Giffords' husband offers senators chilling case for gun control

WASHINGTON Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:42pm EST

1 of 3. Retired Navy Capt. Mark Kelly (L), husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, on Capitol Hill in Washington January 30, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. astronaut Mark Kelly pushed for gun-control measures on Wednesday by recalling in chilling detail the massacre that nearly killed his wife, former Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee just after Giffords called on lawmakers to "be courageous" and do more to reduce gun-related violence, Kelly gave a moment-by-moment account of the mass shooting in a supermarket parking lot near Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011, that left six people dead and 13 wounded.

During a discussion of whether limiting gun buyers to ammunition clips with 10 rounds or less would violate their right to bear arms, Kelly told lawmakers why he believed limiting ammunition clips would save lives.

"On January 8th of 2011, a young man walked up to Gabby at her constituent event in Tucson, leveled his gun and shot her through the head," Kelly said, referring to gunman Jared Loughner.

"He then turned down the line and continued firing. In 15 seconds, he emptied his magazine. It contained 33 bullets and there were 33 wounds," Kelly said.

Kelly said that Christina Taylor Green, 9, was killed with the 13th shot.

"Others followed," Kelly said. "As the shooter attempted to reload, he fumbled" a second magazine. "A woman grabbed the next magazine, and others tackled and restrained him."

Kelly said he believed that if the magazine had no more than 10 rounds - a limit proposed by Democratic President Barack Obama after the killing of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut school last month - Christina Green likely would not have been killed.

Kelly also countered National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre's claim that the best defense to gun violence in schools and other public places is "a good guy with a gun" - more armed security.

Kelly recalled how "a good guy with a gun" came charging out of a store that day in Arizona and nearly shot the wrong guy - a good Samaritan who was tackling the killer.

"He admits that he came within about a half a second of shooting the man ... and nearly killing him," Kelly said.

Kelly gave lawmakers much to think about as they consider ways to curb gun violence, including a ban on semi-automatic weapons and the proposed limit on ammunition clips.

Gun-rights groups oppose both measures, and have indicated there is little or no room for compromise.

LaPierre, who also appeared at the hearing, voiced support for better mental health treatment and more enforcement of measures designed to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Kelly and Giffords, who continues to recover from her wounds, support those ideas.

Kelly made a point of describing himself and his wife as gun owners who support gun rights. He said they are political moderates and that Giffords was a Republican before becoming a Democrat.

"We are simply two reasonable Americans who realize we have a problem with gun violence," Kelly said, "and we need Congress to act."

(Editing by David Lindsey and Doina Chiacu)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (1)
citizen033 wrote:
Even though I would oppose limits on magazine size, Kelly is a very intelligent man (a good match for his wife I expect), and one worth hearing on this issue. He and Gabby are not knee-jerk or ill informed in their responses–which is a breath of fresh air.

As I understand it they are not suggesting a ban on AR-15s or semi-automatics or even “assault weapons.” And that for good reason—the shooting that killed many, almost including Gabby, was perpetrated with a handgun and would more likely have been recognized earlier and preempted if the shooter had a rifle.

Still, I find that his example against the idea of security guards or concealed carry is not persuasive. As he says “a good guy with a gun” came charging out of a store that day in Arizona and nearly shot the wrong guy. Nearly shot him. This is precisely the candid description you would get from a police officer confronted with the same situation. The fact is the good guy didn’t shoot the wrong guy. Now, we don’t know if he had a lot of training or not, and I would certainly advocate training for concealed carry holders. But with or without training, the wrong person was not shot. And with or without training (even police level or military level training) the wrong person sometimes will get shot. I don’t think the logic supports either side.

Of course, the NRA has supported better mental health treatment and more enforcement of measures designed to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns from early on in this most recent debate about guns.

Another sad feature of all these discourses is the postures that so many people have to play out to have any capital left to bargain with. Even if the NRA was warming to 10-round magazine limits, could they say so? NY just passed 6 or 7 round limits. Feinstein wants no magazines at all. Since no one wants to give in until both sides compromise, and no one wants to fail their constituency, very few voices can strike the middle ground.

Kelly is probably more able to do that than most others in this debate.

Jan 30, 2013 11:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.