 years of life, spent significant time in almost every large city in the US, and have traveled to many countries around the world--and the only time I have ever felt a gun was a necessity to my safety was when I was hiking or snowshoeing in Alaska (and that would be a rifle). Yes, violence can happen out of the blue almost anywhere--as this past Saturday proves--but feeling that you need to spend your life with a gun on your hip everywhere you go seems really paranoid.

Jym Allyn: So in the 1st amendment "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - that means the states have a right to peaceably assemble?

4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

5th amendment: No person shall be held to answer for any capital...

And let us look closely at the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If "people" == "states" why distinguish here?

ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights refer to INDIVIDUALS.

I am fascinated by the assumption that "the people" might be the state government, when the main purpose of the Bill of Rights- and, indeed the Constitution itself- was and is to limit and delineate the authority of the government over its citizens. The "well-regulated militia" was, and is, made up of the people. The Founding Fathers were well aware that the people of that time were not only responsible for defending the nation against foreign armies, but for defending themselves against domestic dangers, both four- and two-legged. Oh, and Liz, it does, indeed, include bullets; the Founding Fathers were experienced shooters, who understood firearms well enough to have expelled the Royal Army from our shores.

Skiddy@1.1,

If someone close by had been carrying, maybe they could have helped avert some of that tragedy.

Someone in the area was carrying and intervened without the use of his weapon.

"...Joe Zamudio, who was buying cigarettes nearby and raced toward the hail of bullets, his own weapon at the ready, eventually pinning Loughner to the ground until police arrived."

Although this tragedy happened in Tucson, it's not the Wild West, and we don't need any more yahoos running around with weapons blazing, especially weapons with 30 bullets in a clip.

Men who feel a need to carry these kinds of weapons must have a "deficiency" somewhere else in their anatomy. This whack job killer is a prime example of that.

Still Single, Columbus, GA downtown at night. While riding my mountain bike in public parks because I can't stop the jackass with the off leash German Sheppard from attacking my wife, in my home late at night because I can't reason with home invasion robbers. But the main reason, I've worked really, really hard to get where I am and have what I have, and I'm not willing to stand aside and let ANYONE come and take it from me. Just like our forefathers with independance, just like slaves with freedom, and just like American ideals that made the USA what it is today, if you think they are worth it, you must defend them by whatever means necessary. If a thug has 20 rounds in his Glock, I want 30.

California already has a ten round magazine capacity limit. Is There any proof whatsoever that it has in any way reduced gun violence or crime In California?

I dont remember any one during the Fort Hood Massacre saying the Major had High Capacity Magizines. How many people died and were hurt compared to this tragedy?

The 9/11 Purpatrators didn't even have guns and how many people did they Kill?

How about the Times Square Bomber? If that would have succedeed how many people would he have Killed? How many High capcity mags was he carrying?

I wonder how many high capacity Magazines Timothy McVei was carrying?

How many Hi Cap Mags the Under wear bomber was carrying?

As the Original Poster stated before, a knee jerk reaction so the People can feel like our government actually has some kind of power to protect us which they dont! They need to make it appear they are taking some kind of steps to ensure this wont happen again and to score politicol points.

It will make no difference...

Didn't you hear? Some news stations announcing that politicians will start carrying weapons when back in their districts? I don't have a problem with that at all. I think EVERY politician should show support for the constitution by exercizing their 2nd Amendment rights. Well, I mean all except for those that want to implement gun controls. Those people should just rely on smart citizens to do their protecting for them.

L Mac: I think the politicians may be the "crazy people" gun control advocates are referring to NOT being allowed to carry. LOL

the second amendment was written before bullets were invented and during a period where the existence of our nation was still in peril from foreign powers. there was no national military to ensure the protection and defense of our young nation. the ideals behind the second amendment was to allow the people to hunt for food, to defend themselves where defense could not be provided by the state and to ensure readiness if the nation needed to be defended. it is ludicrous to believe that the 2nd amendment was ever written to provide the individuals right to carry 30 rounds in their sidearm, let alone an assault riffle.

and considering that the gunman was tackled when he went to reload, it would not be a stretch to believe that the toll would be lower if he did not have access to a 30 round clip. do not forget that he bought his weapon at a sportsmans warehouse. i do understand that someone more proficient with a weapon can reload fast, but there are plenty of studies out there that show a person can close a 10 yard gap faster than most people are able to draw their weapon or reload, even with taped mags.

if you have trouble understanding the impact, take some time to learn about the little girl who was killed during this tragedy. she was born on 9/11 and had dreams of make the world a better place. dreams silenced by someone who had the right to bear arms.

i love guns, i have an HK .45 and hope to buy an AR as soon as I am able to save up the extra coin. i do not believe that gun ownership should be a right, i fully believe that it should be a privilege. and if you are a responsible person who is mentally stable, then there shouldn't be any reason to deny you that privilege. but if you clearly show signs of instability, and would have trouble completing a personality review, then why the f#ck should you ever have the opportunity to own such a dangerous weapon.

freedom does not ever come without responsibility or hard choices. don't be a coward and hide behind antiquated policy.

Like almost all gun controll laws, the laws only put limits on law abiding citizens. The criminals are going to get them whether they are legal or illegal. Since there are almost as many alcohol related traffic deaths as non-suicidal gun related deaths, we should limit the size of alcohol bottles and shot glasses to cut down on alcohol related deaths.

As for the question "why would anyone need a 30 round clip", anyone who knows anything about firearm self defense knows that you want as many bullets loaded as you can carry in a practical manner. Have you ever wondered why nobody carries a single shot self defense weapon? He throws the most lead usually wins. Give me a 30 round clip for my home defense anytime.

zeroscout: It is impossible for the state to defend me 100%. If you believe that, try telling that to the 9/11 survivors or anyone else who has been a victim of a crime.

Fine, beaker1, you want a scenario? How about you are at home w/your family and only one firearm when a gang of 4 armed men break through the door? Assuming they have standard clips, you are either outgunned 4:1 or, with and expanded magazine, 2:1.

BTW, there WERE bands like this performing breaking-and-enterings until a month or so later, someone with his wits about him came out of the back bedroom of a house that had just been entered and defended his home, falling at least one of the bandits.

Seems to me that waiting til Monday morning after a weekend catastrophe to draw up legislation like this i means that these politicians are slacking. I expected to hear about this by 4pm Saturday, as I was certain gun-haters have bills like this on their persons, ready to present.

What a surprise, another leech enabler, that wants to ban something connected, with a gun!!!

Perhaps she should also pursue laws banning holsters, they it would be inconvenient to carry it in your hand.

I "m still trying to figure out what 9mm pistol has a 30 round magazine, max available is 20 and only legally available to the Military . You practice at all you can speed load a 10 round clip and fire nearly as fast as if you had this mythical 30 rounder. My guess it wasn't a handgun as described but a weapon similar to a Mac 10 or Uzi which are not pistols but described as such. Some common sense needs to prevail here step back and let the gun control hysterics get a grip . Please tell me how many murders are committed in NJ and NYC by guns compared to Arizona . Clean up your own backyard before you start camping in mine.

strega, glock aftermarket 33 round mags.

Carl - what is the point of a 30 round magazine? Why is it necessary?? It is only to kill the greatest number of people. There is no other reason for them. So why is it a problem to make them illegal???

First, I would like to state that this act of senseless violence is absolutely and irrifutibly(sp?) reprehensible.

Second, to all of the posters who believe that individuals who excercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms are compensating for a physical shortcoming, I believe that is called libel (or some similar legaleze term). I am a relatively fit, though somewhat overweight, average American male. I do not have any physical shortcomings, as some posters have alluded to (just ask my wife). I own and carry a gun for two reasons: first, to protect my wife and second, to protect myself (in that order). If I were to rely on our valiant law enforcement, my wife and/or I would be dead or severly injured before the police arrived at the scene. This is not a criticism of law enforcement, just a statement of fact.

I respect and defend all these individuals right to express their opinions, however, there is no need to vilify and insult law abiding, armed American citizens.

Folks, I have read many of the comments. It seems that most writers confuse the term "bullets" with the term "cartridge." A BULLET is a projectile pressed into a CASE of a complete CARTRIDGE. The primer of the cartridge is struck by the firing pin, which ignites the powder, which propels the bullet through the barrel and away from the expanding gases.

With regard to high capacity magazines (these are NOT clips), it appears to this middle-aged writer with significant experience in firearms (shooting and training others) that the difference between a 12, 15 or 30 round magazine for a semi-automatic handgun is academic with regard to lethality. Indeed, with that many cartridges in the magazine, the firearm will be far more heavy, and more unweildy, leading to a distinct lack of accuracy in bullet (projectile) placement. Hence, while the 30-round magazines for the Glock pistol are ubiquitously available, "normal" and rational firearm owners do not carry or use them, at least in pistols (as opposed to semi-automatic long arms-- rifles).

What many writers here fail to realize is that the apparently mentally ill perpetrator really missed a lot-- and THANK GOD THAT HE WAS NOT SHOOTING WELL!!! Imagine instead a well-trained and/or rational person who had actually taken the extra split seconds to aim and make his/her shots (projectiles or bullets) count, e.g., as in count for deaths. Perhaps we should be glad that such more "normal" people generally DO NOT KILL OTHERS.

The issue here is mental instability of the perpetrator, not the "badness" of firearms, regardless of magazine capacity. The magazine and its capacity did not kill folks, the killer killed folks. The killer is clearly ill (which is NOT to say that he is insane and should not be found guilty and put to death). Banning 30 round magazines will be useless and will yield no safer environment for people, but will only serve to make certain people money selling those 30 round magazines which they already possess to others willing to pay the price. So, with a new law, we will suffer unintended consequences while yielding no benefits. Why? So that VPC and/or certain politicians make headlines?

They need to work on the real problem. Getting the people's trust back in the goverment.

So Liz,

By your way of thinking, since the 1st Amendment doesn't specfically mention Islam, then we can indeed put restrictions on, and deny Constitutional rights to, all Muslims in America due to the acts of a few?

Every knowledgeable law enforcement officer knows that when given a description of a perpetrator of a crime, they look for suspects that match that description. That's plain and simply called 'profiling'. In the Tuscon case, the suspect most likely matched a common profile of an unstable person capable of committing a crime, which is currently thought to be valid. The fact that his actions fitting a profile of that nature went unheeded leaves no doubt that many, including the local sheriff, failed to act responsibly to bring about an early intervention. Whether it was intentional, or simply a will to remain unattached from any liability, will be a matter of public if not legal contention.

I commend that armed citizen that used restraint about firing his weapon. I feel he is probably trained enough to know that there is a time to fire as well as a time to not fire. In that case, he made the correct decision in taking the shooter down without having to fire.

Had this killer been properly diagnosed as mentally unfit or unstable, he should have been denied access to firearms and ammunition of any kind. Legislation to bring about that scenario had been introduced, however wording left too many ambiguous loopholes that would have ensnared many otherwise competent people, and it never made it out of committee. It was a 'knee jerk' reaction to an incident, not carefully thought out. Do we as a nation need laws to keep weapons out of the hands of unstable people? Of course. But a law to enact that denial of rights to any individual must not infringe on the ability of sensible competent law abiding citizens to have that right. That's where the thin line must be drawn and adhered to. There must be checks and balances to prevent abuse of a law of that nature, and to achieve that absolute certainty without crossing the line is where the problem lies.

The same scenario can be applied to high capacity magazines. A 33 round magazine does make a semi-auto handgun more unwieldly. But if confronted by a home invasion gang, which in many instances has been 5, 6, or more armed criminals crashing through your door, that high cap mag could very well mean the difference between your life or death. Most people that arm themselves are ordinary citizens, not skilled marksmen. Where some, like myself, could take down 6 criminals with 6 shots, most cannot. I've been trained, extensively, and not just in the use and skills of guns, but in close combat where guns are totally inadequate. So I don't carry, although I could. Yes, I've used my skills, several times. If I'm confronted with a life or death decision, I have no reservations about doing what I must. The average citizen gun owner will not. Most will be terrified! Many will become frozen. Some will shoot, but lack the mindset to kill if necessary. If you lack that mindset, you most likely will not hit your target, or at best, only succeed in a superficial wound. The average citizen gun owner will hit what they aim at only once in six shots, if then! If they have a 9 round mag, they have 3 more chances if they still have the time. If they empty that mag and need to reload, assuming they have another handy, will they remember to work the action to cock the gun? Probably not. If by then they haven't disabled the attacker, it's too late. That large capacity magazine could make the difference.

Bottom line, large capacity magazines have their place. They should not be banned. Every person that owns a gun, or guns, should participate in training at a legitimate gun range. Learn how to use all of your guns, proficiently. Build up your willingness to gain that life or death mindset when needed. If confronted by an armed attacker, aim for the two zones that will take them down, the thoractic cavity and right between the eyes. Don't stop with one shot, two or three will insure your safety. And above all else, learn about what constitutes self defense, and when and where it is legal to shoot, so you won't become ensnared in a legal criminal nightmare. Don't try to be a hero!

feeling that you need to spend your life with a gun on your hip everywhere you go seems really paranoid.

Wearing a safety belt in fear that I might get in an accident is paranoid - yet we are instructed that it's the law...

Having a fire extinguisher in our home in fear that it might one day be on fire is paranoid - yet we're advised to keep several in the home...

Having life insurance in fear that I might die at any moment so my family should be financially prepared is very paranoid - yet, we are told it's the right thing to do...

There are a great many things I do that might seem to be out of a state of "paranoia" but the fact is, a great many people are bad. They care little for human life and they are driven by self more than community. I wear my seatbelt in case something happens. I own three fire extinguishers in case something happens. I have life insurance at 40 years old in case something happens.

And I carry concealed...in case something happens.

And still, in 40 years, I've never had reason to use any of them - and I pray that I never will (save the life insurance of course...many many years from now).

this is ridiculous. If i'm ever attacked by 30 people, I want to be able to defend myself.

My father once told told me... Two things you don't discuss: 1) Religion and 2) Politics... I think he was the wisest of anyone out there... What two things kill the most people? Yep... Religion and Politics... Whether here in Tucson (where I live), or anywhere else around the globe... Religion and Politics... If everyone lived by societies laws, rules, values ,etc., this type of thing wouldn't happen. Do unto others as you would like them to do to you... Tho shalt not kill... It works for 99.99% of our population. Now do the math... US population: roughly 330 million... Which means: roughly 33,000 CRAZY MF'rs that are out there and Jared Lee Loughner was ONE of them...

A missing gene, a loose screw, something that allows them to interpret ANYTHING they might come across (i.e. a song, a speech, an ad, a box of Cherrios) as a call to arms... That's Jared Lee Loughner... The phuk'r is just plain insane....

For those that say it's because of easy access to guns... BS - as the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people... Outlaw guns and only Outlaws will have guns... Think about it... That's a FACT!

How about instead, we go to the other extreme.. Make carrying a hand gun mandatory... Make it unlawful not to carry a gun. Think about that... If that were the case Saturday, this piece of krap wouldn't now be wasting tax payers money sitting behind bars.

Think on this for a moment. We have prisons where no weapons are allowed, but yet there are many inmates killed by hand made weapons in prison. Banning weapons will not stop a person from killing. They will just find another type of weapon. A spoon can be a weapon if used in the right way. I say arm everyone. Would you rob a bank, hyjack an airplane, or kill poeple if everyone around you was armed? I think you would have a very very bad day. The weapon system does not kill anyone, just the nut job behind the trigger. Welcome to the government that has TSA and homeland security. We loose our rights every day to the good ole USA. Vote and use your rights.

Cannons don't sink ships....pirates with cannons sink ships.

That'll work. They'll just have one in each hand next time and a few back ups.

The US is the most heavely armed nation of the world with 90 guns for every 100 people. Followed only by Yemen, with 61 guns for every 100 people. I guess we will continue to have these mass killings that have become now a common occurrence every 6 months or so, because by GOD every nutcase has a second amendment right to possess one. Praise the LAWRD and pass the ammunition!

Carl in Chicago ... First off... I do agree with your comment.

Second ... As I have heard many say here on NewsVine and in other forums "Americans will always find a way to kill each other regardless of what laws they try to pass".

Sad .......

Can someone describe a real world situation, other than inhumane sport hunting and out of control target shooting, where a 30 round magazine is useful to anyone other than the military or police? Please do not tell me it is for multiple perpetrators in your home because this argument solidifies the fact that they can be overly lethal in the wrong hands like a terrorist or mentally ill person. This very well known fact given the recent and past events negates any good one perceives comes from protecting themselves with high capacity magazines.

So there is no reason to continue selling them to the public. Thats all the reason anyone needs to pull a product - its usefulness to the public. Think of it as the same reason you cannot get your hands on a stealth fighter...if you were given those and they took them away then you would want them back because of your constitutional rights.

The government giveth and taketh away things they should never have giveth in the first place in this ever changing and evolving world (read the fine print in the constitution.) And the unfortunate thing is that it takes a brutal event for people to take notice and act anymore given the level of violence to which we are subjected via the news and such. We are de-sensitized to violence given its pervasiveness.

This is why the lawmakers are seizing on our short term memory to make this a law immediately: our compassion fades and it is only a matter of time before we become de-sensitized to the tragic event that took place in Arizona.

As a CCW holder I can tell you that we are discouraged from carrying by all the no carry zones. We are constantly going back to the car to put away the very tool that would have saved lives in the situation under discussion. But I always carry Mace. This crime was not about firearms. This individual probably would have built a bomb if he were unable to obtain a firearm. This crime is about the irrationality of the shooter. He needed help and had he reached out he would have been put on a waiting list. We need to go back to believing that mentally ill people are a problem to be dealth with by the state.

The US is the most heavely armed nation of the world with 90 guns for every 100 people. Followed only by Yemen, with 61 guns for every 100 people. I guess we will continue to have these mass killings that have become now a common occurrence every 6 months or so, because by GOD every nutcase has a second amendment right to possess one. Praise the LAWRD and pass the ammunition!

Let's look at say...Switzerland. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small armsclassified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

Police statistics for the year 2006^[12] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly.

I think instead of looking at the weapons, we need to start looking at the individuals. See...those in Switzerland serve in their military. They have respect and pride in their nation. They understand the importance of it's people. They care about each other. That's the gap that exists in the US. With more and more people every day that care less and less about each other and themselves, expect it to get worse, not better.

Scott Tracy: Yes, this is a violent world; has been since Cain killed Abel and always will be. Even eliminating guns altogether will not change that fact.

Giving up my ability to defend myself against ANY physical threat is not the solution nor should it be the decision of a government how I choose to protect myself. It's called taking responsibility and not being dependent upon someone else for my own well being.

Lautenberg makes comment that high-capacity clips should be banned because they are meant to kill as many people in short period of time is nonsense. There needs to be more of a factual basis for the proposition of banning high-capacity clips. Doesn't the danger of guns really lie in the hand of the shooter? The greater the number of bullets in a gun just gives the inept shooter more an opportunity to hit its target. I just think these gun laws are just a coverup for yet another blemish in society. Homicides by gunfire are blemishes that flare by the availability of guns. So shouldn't the focus be on the dismantling of companies in the business of manufacturing firearms?

As someone who is Swiss, you can knock off invoking the Swiss as the examples of gun nuts. They aren't anything near you Americans and your love for violence and guns. You should know that in Switzerland there is no Constitutional right to own a gun. In the US any nut, no matter how crazy, can own one. And not just any gun, but guns that can fire off multiple rounds and take out as many as 30 at a time. God help you all.

As someone who is Swiss, you can knock off invoking the Swiss as the examples of gun nuts.

If you are referring to my post, then you completely missed the intent. The Swiss have guns galore and they have almost ZERO gun crime. The point of the post (and others I have made where I use Switzerland as a model of all that is right about gun ownership) is that the Swiss people are the reason that there is responsibility about gun ownership and no violence.

As you noted in your comment, "American's love of violence"...that is very true - now the rest of your statement is not exactly true as there are laws is place that stop people from illegally owning guns on the basis of such things as mental illness, but the point is, there is an ego (and in great many cases a super-ego) that supersedes many people's ability to make rash decisions in this country. We see it every day in and every venue in the American culture.

As I pointed out, there are millions of semi-automatic weapons in Switzerland today (my stats were from 2001 actually) but the point is, they are the same type that you speak of when you say:

but guns that can fire off multiple rounds and take out as many as 30 at a time

This is one of my favorite pictures regarding gun control:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

As it shows someone that is carrying their weapon and the people around them without fear, because they know the person carrying the weapon understands and respects the weapon, the people, and the laws of the nation. The number of weapons in the US is not the issue - it's the failing respect of many American people for the people and for the laws of the land and this every growing sense sense that a weapons should command respect. That's where we as a nation could use help...

Shadow, at least half of the people I know have been in some sort of car "accident" (from fender bender, to hitting a deer, to flipping their car) in their lifetime, yet no one I know has ever been threatened to the point of needing a gun (and the closest city to where I live, and the one I have spent the most time in, is Detroit)...so safety belts seem more practical than paranoid.

I in no way tried to suggest that a gun in the home seems paranoid (though I choose not to have one). I understand taking precautions, and by all means believe that a fire extinguisher in the home is a good idea--just like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, though they will probably never be used. But if you start carrying your fire extinguisher around with you everywhere you go, then yes, I think that seems strangely paranoid...and unnecessary.

I happened to stumble upon this website, which I can only hope is in part an attempt to increase sales, but it includes the list of items that they recommend you keep in your vehicle at all times:

http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/advice-car-family-safety-tips/34822/what-to-keep-in-your-car-in-case-of-emergency.jsp

• Auto Escape Tool — In case your car is submerged in water, this handy gadget has two small steel tips designed to break a window with one or two blows, and a sharp blade to slice through seatbelts. Some models are fluorescent, which makes them more visible in the dark or under murky water. Usually this tool can be clipped to your keychain, or attached to your visor.
• Blanket — Use it to cover hot car seats in the summer months, or to stay warm should you get stranded in the winter.
• Can Opener — Anyone who's ever been stranded with cans of food and nothing to open them with knows the importance of one of the world's most basic kitchen appliances.
• Cell Phone Charger — Buy a cell phone charger that works in a car lighter.
• Cleaning Items — You need wet wipes, tissues and plastic trash bags — good for trash or a carsick child.
• Extra (Hidden) Cash — It's best to forget about this stash of cash until you absolutely need it, maybe to purchase a few gallons of gas or to pass through a toll booth.
• Fire Extinguisher — A fire extinguisher is a must if you're driving an older car prone to having an overheated engine.
• First-aid Kit — Get two that are well-equipped — one that can easily be reached from the front seat and one for the back seat. Each should contain antiseptic; cleanser and ointment packets; bandages; scissors; tweezers; gauze; instant cold packs; latex gloves and a first-aid guide.
• Flashlight — Purchase a wind-up flashlight, and you'll never have to worry about dead batteries.
• Jumper Cables — Look for the compact, coiled type that fit neatly into their own bag.
• Liquid Latex — This miracle-in-a-can seals small holes in tires.
• Matches — If you have to stay overnight in your car and make a campfire somewhere beside it, the last thing you want to worry about is how to start a fire rubbing two sticks together.
• Meal Kit — Keep non-perishable items like packs of crackers, dried fruit, peanut butter, energy bars and even canned tuna with pop-top lids in your car at all times.
• Maps — The old, still-difficult-to-fold standby works wonders, even if you think you know where you're going.
• Pencil and Notepad — You might need this in case of a car accident, so you can jot down the other drivers' information, or for writing down instructions from 911 or directions.
• Snow Scraper — You might also need a small shovel and a snowbrush. But if your area primarily deals with ice conditions, a snow or ice scraper will do.
• Telephone Book — Or program the number to Google 411 into your phone — 46645. Just send a text with the business name (or a general term), city and state to this number, and the address and phone number will be sent back to you — for free (though standard text message rates apply).
• Towel — This is helpful for spills or protecting steering wheels and seats from the sun.
• Warning Light or Road Flares — If you're in an accident — especially at night — make yourself more visible to rescue personnel and other drivers.
• Water — Carry a plastic jug full of water to drink and a spray bottle to provide a quenching mist in extreme heat. In case your engine overheats, that water can also be the lifesaver for your car.
• Whistle — If you're stuck somewhere that you can't be seen, at least make yourself heard.

Everyone has their idea of what they should carry and why and I don't believe it's up to another person to try to determine what's best. I know I don't have 80% of those items in my vehicle, but as a certified first responder, I have a medical bag under my back seat that can be very beneficial when needed. I was asked once (because it is a duffle bag) why I carry something like that at all times, I mean..I'm not an EMT and I'm not a doctor - I let them know that I've already used it twice, once with a motorcycle accident I witnessed, and another with a car I watch flip. I carry the bag with me everywhere I go and hope I never have to use it, but in two instances, it has come in handy. I hope the same holds true for my needing a self defense tool, but in the event that that happens, I'd prefer to be at the ready, as I was with the two accidents.

That said, I guess I'm off to buy cans of tuna to store in my car (lol...sorry that's just sounds nasty).

I knew when I posted my previous thought that I should clarify that it isn't a fire extinguisher in your car that I am talking about. It is carrying one on your person at all times that would seem paranoid (as my original comment was in response to people who claim to carry weapons at all times, everywhere they go).

still single...and happy

I notice each time someone refutes what you say you have to take a step back and re-frame your stance. You really don't seem to have a solid argument, and here's why...

People carry guns with them because violence can strike you ANYWHERE, not just in your safe little home with all the fire extinguishers. People carry guns outside the home, because they choose to maintain personal responsibility for the security of their person & property.

Sorry, but your use of the fire extinguisher analogy isn't really an analogy, but a strawman argument which doesn't really make much sense in the end. Hence, your need to back track each time you are challenged with reasoning based in real logic.

How about those people though that feel all Clint Eastwood with their trusty firearm on their person, whip it out and decide to shoot someone who may not even be armed? How about that old guy that shot the kid in the back who had robbed him...the kid didn't even hurt him? Did that man have the right to kill him because he was robbed...by shooting him in the back no less? Hardly.

Unfortunately there are way too many people who will feel they will not only be protected, but have the right to take the law into their own hands....justifiably.

It's a few who ruin it for the rest...why is it ok to say meh, a few dead is ok for the rest of us who won't do something like that. That's retarded.

It's a few who ruin it for the rest...why is it ok to say meh, a few dead is ok for the rest of us who won't do something like that. That's retarded.

As retarted as letting teens drive though statistically more will be killed than any other age range? According to the National Teen Driving Statistics:

* 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age

* 16-year-olds are 3 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers

Should we restrict 16 year olds from driving or do we simply say,

"meh, a few dead is ok for the rest of us who won't do something like that."

In my high-school (way back when) we had close to a dozen people die in separate car accidents during my three years there (10,11,12). Did the school, the city, the state, or the nation put a stop to drivers because of it?!? No, it's an understanding that people need to take personal accountability for their actions (something most people don't have a clue about anymore, instead quick to say, "it's their fault I'm failing") and when people fail to be responsible and accountable, things happen.

It sucks, but that's the nature of freedom.

And as to your stories about people shooting unarmed people, I would have to review the details about each case, where they were, the people involved and the like. If a person is attacked by an unarmed assailant, you have the right to use deadly force only when it is equally felt. So if a 90 year old man shot an 18 year old that was unarmed as he was being shoved - that may be permitted (as a threat of deadly force was obvious)...the same teen going against me (40 years old, 6', 250, martial arts for a half dozen years and weight lifting the majority of my life - in that instance I wouldn't feel the need to pull as I wouldn't feel the threat of "deadly force".)

That said, shooting someone in the back is against the law (again if the threat of deadly force is no longer present). With the configuration of my house, their running from say...my office could be running towards my kids rooms, so that would be valid, their exiting the house and running down the street, my going after then "guns-a-blazing" would be illegal, and people have been prosecuted time and time again for doing just that.

Still in the USA!, at no time have I needed to re-frame my argument. First, my original comment wasn't an argument, it was an opinion. My opinion is that feeling you need to carry a gun everywhere you go is paranoid. I stand behind that opinion solidly.

Second, isn't the object of debate (which it became when someone put up opposition to my opinion) to state your opinion, back it up, and then when the other side makes their point you then have an opportunity to address the points they made. Isn't that one of the purposes of these discussion boards? How is it that my doing so means that I don't have a solid argument?

Lastly, the fire extinguisher analogy was not even my own. Shadow made that analogy, and I responded by putting it into the context of my original thought. And of course violence can strike anywhere. But chances are that its not--making the idea that you need to carry a gun with you, everywhere you go, a paranoid one. I am just very glad that I (a woman) am not that scared of the world.

Unless a car is used as a deadly weapon...it's a horrible comparison. Cars are not meant to kill. Guns are. It's very simple.

And yes, the case I was talking about was a kid leaving the scene of a robbery, where he caused no injury to the persons involved, a man pulled a gun after the robber turned his back and was leaving and shot him with his trusty concealed revolver. Not cool. Although half of Texas thought he was justified. That, is scary. Letting everyone carry a gun would increase that mindset - that's just a psychological fact. Why people truly think that it would decrease the amount of shooting truly baffles me. Did it work out in the wild west? Ah, no.

Cars are not meant to kill. Guns are.

Not exactly...but it's a common argument.

• Cars are meant to move a person (or thing) from point 'A' to point 'B' faster than walking.
• Guns are meant to project a small piece a metal down a cylinder - nothing more, and nothing less.

It's up to the person behind the wheel, and behind the trigger and their motive that will dictate if the person plows over a dozen people in a school parking lot in a fit of rage, or if a person decides to shoot a dozen people in a crowded mall.

Why people truly think that it would decrease the amount of shooting truly baffles me.

Because statistic after statistic has shown that it has.

Did it work out in the wild west? Ah, no.

And yes it did there too...the "wild west" was not like it seems in the movies, but again, people like to try and throw that argument out as well. In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

• In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and
  Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
• In
  Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Move forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

• DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
• New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
• Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
• Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

Seems that you were safer in the "wild west" than you were in DC or New York...where guns were illegal. But again....everyone will choose to think what they will.

Statistics show that giving everyone guns decreases shootings? Wow...glad that trial run hasn't happened in my city.

When they start handing out Uzis to see how that works out in your city...let me know - statistically - after a year how many shootings occur.

And still, your whole car comparison to a gun is weak. Sorry...guns have one purpose and it ain't to make tea.

Cars have a purpose - to get you from point A to point B. Guns shoot things to kill things.

Oh yeah, except for everyone else in the workd who thinks they own a gun for target practice. Oh, or in case - just in case - an axe murderer breaks into their fortress at night to maim or kill their entire family. Lord knows that kid that mugs you with no weapon on him will surely get his head blown off too because you was just protectin' your family from a dangerous killer....give me a break.

That mentality is absolutely no different from the one that commits the crime.

Statistics show that giving everyone guns decreases shootings?

No...not "everyone" statistics show repeatedly that when responsible legal gun owners are armed to protect themselves, less violent crimes occur. This has been shown throughout the US and in other countries where unarmed people no longer can defend themselves against criminals that obviously aren't going to obey laws while committing crime.

This is quoted from the #1 murder capital of the world (per capita), Colombia.

"Cities registering the highest numbers of legal firearms were also those showing the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, cities with the highest murder rates were those with the lowest number of legal arms."

Knife crime in the UK is wildly on the rise, as their papers report. It is also the case in Australia. Both places that don't allow people to legally defend themselves. The problem is NOT the inanimate object in as much as it is the behavior of the people that use it for illegal behavior. Again, this is a bad as blaming McDonalds for making people fat and blaming cigarettes for lung cancer. We want to victimize an inanimate object instead of looking to an individual and discovering why they would do something like this. When the mother bashed in her children's heads with a rock and drown them, we didn't blame the pool and we didn't blame the rock - we looked to the mother to see what the problem was. Was is this so different when we turn that to something else?

Guns shoot things to kill things.

It's a shame you believe that...really. I've grown up around guns and was anti-gun many years ago. Amazingly, none if them "killed things". They were used against targets and for sport, but didn't "kill" anything. I have four in my house...and they've never "killed things" either, though they've been fired...hundreds of times. Though I guess they've "killed" the piece of paper and cardboard...

in case - just in case - an axe murderer breaks into their fortress at night to maim or kill their entire family. Lord knows that kid that mugs you with no weapon on him will surely get his head blown off too because you was just protectin' your family from a dangerous killer....give me a break.

I know...it never happens that people protect people with guns...this one happening just a few miles down the street from where I live.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-12-24/news/shooting24_1_pursley-mall-orlando-regional-medical

I patrol the streets at night so I see first hand what's out there. I am faced with a world that most people will never know, that sit supposedly safe in their snug beds until that time when someone decides you're a target. It's only then do people realize how "safe" they truly are...and no amount of alarm system will protect you from the person that is determined.

Again, we all make our choices and must learn to live with them. I choose to carry, you choose not to. My carrying impacts you in no way, and your choosing not to impacts me in no way. In the end we'll both be dead (hopefully many many MANY years from now), but as you noted, if someone breaks into our respective houses, I guess you're OK with your time coming sooner and without putting up a fight. If I'm going to be the target of someone looking to end my life, I personally don't plan to go out without a fight.

Nobody's trying to take away your Right to Bear Arms. But you do not need a 33 round clip for your handgun or your hunting rifle. Explain to me why you do. Someone said the killer would have got away with it just as easy with a 10 round magazine.

Bullcrap. He fired 30 rounds before having to stop and reload. Look it up. That's when he was disarmed. He killed 6 and wounded about 14 total (i think?). Explain to me how he would be able to fire that many shots with a 10 round magazine. It took him 30 to kill/or hurt that many. If he had to stop at 10 and got tackled then, the damage might have been a third of what it was.

Don't forget people, the Brady Bill was from a republican shot in the attempted assassination on Reagan. That was the last big and real legal push at gun control. I guess the Clinton assault weapon ban but that's long gone so you guys can quit complaining on that one.

Talk about knee jerk reactions. How about anything not vocally pro-gun getting collapsed on this thread? Go ahead don't discuss just collapse.

Nobody's trying to take away your Right to Bear Arms. But you do not need a 33 round clip for your handgun or your hunting rifle.

I don't think most care about clip-size honestly...my G17 comes standard with a 17 round capacity, and what I carry, a G19, comes standard with a 15 round capacity. I have never needed more, and never purchased a larger clip-size.

That said, if we're going to always assume that everyone will be able to be "taken down" when they have to reload, I think everyone should watch the following videos. See...when someone thinks a complex problem (like dealing with a human's psychological makeup) can be solved with a quick "here's the answer to it all" solution...you put your mind at ease there and simply generate a newer breed of problem.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJVoc5uJ2e4
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhknaDjLFRI&NR=1
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PDzE55esIE&feature=related

The real solution is to start looking at the nature of the person, learn the behavior and the reason behind such behavior - work through communication to understand each other and then work to make progress to see if some solution can be made. I'll grant you, it's not quick nor is it "easy", but then again, humans aren't.

Want to say no more 30 round clips...that's fine. Won't solve the problem and won't curb the behavior to those that are looking to break the law ("no guns in DC" really helped there, and "no guns in Chicago" has done nothing as well), but if that simple solution will put people's mind at ease for a moment...

Learn people, don't "knee jerk" solutions that do nothing.

Ummm....isn't this article about seeking "to ban high-capacity ammo magazines"?

Nobody said "no guns" anywhere. High capacity ammo mags are unnecessary. Which is what I said before. To turn one area of gun control into total gun control is...hmmm...what do you call that kind of thinking?

Let me know by the way when we have to get background checks and wait three days before we can buy a car.

If you're given lemons, make lemonade.

Are you implying that we should squeeze all are law makers?

Yes but there are a lot of people who voted for this so called leaders; My question is why do you need to carry a Glock with high capacity clips. Maybe we all should run out and buy automatic weapons to "defend against the government. LOL the government will bring the swat team with more firepower than you will see in any hollywood movie. Lets get real We do not need to carry automatic weapons in this country, and until we all realize that a society without guns is a better society stuff like this will happen. Unfortunately!

A society without guns is a better society???? Like Nazi Germany??? Hitler first registered all the guns, then confiscated them. Then he killed a few million people. You obviously have forgotten your history. Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are subjects.

Better society? Like Mexico?

KNEW this was coming as soonaas I heard the story.

The libbies would have their panties in a wad.

I live in one of the southern states.

It has been legal to carry a weapon for about 3 years with a ccw,

I live in the largest county in the state by area and one of the smallest by population we have a small very professional Sheriff's dept.here that has zero chance of getting from one extreme of the county to the other in a short time.

Approximately 25% if the men in the county carry with a license , I suspect there is another 20% or so that carry without the license..

My wife and both of my daughters carry a weapon, that's about all I can tell yous about the ladies.

We have had one shooting since the law was passed, little over two years ago couple of young fellows decicded to rob a late night convenience store.

There wa aclerk and three patrons in the sore.

When the deputies got there one of the would be robbers had 3 slugs in him and the other 2., no ambulance necessary.

Both were dead and we haven't had a an armed robbery in the county, since that time.

The right to bear arms is the law in MOST states. The point here is the amount of ammunition should be in that weapon. I was a hunter most of my young life and never carried more than 5 rounds in the weapons I bore.
My father was a US Army rifle instructor during the Korean War (I know, I know); his instructions to me earned me 'Expert' ratings with every weapon I used while in my own Army career. There is absolutely NO REASON for expanded magazines or weapons capacity in ANY weapon carried by a civilian. If they can't hit a target with the first few rounds they should NOT be allowed to bear arms, they are a menace to themselves and the surrounding populace

(1) Both Canada and the UK have requirement of a gun license with clinical tests and stricter gun laws than the US; both Canada and the UK have significantly lower murder rate using guns. (2) What if a law-abiding citizen witnessing the Saturday pandemonium pulled his gun to shoot Loughner and accidentally injured another citizen in the crowd? (3) What if yet a third person turned around and saw that citizen with a gun, so he pulls out his gun and shoots him thinking that he was the original killer? (4) What if a law-abiding citizen (not a psycho) shoots someone in a heated argument (hey, this happens in the US many times, read the assault statistics)? (5) Self-defense from the government or criminals is a myth propagated by the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

You will have to point out the line from the Second Ammendment where it says "People have the right to high capacity magazines"

Can you point out the line that says they can't? I don't think the term "right to bear arms" defines arms as being muzzle loaders or rocks.

"People have the right to high capacity magazines"

If you read carefully.. the Constitution is a RESTRICTION on GOVERNMENT not people.

Therefore, where in the Constitution does it say the "government can restrict people from owning high capacity magazines?"

thats right the criminal element will always have what he needs to do the crime. after all it is pc for him to have 30 rounds to execcute against my 9 to defend

You're a nut case.

Never takes a right wing conservative to ignore the facts and blame a liberal..... Simply stupid.

Maybe the gun right advocates can start manufacturing 500 round clips, since it does not matter. Any person who claims to be a law abiding citizen with a gun permit is no different than what Jared was prior to losing a cup in his cupboard.

Fact: the magazine played no part in the shooting of the Congresswoman, it was the user of the item.

In all my years of shooting and instructing I've never seen a magazine do anything to harm a person.

Banning so called "hi capacity" magazines is akin to banning kitchen knives longer than 3 inches...makes no sense to the people that use them.

@progun - your fact is completely wrong. It was the gun, that shot the projectile, the mag that held the bullet and the shooter who pulled the trigger. You can't have a shooting without a gun.

@etothex: Could be, but the magazine didn't fire the round did it??

Can't have traffic accidents with out cars either....lets ban all cars!

Pro Gun; The magazine DID play a part in how MANY people were killed so YES, the magazine allowed him to hurt more people.(Guess this is a first time for you!!!) If he had only had 15 shots, then less people would have died since he would have had to reload sooner giving people near by a chance to either tackle him or shoot him.

So saying it played no part in her shooting is just a BS technicality, a single shot weapon would have hit her since she was first. However, others would have been saved.

And if you can't see how THIS magazine hurt more people than a lower capacity one would have, you need to turn in your "shooting instructors license".(Oh please!)

I mean really, what pathetic loser can't actually hit something with 15 shots.

And arguing FOR hi capacity magazines is akin to saying that all cars should be able to drive 300 miles an hour even though you can't drive it anywhere in the US.

Pro Gun if you are unable to grasp the concept that the more ammunition you can fire without having to reload increases your killing capacity then please stay away from firearms. There is absolutely no reason a civilian needs to have a magazine that can hold 30 rounds, absolutely no rational reason. And btw your comment about comparing cars to guns was stupid. Cars are designed to transport people and goods from point a to point b, guns are meant to kill.

Anyone could easily tape two 15 round magazines together and reload in less than a second. Having two handguns with 15 round clips would also be an easy option. Legislation won't stop these loonies from committing these kind of acts when they are determined to do it. Outlawing large magazines would have no affect on this since type of stuff, since magazines are so easy to make and sell on the gray market.

I use a 40 round magazine in my rifle when I go out to practice. When I took a concealed carry class, I was able to change pistol magazines in very short order--a tad over 2 seconds. I guess I don't understand the argument?

Even the father of the slain girl said that a free society will always have these issues, and he didn't seem to want to start drafting up restrictions. He's right, freedom is a scary proposition.

There should probably be a law against murder. Take away guns/ammo/magazines, and you'll start to see more suicide vests. Now that would surely foment discussion!

You know this same argument comes up every time there's a shooting! I have to agree that the weapon is always the first thing they blame, but you know I've never once heard they were trying to ban cars after some old man or crazy person drives into a crowd or building! I promise you that I can lay my pistol fully loaded on the coffee table and you could walk by it all day long and it will NEVER attack you. Now if I'm carrying my pistol and I'm at a restaurant and some guy starts shooting, or even on the street at this incident, I promise you that I would use my pistol as a tool to stop this. I know none of you would complain if you were standing next to me and by my actions of stopping this quickly you were saved.

“And arguing FOR hi capacity magazines is akin to saying that all cars should be able to drive 300 miles an hour even though you can't drive it anywhere in the US.”

Honestly if you wanted to use a car speed analysis to then you would have to use a speed that almost all cars can drive for instance 100 mph since that speed is also deadly when used improperly. Now to be honest though that is not a fair comparison because the car can go that fast however it is illegal to do so. A 30 round magazine can hold 30 rounds and it is not illegal to do so, it is illegal to shoot someone. There is nothing wrong with having a 30 round magazine there are many things wrong with shooting people. Stop blaming the gun for what a person did, a person did this horrible thing.

The true issue here is why was a person with such clear mental health issues not treated for his issues, why was this ignored. The person who did the shooting has serious issues that other people ignored; we as a society are so politically correct that no one could do anything about the fact that this man is obviously nuts. The warning signs were there, but nothing happened to get him help.

In the hands of a skilled shooter a standard 15 round clip would have had results of more dead than the shooter managed with 30. The size of the clip in this instance has no bearing what so ever on what this insane fool did. He could have built a bomb if he wanted to. You cannot hold law abiding citizens on the result of the so very few.

Bustem....the problem is, you can no longer tell who the law abiding citizen is when it comes to gun ownership. This guy was apparently a law abiding citizen because he was legally sold a gun, and then proceeded to use it on innocent people. Now we know he was not so law abiding and certifiably nuts as well, but it's too late to save those who were killed or injured. Are you suggesting that we accept this as collateral damage for the right to have no restrictions on gun ownership?

The question that has been posed over and over again and cannot be logically answered is....Why does anyone need to have a high powered automatic firearm unless it is to kill a lot of things (people or animals) quickly? Because the criminals all have them or can continue to get them is not logical.

If this ban had never been lifted or if it were reinstated today, it would take a long time to get these things off the streets, but eventually it would reduce the number to the point that they would be very hard to come by and so costly that most would not bother. This coupled with some very heavy penalties and jail time for illegally participating in the selling or purchasing of these items would be a good start toward cleaning up the problem we have.

Doing nothing is no longer an option unless you are just a self serving paranoid individual who puts your needs and wants above everyone else.

@kaara

There are already plenty of laws on the books for illegal purchase, sale or possession of firearms. All we need to do is enforce existing laws, not create more.

Kaara,

At what point in history COULD you tell who the law abiding citizen was when it came to gun ownership? I must have been asleep during that history lesson!

Big....my point exactly....apparently a clean criminal record is all that is needed to get a gun in Arizona and it's instantaneous. No way could you make a sound judgment on a person's ability to be responsible with a firearm, so basically it's just a crapshoot. It makes no sense and everyone knows it but if you just keep repeating the NRA mantras and slip those congressmen some money now and then, everything will be ok and you will be able to keep buying those big guns.

I guess the innocent victims of all these mass shootings are just collateral damage so you can feel safer with your semi automatic. Shameful

I find it hilarious the people saying to ban guns. The gun didn't kill anyone, the psycho did. Lets say guns were banned, would you have rather have had him pull a Tim McVeigh and drive a Ryder truck with a ton of explosives in it and detonate? Hundreds would have died then.

No matter what is banned, outlawed, etc................... The psychos aren't going to obey the law and will find someway to kill.

Ok I have heard numerous poster here say that we don't need automatic weapons, or high capacity MAGAZINES they are not clips, but as usual those that say we don't need fully automatic weapons or assault weapons evidently have no idea what either are, A true assault weapon is a select fire which means that you have three positions on the firearm that selects each function, the first is the safefty, the second is sem auto and the third is full auto, And by the way fully automatic weapons cannot be owned by citizens of this country seeing as how they were outlawed in 1934, with the exception of a few and i mean very few states that it is possible to own this type of firearm the requirements you must go through and then the $200.00 dollar tax stamp you must apply for, and then the amount of money these ture automatic and what some cotinue to call assault weapens would cost not very many Americans could afford such firearms.

So please you, that keep calling anything that looks scary to you, assault weapons learn what they are.

Firearms are only a tool just like a hammer or screwdriver or anything else it depends on the user that makes any or all of them bad, And the second amendment is a right unlike driving a car which is a privlegde.

OK Mr. Believer and NRA advocate...we're duly impressed with your knowledge of firearms; however, please tell me why it is necessary to have these "semi automatic" weapons for sale to the average guy on the street who then can use it to do multiple kills, as we've now witnessed on more than one occasion....Virginia Tech and now Tuscon, OR, he stores it in his basement or gun cabinet and shows it off to his buddies when they come over, and they talk about how they'll blow the heads off anyone who comes near their property uninvited.

Those who insist that they have the freedom to own any and all kind of firearms are doing so for purely selfish reasons. There is a happy medium and we should strive to achieve it.

why it is necessary to have these "semi automatic" weapons for sale to the average guy on the street who then can use it to do multiple kills, as we've now witnessed on more than one occasion....Virginia Tech and now Tuscon, OR, he stores it in his basement or gun cabinet and shows it off to his buddies when they come over, and they talk about how they'll blow the heads off anyone who comes near their property uninvited.

You do know that a semi-automatic pistol is simply a pistol that fires a single shot each time you pull the trigger? The same type of behavior is handled with an "old six shooter" (that being a single shot fired with each pull of the trigger). The difference is obviously that in the later, the empty shell is still in the gun, whereas in a semi-automatic pistol, the empty shell is expelled from the handgun. But that's really the only difference.

Those who insist that they have the freedom to own any and all kind of firearms are doing so for purely selfish reasons.

No follower of the law of the land believes this, as they...we...understand that there's no reason to own a fully automatic machine gun. I think the biggest problem is that people hear "semi-automatic" and think Rambo, and that is so far from the reality of what the weapon is...and does.

But I may be mistaken - you may know exactly what a semi-automatic pistol is. You may also know that a simple hunting rifle does more damage than an AR-15 (which is a semi-automatic rifle, which I grant you looks a lot like the military machine gun, but because of the fact that is single pull, single bullet, is FAR from the same). It is for that reason that many hunting grounds refuse to allow that type of weapon - it simply wounds whereas a hunting rifle actually kills.

The difference there obviously is that someone sees a rifle ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Modern_Hunting_Rifle.jpg )and thinks "hunting, no big deal". When someone sees an AR-15 ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.JPG ) they get terrified, not realizing that it's weaker than the former.

Thanks for the crash course on weapons, but your statement about hearing semi automatic and thinking Rambo really did it for me. That screwball firing in the crowd in Tuscon was as close to a "Rambo" as you come.

"Believers in the law of the land" What is that....kill or be killed? How about trying to live in peaceful harmony with our fellow man.

"Believers in the law of the land" What is that....kill or be killed?

Not at all - a believer in the law of the land is one that understands and completely respects the law - it seems fairly self explanatory.

And so what does that mean exactly? It means that, depending on state, and depending on location one is visiting, one that has the legal right to carry does so, and in a place where it is forbidden, respects the law and doesn't. This means that if I'm carrying when going out to dinner at say...Outback, and the only place to eat is in the area surrounding the bar, then I wait for a table...because that is "the law of the land" and I fully respect it.

How about trying to live in peaceful harmony with our fellow man.

Trust me - we would much prefer that type of lifestyle. Unfortunately, there are a great many out there that would prefer that we didn't live that way at all. I carry legally and pray that I NEVER have to use it. That said, should someone feel that my life or the life of my children is less important that what I might have in my wallet at the time, I will use it without hesitation or remorse.

Shawn....you took a great deal of your time to explain your philosophy, and while I don't totally agree with it, I respect your opinion.

I would only add this parting thought/question with respect to entering into a gun fight to protect your wife and children over handing over whatever is in your wallet. If someone is pointing a gun at you and demanding your money, how are you going to get to that gun in your pocket without him getting off the first shot and perhaps killing someone in the process?

Don't get me wrong...I'm not against having a gun for protection. If someone enters my home unauthorized and I have the opportunity and means, I am going to prevent that, but carrying on the street or in business establishments just doesn't seem logical to me.

If someone is pointing a gun at you and demanding your money, how are you going to get to that gun in your pocket without him getting off the first shot and perhaps killing someone in the process?

I appreciate your response and accordingly share the respect mutually.

The idea is not to have a shoot out in the hopes that you can win. In my training we learn (and teach) that if you've given them your wallet, purse, watch, iToy, car and the like and they are still pointing a gun your way - there is nothing left you have to offer then but your life. And it's then (and only then) would I consider facing a gun and pulling mine.

You are full of BS!! You would have been down until he went to reload and then you might have fired. So if he had a 15 or less clip you could have saved more lives by shooting him while he was trying to reload earlier.

Hey Beaker1, how do you know what it would have done? There's just as much as chance that TGMcCallie would have stopped him faster than a 15 round clip.

Have you listened to the witnesses?? They have said that he fired and kept firing and ONLY stopped to reload.

You can FOR SURE say that with a 15 round clip he WOULD have had to stop shooting earlier and gotten off 15+ bullets less!! After that, your feelings on TGMcCallie's amazing response time is all BS speculation. One is provable fact the other is just a right wing idiots speculation trying to protect something that makes no logical sense!

So WHY does a rational person NEED MORE than a 15 round clip?? Answer that basic question?

The government limits cars to a speed limit.. why is it so terrible to limit the number of bullets a "rational person" can have in a gun?

How many crimes have you stopped with your weapon?

Go look at the latest news. I recently heard that a couple of the heros that restrained the shooter were actually carrying, but in the heat of the situation they made the decision not to attempt to draw their guns. Those sound like responsible gun owners who were able to make a sound decision in the heat of the situation. So yes, they would have been able to react quicker is the shooter had to reload earlier.

All this talk of "I would have taken him out if I was there" is bunk. Look what the responsible gun owners that were there actually did.

Hey Beaker,

Have you ever fired a gun? Do you own one? Have you ever been mugged? Have you ever protected someone else who was getting mugged?

You seem to know exactly what everyone would or wouldn't have done. Very intuitive of you. Your arrogance is only outdone by your naivete.

When was the last time you drove over the speed limit? Be truthful. Using your flawed, adolescent analogy the government should also limit cars so they can't be driven faster than the speed limit.

Dang, just realized I was taking some of my valuable time to reply to an politicized idiot.

Yes, Yes, No (I live in a safe area), So No to the last one. Dude, you need to move if that is your daily life!

No, I just know that these BS idiots that say "they would have taken them down sooner" are just that, full of BS.

You seem to have guessed a lot about me and most of it wrong so your arrogance is pathetic.

And yes, I drive over the speed limit every day... but there's a HUGE difference to limiting cars to a speed limit and putting limits on how many bullets a psycho can have in a gun. (BTW you do know that your car already has a limiter on it?? So that is EXACTLY like a magazine limit!)

Politicized??? How?? I never said get rid of guns and wouldn't think we should. I do think there should be limits on mag capacity since there is no logical reason you need 30+ rounds in a gun (unless you suck at shooting and you shouldn't get a gun anyways. ;-)

And "waste your valuable time"??? Sorry, didn't realize the Wendy's bathroom attendant had so many demands on his time... Buck up dj1111, you'll make fry cook one day!!

Again, a skilled shooter that wants maximum damage would drop his clip with one or two left in while jamming the next clip in without missing a beat on trigger pull while pulling a third and fourth clip from his pockets or waistband as he continues his rampage. Obviously very few in here know how to shoot. Size of clips mean little if anything.

TGMcCallie probably would have shot the Hispanic aid to the Representative.

He fails to realize that his gun is more of a phallic symbol than a useful weapon.

Bustem Hard,

Yes, your shooting prowess is amazing... You're the greatest shooter ever and we bow to your amazing skills....

HOWEVER moron, that is NOT what this kid was!!! He bought a gun and went and sprayed bullets using the biggest magazine he could get.

MANY of us know how to shoot, and also realize that you're full of crap. If this guy had been special forces, then he would have been prepared and unstoppable. People like TGMcCallie would think they could have stopped him with their gun but he would have taken them out the second they drew. (Sorry Rambo TGMcCallie)

However, back on PLANET REALITY, that was NOT the case and limiting him to a smaller clip would have saved lives. Your, and others attempts to elevate him as a trained shooter that could have done just as much damage with smaller clips is BS.

He was STOPPED WHILE HE WAS RELOADING!!! So obviously your point is wrong and stupid!

First. I am not in Law Enforcement. Yes, I have had to draw my Glock to protect someones life. Would I have fired? Yes. Do reagular people need 30 round mags? Not only No, but He## No. The number of lives effected by the Tuscon shooter would have been lessened by the fact that the onlookers would have been able to wrestle him to the ground after 15 or even 10 rounds. Yes, we should be able to bear arms.

I agree we should be able to bear arms, but not those with automatic rounds that can take out many people quickly. Those are for nothing but mass killing and have no place in our society unless you are in law enforcement or the military. How many more are going to die before we get a clue.

Cars kill a hell of alot more people than guns do. There are incompetant people driving just as there are incompetant people that can access firearms. If we had profiling in this country someone may have picked up on the crazy white guy who has been known to have issues.

You can't cure stupid and you can't legislate it either.

I have no problem with Federal Licensing, mental assessments or profiling to prohibit purchasing guns, ammo and equipment.

But it is my constitutional right to do so. Fix the people not the tool.

Violence was just as bad in DC and Chi Town with hangun bans, the bad guys are still the bad guys.

The magazine is part of the gun.

Another delusional rant from the anti-gunners.......

A nuclear weapon is a MWD. A handgun is a small arm.

Some hunting rifles are semi-auotomatic. Most pistols are semi-automatic. Most if not all fully automatic weapons are against the law, but sometimes allowed for collectors. Many semi-auto are converted to fully auto, this would be illegal in most cases. Banning large magazines would make them illegal but not inaccessible since many exist already and if someone wants them bad enough, most clips are metal and springs and could be manufactured illegally. Being illegal stops nothing whether it is drugs, guns, magazines or immigrants.

It's the right to "bear" arms. Not bare arms, some people's bare arms should be against the law! LOL

So by your logic "Upstate New York-1233487" there is no point regulating our borders as people come in either way. So let them in as they please - what do you say ??

how about if we just make it illegal to murder someone?

I have my 30 round magazines for doomsday reasons. When a group of people bum-rush my place to steal my food supply, I don't want be reloading very often. Outlawing high capacity magazines doesn't stop criminals. It just makes the magazines a little more valuable on the black market, helping to create more funds for other criminal activiities.

do you even know the difference between semi auto and automatic weapons? or the fact that most police cannot hit a target once out of a 15 round magazine. it's hard under real world conditions even with expert training and experience. high capacity magazines serve a purpose, whether in a police, military or purely sport oriented and home defense situation. so give it a rest. there is no perfect solution to any of this. we live a country of freedoms and with that comes the certainty that someone will abuse those freedoms, by shooting many or stealing someones social security number. so it is incumbent on us as citizens to choose to punish lawbreakers not to infringe on the rights of the vast majority of law abiding citizens. so quit belly-aching left leaning liberals. america is tired of it, and it makes you look like infants.

ARMY------- Well said, I was an instructor on the Rifle /pistol range At Marine Corps Schools , Quantico, Va..I was also the range NCO on the rifle range used for The interservice matches and local pistol matches.

Cops need lots of rounds in their magazine, simply because most of them are lousy shots.

Most of the cops I have seen shooting, brother you did not want to have your life depend on them.

Now we are talking about civilians, with a large magazine, yeah they need it, the fruit cake lefty that did the shooting in Arizona, wouldn't have done any damage except the target was shoulder to shoulder, he couldn't miss.

Ya it was a LIBERAL that did this what the hell im shocked the libs arnt standing by his side saying if we had given him more this wouldnt have happend

In the definition of "weapon of mass destruction" that I accept, ANY means of killing or maiming more than one person at a time (and yes, that can include an automobile) is a weapon of mass destruction when used for the purpose of killing people. But NO ONE has yet comprehensively explained to me any justification for anyone, other than the military on the battlefield, having a weapon that can fire 30-33 rounds continuously. That IS a weapon of mass destruction.

PS, my grammar check wasn't working for me when I posted the original comment. I meant "bear" not "bare". Sometimes my fingers just don't hit the keys in the right order, and that is one of the many cases (including the misuse of so many people of "there", "their", and "they're") where spellcheck does no good. It's too bad that Newsvine doesn't include a grammar check as well, but that would be too much to ask of them, or any other internet site. Just look at the articles that get posted that we all comment upon.

President of the U.S.A., the shooter is not a "liberal". He, according to some of the latest reports, was "registered" as an independent. Most of us GDI's would refute being included in either the liberal, the conservative, or the libertarian ideologies.

So you really think THIS nut job would have not have shot her if everyone in the crowd had a gun??? Talk about a BS reach that is totally not true!!!

Now a ban on the High Capacity clip's this guy used would have helped limit the deaths a lot more than you and your gun.

I think this makes total sense as law abiding citizens that want a gun for self defense or hunting don't need a high capacity clip... And if they did because they were such a bad shot, they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun in the first place!

"If more poeple carried weapons there would be less shooting. . ."

Think about the logic of this statement. There might be fewer "mass" shootings, (maybe-most of these wackos intend to kill themselves when cornered anyway so they don't give a $hit about dying) but the sheer number of 1 or 2 killings would dramatically increase. What might have ended in an arguement or fistfight now may end in a shootout (with innocents standing by getting killed too).

I'm for responsible gun ownership, but I don't think many people can be trusted to carry in all public places. If you have a clean record, get training or pass a field test, you should be able to carry in many but not all places (bars, sporting events, demonstrations, etc. excluded).

Beaker1 - quit wasting your time trying to spread logic to the mental conservatives whining about their absolute right to carry guns. It's a waste of time.

Beaker1 you are correct. The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION here is WHERE were all those gun-toting heroes who say they can take down a shooter with their side arm? Where? This happened in open-carry AZ, where there are guns-a-plenty, so WHERE were all those gun-owners?

Oh -- look under the tables and behind the children, that's where they were hiding. Instead it was the UNarmed people who tackled the gunman.

Who do braggarts think they are kidding when they say they'll fire into a crowd of people thinking they can kill a suspect and NOT hit anyone else? This is precisely why all the gun-owner-carriers simply run for cover and rarely step up.

The exception are cops, military, and security personnel who have been specifically trained to respond to dangerous people. Those specialists are the ones who are cited again and again for stepping forward to save others -- not some braggard with a showpiece in a glass case in his basement.

There would be a lot more innocents dying and rage killings

This was at a liberal rally if you remember correctly. They don't like guns, so this guy had free range. I guarantee if this happened at a Republican meeting he wouldn't have gotten off more than a few shots, if that.

This is for drano It was a mental LIBERAL that did the shooting man up and take the blame for your kind of people maybe its liberals that shouldnt have guns hell they dont even need cars because most of them dont work

TG...there were people carrying that day that chose not to use their weapons for fear of hurting an innocent victim, so the gunman was taken down by brave individuals who tackled him. This is the way it should be. People should not be able to carry guns around with them everywhere they go. Arizona's law is a joke and it should be repealed ASAP. Allowing these kind of automatic handguns and rifles in the hands of civilians is asking for trouble and we're getting it. I'm just sorry for all the innocent lives that are lost because so many want to exercise their "right" at any cost. So far it hasn't helped anyone.

I agree completely. I propose a counter to her bill; one that would require every law abiding citizen to be licensed to carry and be armed at all times. If the crazies, kooks, criminals and gang bangers knew that every single one of us was packing, they'd learn very quickly why it's called an ' equalizer '.

Oh i Agree too, but why stop there every citizen should have bazookas too and tanks, f-16s and biological weapons too and every law abiding citizen should have frog nukes never know when you might be outnumbered by some thugs. F u c k i n g stupid americans you will never get it. To stupid to look at other 1st world countries and add them all up together and still have a quarter of firearm related deaths.

I wanted to wright a Saterday night life comedy skit after 9/11 when every one is going the mettle detector at an airport and setting it off because they have mass of guns. Then this sweet little ol lady goes through and does not set it off. and they say "Stop that women" so they can give her a gun and say now you safe to board HO HO HO could you imagine if the terrorest knew that every law abiding citisen now has a gun on that plane? the terrorest stands up and instently 200 guns are pointed at him LOL ROFLMAO

Ummm U.S is the one supplying the cartels with your joke of a screening process. I could walk into any store wearing a bikers or gang outfit say im going to hurt somebody and they would still give me guns lol.

Lisa,

Have you even owned/used a gun??? Your comments lead me to believe you have NO idea what you are even talking about. Limiting magazine capacity WOULD have forced him to stop and reload or to stop and switch weapons so 15+ bullets less would not have been shot!

It is highly unlikely he would have carried more guns because it would be harder to hide and control. Much easier to drop in a new mag than stop and grab a second gun. If he'd been limited on his mag size he might have carried more mags, but NOT a second gun.

Oh, and if you need a high capacity clip to hit a coyote, I don't think you should be holding a gun in the first place!! And a bear or elk in Tucson... really? Talk about a reach... why not just say, "what if Godzilla attacked you?".... sheesh!

The only thing you hunt with a 30 round clip is another human being.

I have a 30 round clip for my 30 caliber, but I only use it for wild hogs causing damage. I also hunt with a handgun, but it's not an auto. There are situations for a larger clip, but not what this nut used it for.

obviously ryan has never tried to purchase a firearm legally. or owned a firearm or fired one for that matter. i have seen people with revolvers or single shot firearms fire and reload almost as fast as high capacity magazine shooters. he falls in the moron category. limited capacity magazines or single shot firearms just means more mags and more reloads dummies. it just takes practice to be fast.

ARMY------- May what we need to do is line up so of the libbies worried about a large magazine and show them what 1 12 gauge shot gun loaded with double ought buck would have done to crowd, that size.

They would be happy to settle for 6 dead.

Beaker your wrong if someone wants to KILL a lot of people and there is no 30 round clips you think thats going to stop them. Get real theres 1000 ways to kill a group. I can see you now trying to outlaw cars and trucks next good luck with that and why your at it throw in the planes we can all walk to work. What about a pipe bomb what about a dry ice bomb you want me to go on

Wilburn you are 100% right

Or maybe be real men and fight with your fists or are most americans to obese to stand up and fight.

I like that. The guns kill people argument is the most foolish and illogical argument.

A gun has one use - to kill. In defense - to kill, hunting - to kill.

A person pulls the trigger, the gun fires the shot. So it is a person using a gun to kill. Of course a gun is an inanimate object but it is used by a person to kill. I have no problem with people having guns. I have a problem with CRAZY people having guns.

And I have not heard of the case yet where all the people who have gun permits have stopped a crime, so that argument is BS as well

A gun has one use - to kill. In defense - to kill, hunting - to kill.

My guns haven't killed anybody.

Are they defective?

Red flag alert!

I want whatever drugs hes taking lamo.

But here in the US we can't get "assault rifles" without a special permit and some states prohibit them completely. Assault rifles are fully automatic rifles as used by the military. Even in Iran, Iraq etc. the civilian population can own fully automatic weapons with no restrictions, where as here in the US they are restricted.

amen brother

Yes Mike, but a standard mag would have saved lives. She's not trying to limit guns.. just limit the number of shots an idiot like this has in the gun at any one time.

He had more clips and ONLY stopped firing because he ran out of bullets in his first clip.

Sure guns can kill, but that's not the argument. The argument is; why does any sane law abiding person need a 30+ magazine clip and can't reload (which could have saved lives) if they need more?

That's bull@!$%# both of these senators are taking advantage of a sad sad tragedy they should both be ashamed of themselves.

@michelle - how many instances are there of people stopping crime with their guns, who are not law enforcement? Just curious because your statement seems to be saying that the gangsters and thugs are thwarted by citizens right to carry arms. I do not think that is accurate.

to those of you that think that carrying a gun never helped:

I could go on and on with links and news stories about this. the facts show that the states with the highest violent crime are the ones with the most restrictive gun control laws.

He already had multiple clips.. BUT he was tackled when he RELOADED!!

You are the idiot here for not understanding how they were able to disarm him. So having LESS bullets in his clip would have saved lives!

Beaker, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Pro Gun, um, what part?? You seem to be the one who has no idea what you are talking about!!

Please tell us your glorious logic as to WHY having 30+ round clips are necessary and why if the shooter only had 15 rounds in the clip he wouldn't have had to reload sooner and possibly be tackled sooner? (would the extra bullets magically have appeared?)

She isn't the president so she doesn't have secret service all around. She was at a function shaking hands and meeting people so of course he could get close.

Rich - congressmen/women and senators do not have security. They are not the President and Vice President. They frequently go to public events without anyone there to protect them.

yeah what an exploitation. She wants to ban high capacity magazines. Oh the horror the horror.

The only way you would get the Mexican Drug Cartel to vanish from inside our boarders would be to legalize drugs. Kill one 12 more pop up. Demand for drugs isn't ever going to end. And putting pot in same category as crack or meth shows how uneducated you are about drugs.

Hello Gun Toating Liberal "" The Loughner they met when he was a freshman at Mountain View High School may have been socially awkward, but he was generally happy and fun to be around. The crew smoked marijuana every day, and when they weren't going to concerts or watching movies they talked about the meaning of life and dabbled in conspiracy theories." I was just reading the Article, who ever wrote it is Uneducated. sincerely Fezzy Bear, p.s. please don't shoot me.

Fuzzy - Your access to personal information about Loughner's drug use and where he obtained it is truly amazing. You should look for work with the FBI, or at least Fox News. As for illegal drugs turning him bad, there has never before been a claim that drugs will harm your mental ability more if they are illegal. in fact, a given drug affects a person the same way whether it is illegal or not. Finally, the most probable cause of his mental deterioration was binge drinking of alcohol, which resulted in at least one incident of alcohol poisoning. This is often fatal and causes permanent damage to the brain and other organs even if the patient survives, as he did in this case due to prompt medical intervention.

I think everyone is overlooking the one factor that is common across the board. It doesn't matter what books he read, if he drank or if he took drugs, HE, "The Loughner", is the only one responsible for his actions. People need to stop blaming the teachers or the police or society at large. The only way to eliminate any risks in a society is for everyone to lock themselves in their homes and never, ever, ever leave. Until then, we have to decide if we, as a society are willing to accept the risks of a free society or if we want Big Brother to control every aspect of our lives. I, for one, am willing to live with the risks and have taken steps to mitigate those risks.