Gun-control bills probably dead on arrival

Gun-control advocates are pushing a bill in Congress to ban high-capacity ammo magazines, but it seems obvious the legislation won’t get anywhere anytime soon. President Obama and many congressional Democrats are wary of inciting the National Rifle Association lobby heading into the 2012 elections, and there will be scant if any support from GOP lawmakers.

The man held in the Jan. 8 Tuscon shootings used a high-capacity magazine with his Glock semi-automatic. The magazine allowed him to get off 31 shots without reloading. He was subdued while reaching for a replacement clip, according to news reports. Six people were killed and 13 wounded in the attack.

Supporters of the ban also are latching onto a comment by former Vice President Dick Cheney that outlawing high-capacity magazines may be warranted. If even Cheney, an NRA champion of old, will give the thought of a ban the time of day, it has to be a good idea, right?

Another bill would make it illegal for people to be armed within 100 feet of a building or location being attended by a member of Congress. The sponsor cited several instances in which people have been found to be carrying firearms near the president and other elected officials over the past two years. Exceptions would be made for law enforcement personnel.

Other items of interest since the Tuscon shootings include a new poll that shows Americans remain deeply divided on gun control. This underscores the likelihood of gridlock on gun issues in Congress. Meanwhile, interestingly, there are new studies that challenge gun advocates’ assertions that more guns equate to more safety.

While gun control measures are at least getting some exposure nationally, in Utah the opposite is true. Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, is pushing a bill that would eliminate concealed weapons permitting. And Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield, has presented a bill allowing people to shoot feral animals.

Given the increased hard-right GOP dominance of the Utah Legislature, I think the Wimmer and Oda bills both have a real chance of passing, if they make it out of committee to the House floor.

Share
This entry was posted in Why are you crying? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Gun-control bills probably dead on arrival

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Gun-control bills probably dead on arrival | Why are you crying? -- Topsy.com

  2. You have to love the self-serving nature of a congress member proposing a bill to prevent people from having a gun near… a congress member. If politicians have a right to “serve without fear,” then the rest of us also have a right to do our jobs “without fear.”

    • Peggy says:

      Can I propose a bill that would make it a crime to have a gun near me?

    • laytonian says:

      “Another bill would make it illegal for people to be armed within 100 feet of a building or location being attended by a member of Congress.”

      Conundrum: what will this do to CotMan©’s plan to wear his own concealed weapon, more often?

      Does that mean we can arrest CotMan© for being armed within 100 feet of himself?

  3. Bob Becker says:

    Wimmer’s bill would, of course, make it easier for people to shoot cats and dogs if Oda’s bill passes.

    Ah, Utah…. ain’t no place like it.

  4. hawg says:

    Well Mark. at least you didn’t flat out lie about the NRA this time. good job, baby steps.

    I do love polls and studies and statistics though. a quick purusal of the studies you listed from other articles were, as typical, short on study parameters but a couple of stats were interesting. one said that if you possess a gun you are 4.5 % more likely to get shot, it was unclear how that came about but another study mentioned a random sampling off 677 shooting victims and that 6% of those had a firearm. I think that means 94 % didn’t have a firearm. it too, of course, was unclear on how many people in that area/time frame DID NOT become a victim because they were armed nor did it mention exactly now NOT being armed helped the other 94% who were still shot. hhmmmmmm.

    nobody says carrying a gun is a gaurantee of safety but nobody can say I shouldn’t have the right to consider it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>