The morning of Jan. 8 in Tucson, Ariz., started violently. Around 10:10 a.m. Jared Loughner, a deranged 22-year-old, carried a pistol into a crowd of people listening to U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords speak in front of a supermarket.
Loughner opened fire in an attempt to assassinate Giffords and successfully emptied one magazine (the compartment in which a gun houses ammunition), killing six and injuring 13.
The number of casualties seems high considering Loughner only fired one magazine.
As it turned out, Loughner did not use the standard 15-round magazine with which his GLOCK 19 was sold.
Loughner used a high-capacity magazine that held more than 30 rounds — that explains why he was able to shoot so many rounds without having to reload.
Following the incident, lawmakers focused more attention on the issue of gun control.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., proposed a bill to set the maximum size of a gun’s magazine to 10 rounds.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., proposed it should be illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a high-ranking government official.
Proposals like these seem appropriate following such a tragic loss of life. In reality, both laws would cease to reduce gun crimes.
McCarthy’s bill clearly shows her disregard of reality.
Did prohibition stop people from getting drunk? Does the illegality of marijuana keep people from getting high? Are most gun crimes committed with registered, legal guns?
Nope.
So would making high-capacity magazines illegal keep people from using them?
If someone is determined to shoot a crowd of people, he will carry out his will — even if that involves doing something illegal. (God forbid someone who plans to commit murder would consider acquiring an illegal magazine.)
The National Rifle Association commented on McCarthy’s bill, saying the only effect of banning high-capacity magazines would be keeping them out of law-abiding hands — which is true.
I don’t think it would be ignorant to say most people who own high-capacity magazines don’t own them for mass murder.
Let’s move to King, whose proposition is even more unrealistic than McCarthy’s.
It would be stupid to expect people to know where high-ranking officials are at all times.
Why this wouldn’t work:
To inform people of officals’ whereabouts, you’d have to assume all people have the means of acquiring information on a moment’s notice through cell phones or television. Many don’t have these means of being informed.
And would those who have the means receive messages on their iPhones saying, “Gov. Bobby Jindal may or may not be in Perkins Rowe between the hours of 1 to 4 p.m.?”
Aside from the fact it would be impossible to get information to everyone, how can a law restricting carrying a firearm in certain places keep people from carrying?
If another Loughner comes along, do you really think he won’t shoot up a politician because he’s not supposed to carry his gun within 1,000 feet of him or her?
Murderers aren’t supposed to murder, but if murder is the goal, an asinine law won’t prevent it.
What the proposed gun control laws boil down to is a bunch of pointless, unrealistic talk.
A few laws won’t save lives.
There probably aren’t many existing laws that affect the rate of crime with guns involved.
Most states administer background checks before people can legally buy a gun.
Though this law should keep guns away from criminals, it doesn’t.
According to the website Gun Facts, “more than 70 percent of armed career criminals get their guns from ‘off-the-street sales’ … 71 percent of these firearms are stolen.”
Criminals clearly can get things people are restricted from buying.
To prevent another Tucson-like attack, all we can do is beef up security. Had Giffords been in a building with metal detectors, Jan. 8 may have had a different outcome.
Restrictions only take rights from law-abiding citizens.
Against criminals, laws have no affect.
Chris Grillot is a 19-year-old English and mass communication sophomore from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_CGrillot.
 
—-
Contact Chris Grillot at [email protected]