31 shots

When Jared Loughner walked to a Tucson supermarket and whipped out his gun, he was able to fire 31 shots before reloading.

Thirty one shots.

Amazingly, Loughner did this with a firearm that he purchased legally, because in the state of Arizona—and in most places in the United States—a person, sans background check, can buy multiple genres of guns that aren’t for hunting or target shooting. They are, literally, for killing people. This has only been the case since 2004, when the assault weapon ban expired and, under the Bush Administration, wasn’t renewed. Among the provisions of the ban was a law against “extended clips”—which is what Loughner possessed.

Of course, we know how this one ends. Talk, talk, talk, talk, a statement from Jim Brady, more talk, more talk—and nothing. Our elected leaders know the power of the NRA; know the money that group puts in their pockets. They’ll talk a good game, rib their chins, express concern—then cower in the corner. Democrats are actually worse than Republicans on this, because we know where Republicans stand. Dems pretend to be against massive gun availability, but don’t step up. Ever.

The same is happening now. Barack Obama won’t take a stand on gun control, because he knows it’s a losing battle.

But—here’s the thing—it isn’t. Most sane Americans of both parties understand nobody needs a 31-shot clip. They understand the majority of assault weapons are best left off the streets. They understand that, while guns will always find their way into the hands of criminals, we might as well make it as hard a transaction as possible.

Thirty one shots.

Amazing.

6 thoughts on “31 shots”

  1. Hi Jeff,
    The breadth of (literal) ignorance in the above post is truly striking. If you’re unable to grasp the material basis of a situation, perhaps a delay in publishing opinion based on the same is in order?
    In short:
    1. The shooter did indeed submit to an NCIC background check on purchasing his pistol. Commercial firearm sales without instant background check are unlawful.
    2. “Hunting” and “target shooting” are but two of the many reasons for gun ownership. The primary reason for my gun ownership, though, is “killing people” who pose a lethal threat to me and/or those important to me. Please don’t ask me to apologize for protecting myself and those I love.
    3. The “Assault Weapons Ban” you refer to only forbade new manufacure of magazines (not “clips”, for the love of Pete!) with capacity greater than 10. It neither made “a law against ‘extended clips'” nor outlawed their possession and sale. Nor, in fact, did it authorize recall of any higher-capacity magazines in existence at that time.

    On the philosophical note, I’m more than happy to let you decide which firearms and accessories I “need” as soon you agree to let me decide which freedoms of expression you “need”.

    Best,
    William

  2. Pearlman,

    We know how this one ends for you.. blog, blog, blog, talk, a statement about someone you went to high school with, more talk, more talk—and nothing. Once this fades out of the news cycle, you’ll forget about it as well and go onto promoting your book.
    What are YOU prepared to do about this “so-called” problem?

    If Loughner drove a bus into a crowd and killed and injured the same amount of people, would you be ranting about banning buses? I think not

  3. [1] Incredibly stupid analogy.

    The US is a country fille dwith violence, from glorification of our military to legalized gun ownership. It’s horrifying.

  4. @ muhammed goldstein

    Our Military keeps you safe and legalized gun ownership is a constitutional right. If you don’t like it, then MOVE!!!!!!

Leave a Reply to Jeff Pearlman Cancel reply