Your School. Your Paper. Since 1936.

The Suffolk Journal

Your School. Your Paper. Since 1936.

The Suffolk Journal

Your School. Your Paper. Since 1936.

The Suffolk Journal

If we can’t have gun control, can we at least have ammunition control?

If we cant have gun control, can we at least have ammunition control?

Jared Lee Loughner was allegedly armed with a Glock 19 and known to have loaded it with a magazine holding 30 bullets. He then proceeded to shoot up a supermarket, killing six people and injuring 20.  A Glock 19, according to the official Glock website, is advertised as “the All-Around Talent” and can fire 9-millimeter bullets anywhere from 985 feet per second to 1500 feet per second. Throwing this equation into the reality of Tucson, Loughner sprayed a crowd of people with 31 bullets that could potentially break the sound barrier. Thirty-one bullets can equate to 31 lives. Now ammunition magazines are yet again under the scrutiny of the U.S. Legislature, and yet again will be shafted and passed over.

And here is where I ask: What else needs to happen for Americans to change their minds?

Not only did six people — including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge — die, but Representative Gabrielle Giffords was also shot point blank in the head! Not even four years prior, Cho Seung-Hui loaded the same type of gun and shot up Virginia Tech, taking 32 lives before committing suicide. We can continue to go back even further to the Columbine shooting in 1999. The point is: gun control needs to be acted upon and acted upon now.

I understand that much of America frowns on the idea of gun control. “It’s my second amendment right!” supporters flaunt. To that end, I’ll point out that the 2nd Amendment was created when the U.S. was barely a country and had muskets as weapons that took minutes to load. Unfortunately, Democrats have even given up on the cause because they understand the insane uphill battle. It’s not good for their political conquests.

But here is an issue that America should get on top of: ammunition control.

Yes, you as a citizen have the right to own a firearm. Good for you. Self-defense is important. But why on earth is it necessary to have a clip holding 33 rounds? Is there a need to prepare for an all out war? I’m sorry, but whether you’re in some middle-of-nowhere town, the suburbs, or the city, there is no reason to have clips that large. Besides the crazy off chance of a zombie apocalypse, I can’t fathom a solid reason. They just enable the Loughners of the world to shoot up whomever they please.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, stated in a CNN article that “Bad guys are going to get guns, they’re going to get clips and they’re going to do bad things because that’s what their intention is. We should not divert our attention from what the real problem was here. We had an individual who has expressed violent intent who clearly had some mental instability along the way.”

But, Mr. Rogers, you have yet to address the inquiry of why anyone in their right mind would need that much ammo in an automatic clip in the first place? Deranged people are always going to ravage society and people will always find a way to get illegal firearms and accessories, but the point is that these clips aren’t illegal, which made getting them that much easier. Accessibility, Mr. Rogers, is the primary concern. Illegal traders and sellers can always be stopped. Closing down a legal, local gun store or regulating purchases at gun shows might actually be the harder feats to accomplish.

To be honest, life would be a lot cleaner without guns entirely. We live in a world of evolved combat, where a person can sit behind a computer and fire a missile from 10,000 miles away and hit a specific house across the map. Humanity has already spun out of control regarding guns and other weapons. The power and technology has gotten so strong that we live in a constant “Cold War” status — we’ve just become immune. Countries other than the U.S. have nuclear weapons and could easily launch them whenever they want. We have just become so used to that idea that we can live comfortably anyway, which says a lot in itself.

The shooting in Arizona is another chance to move in the right direction toward some sliver of order. It’s a wake up call to America. If we can’t mandate gun sales, we should at least mandate magazine sales. A 12-bullet clip is less dangerous than a 33-bullet clip. Although it’s not an outstanding solution, it’s the lesser of two evils.

As Eddie Izzard said, “They all say, ‘Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.’ No, bullets kill people, actually. Let people keep the guns and take the bullets. Problem solved.”

View Comments (11)
More to Discover

Comments (11)

All The Suffolk Journal Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

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

  • A

    AllisonMar 9, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Right now, i’m laughing at all of ya’ll, because instead doing something about what you don’t like, your just sitting here arguing. Like arguing id going to get you anywhere.

    Reply
    • C

      CharlesMar 21, 2011 at 4:45 am

      Allison how about we enforce the existing laws, not create new laws. Does that work for you?

      Reply
  • C

    CharlesMar 3, 2011 at 8:39 am

    I would also like to add that some SKS semi automatic rifles have a fixed 20 round magazine, meaning it cannot be removed without making alterations to it. If that happens according to the law would make that rifle illegal unless you make it 992r compliant, under Federal law. You would then be violating the second amendment and the recently supreme court ruling Heller vs. D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago.

    Reply
  • C

    CharlesFeb 9, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Derek, I laugh at your opinion. You stated that you believe that journalism is check to balance out the government. Hw long do you think you would be allowed to print what you want against the government without a second amendment right? Can you suggest one Communist country that allows it people to say what it wants to say? Oh I would like to remind you young man the military and police do not need a constitutional right to have firearms, so that would lever the militia part to the people of this country.

    Reply
    • J

      Jenn OrrFeb 12, 2011 at 1:19 pm

      Charles, I laugh at your lack of understanding with this article. Derek never said the second amendment needs to be abolished… in fact, he’s not even talking about the second amendment. The article is about the absurdities of the buying and selling of extended magazines. Do you think it necessary to have a gun with a 33-bullet clip?

      You’re just mad because he ended the article with a quote from a gay comedian.

      Reply
      • L

        LoganFeb 14, 2011 at 7:53 am

        The shooting in Arizona was a terrible thing. I feel for the families who have lost their loved ones.
        The real crime here was that no one there was legally carring a weapon!
        All those western states issue concealed carry permits. People who have these permits are TRAINED and well practiced. Many have firearm skills that exceed those of the average police officer. The crime is that no one was there who was armed, and trained to stop this shooter.
        The news media is like you. They print only what supports their opinion, not facts that show that they are wrong.
        Just like you are wrong. Pistols DO NOT HAVE “CLIPS” They have magazines.
        One of the last pistols to have “clips” was made in 1896.
        A magazine fed pistol can be reloaded within 2-3 seconds, so what’s the point?
        And as far as gun control goes, Hell! We can’t even control the flow of illegal drugs.
        If you are a journalist, do the work, and do it without bias.
        Research how many times armed citizens have foiled criminal acts each year through out this nation.
        There are about 100,000,000 legal gun owners in this country.! LOOK IT UP!
        (as of the year 2000)
        Look up your history of this country, the last time the government (England) tried to disarm the citizens, It end up with the birth of this country. If the people of this Nation
        did not have arms, the Queen of England would be on our currency, not our Presidents.
        The best thing to do when “the bad guy” is shooting at you, is to shoot back, with precision.
        We ARE NOT ALL “bad guys”. just because we own guns. YOU need to adjust to this!
        I’ll leave you with this though:

        “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm”. – George Orwell

        Reply
      • C

        CharlesFeb 16, 2011 at 3:32 pm

        Talk about not understanding, your lack of understanding is overwhelming. The second amendment was created for protection against an oppressive government.

        Reply
        • J

          Jenn OrrFeb 16, 2011 at 11:30 pm

          And again… the point is that extended magazines are not needed. When the second amendment was created, it wasn’t necessary (or available) to have a gun with a 33-bullet capacity. People have the right to bear arms, that’s fine. People shouldn’t be able to simply obtain a gun (because it is incredibly easy), nor should they even have the option of adding onto that gun an extended magazine.

          Think about it: If extended magazines weren’t an option, we wouldn’t experience such large scale tragedy. Nobody needs that much, not even the “good guys” who carry guns in case they decide to play untrained hero. The point is, nobody ever needs that much ammunition unless they’re in a war combat.

          Reply
          • C

            CharlesFeb 18, 2011 at 9:52 pm

            What is it that you are missing? Should the military also have a mad restriction? As I said the second amendment is for one purpose, and that is to defend against an over bearing oppressive government. If you restrict the military and police then we can talk

          • J

            jamesApr 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm

            Jenn, a little back ground here. It isn’t easy to get a gun. You have waiting periods, background checks, money. 30 round mag well let me ask you this have you ever fired a magazine fed pistol? Let me clue you in on something I can put 120 rounds down range with my 6 20 round mags just as fast as a guy with 4 30’s. To be honest 30 round mags in a pistol are for one use and one use only target practice at a range where you are paying for time, the more time spent shooting the more worthwhile it is. Also most 30 round pistol mags are junk I do not know whether to be more astounded that all 30 rounds feed or the fact he actually hit 30 people both are rarities. Once they make the mag limit 10 rounds in 10 years it will be 8 rounds then 6 and then all we will have are 2 shot derringers. The liberal agenda is always about incrementalism slowly move things towards your ultimate agenda. A chef buddy of mine told me the best way to boil a frog alive is one degree at a time.

Activate Search
If we can’t have gun control, can we at least have ammunition control?