Gabby Giffords still appreciates gun culture
(CNN) - Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was nearly killed more than 2 years ago by a man with a gun. Today, her brain injuries make speaking difficult, and yet she has become an active spokeswoman for new restrictions on guns.
Ironically she has not lost her love of guns. Target practice is still a form of entertainment at her mother's house deep in the Arizona desert. Her husband Mark Kelly uses pots and water bottles as targets, while Giffords watches from the patio with her mother cheering him on.
Watch more of Dana Bash’s interview with Gabby Giffords Tuesday on AC360 – 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET, only on CNN.
Kelly isn't shooting with just any kind of gun – he's using a Glock 9 millimeter handgun, the same kind of gun his wife was shot with.
"But in that case it had a magazine that held 33 rounds," he said. "This, when it's full, holds 17."
The gun is actually Giffords' – Kelly said he gave it to his wife as a gift years ago.
"She's a gun owner," he said. "She's from the West."
Giffords and Kelly argue because of their love of guns, they have more credibility in their fight to expand background checks to private gun sales.
Watch more of Dana Bash’s interview with Gabby Giffords Tuesday on AC360 – 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET, only on CNN.
From CNN Politics
- Changes made by Postmaster General DeJoy before 2020 election harmed US Postal Service, judge rules
- Want To Travel Practically Free? Get This Card
- US issues new sanctions on Iran over violent crackdown on protests and internet shutdown
- Herschel Walker allies want more 'Trumpian response' to abortion allegation
- US kills ISIS weapons smuggler in Syria
- Federal judge temporarily blocks parts of New York gun law
Good for them hope they are not using an assault weapon or a pistol that will hold more than nine rounds in the clip.
It's tragic what happened to her but if a person wants a gun no law or not they will get it. Tougher gun laws are not the answers just start enforcing the laws we have now.
interesting.... It turns out that that gun would be banned under Dianne Feinstein ban proposal.
Glock 17 (the most common 9 mm Glock model) would be considered an assault weapon because a version with a fully automatic action exists (the Glock 18), even if it is an NFA and highly regulated item, mainly used for special forces, that no civilian can get his/her hands on. The idiotic idea is that you could somehow "easily" convert a Glock 17 into a glock 18 using parts that nobody sells, also ignoring that any semiautomatic pistol can be theoretically converted into a fully automatic -and uncontrollable pistol- ...if you are a professional gunsmith with CNC machinery....Additionally, 17 round magazines, the standard for many 9 mm guns) would be banned as well.
the apotheosis of hypocrisy....do they actually read their ban proposals or do they just trust Feinstein, who can't tell the barrel end from the stock of a rifle and who judges firearms only based on their looks?
Someone ought to take Kelly's and Giffords guns away. Recently Mark Kelly lied on his application to straw purchase an AR15 and Giffords is mentally compromised. They are onboard with that plan from Obama, they should voluntarily turn in their guns.
we tried registration in Canada... billions of dollars later no lives saved and many many guns confiscated after the registry. They are never happy, it will lead to semi auto bans, then handguns, then bans of 'military' or 'high power' calibers, then to any mags that are removable, then everything but shotguns and .22's... then poof... nothing at all.... like the UK will be soon.
The very same people are working on the US from outside and from within.... ask George Soros or Bloomberg..
chip chip chip away at your ability to protect yourself from a tyrannical government.
Disagree with the premise of this entire article. Just because you own a gun does not make your proposed limitations sensible. The equivocal argument would be to say you should listen to Ted Cruz on his hard immigration stance because he is hispanic and lives on a border state. I doubt that he is changing to many hearts on the left for increased border security.
It's good to see gun owners who can think for themselves, instead of just parroting the NRA's talking points
You can't be against "high capacity" guns and still own them... This is liberal hypocrisy at best!!!
I guess bashing gun owners isn't working so now they are saying they love guns. A few days ago Giffords was bashing gun owners and now she likes them. Typical politicians, speaking out both sides of their mouths. You can't trust anything these anti gun people say, because 90% of them don't know anything about guns and the ones who do should know better than to punish and/or make law abiding gun owners criminals. How is it that a 17 round magazine is ok , but 33 is bad. How many people can you kill with 17 rounds? Truly the only way to completely stop gun crime is to round up all the guns. You would have to kill a lot of people to do it though, much more than you would save by rounding up gun owners and their guns. The truth is our society is falling apart and becoming more violent and as long as people bury their heads in the sand and pretend that we are losing our faith in God and that is why our country is becoming more violent than things will only get worse. Some men and women are just evil and they will commit murder even if it's with a rock. Gun control is about control not about helping our society. If you follow your fears you will create what you are afraid of. Don't act out of fear or anger it leads to mistakes.
As a gun owner, I do favor strict background checks and improved mental health care. Banning guns, or types of guns won't do anything than gain a political victory for the same people who have been pushing this legislation for decades, but only now have a 'reason' they can base it on. I don't want felons or the mentally ill to have access to firearms.. but only if it doesn't infringe on my ability to own any firearm of my choosing.
"Gabby Giffords still loves gun culture" ... until it's in her best interests not to.
Personally, I loved the picture of Ms Gifford firing an AR15.
I have absolutely no idea how many rounds were in the clip of the AR15.
What a huge disappointment. Why do they all feel that they have to say...i love guns...why are they all so afraid of the NRA. You are all cowards. Those precious children deserve better...you are all cowards.
Liberal hypocrisy in all its glory.
I'm no gun person, but I believe that if you practice shooting you really shouldn't need even 17 rounds in a pistol to defend yourself, and 33 is just crazy. I'm not saying it should be outlawed or anything, but damn, learn to shoot. If you live in an area where you do need 17 rounds, then you need to think about moving.
Weird. Most of the non-gun lovers would call that a military style assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. You cannot even buy that pistol now in NY because it is not available with a 7 round magazine. Personally, I think it is fine with either the 17 or 33 round magazine. So who is right: me, them, you?
What is the point of this article? This sounds exactly like the pointless spin story which showed Obama "shooting skeet" at Camp David... except not wearing any of the accessories you would wear if you were actually shooting skeet.
More spin, more damage control from CNN. Shame.
What he neglects to mention – is that his glock is still capable of accepting a 33 round magazine. He just apparently doesn't use one. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few laying around.
Wow, another gun owner like myself that wants reasonable regulations on on guns. I feel that the NRA has been dominated by gun nut cases that discredit reasonable gun owners. We can't let the NRA speak for us, because they have lost track of their primary mission (GUN SAFETY). We want safe ownership of guns. If somebody is incompetent to own a weapon, then they shouldn't be allowed to own or get one. We don't need 50 rounds in a clip. My gun holds 5 rounds, and that's just fine by me. I want guns that won't accidently go off when dropped. I want a gun that doesn't jam. Recently American gun manufacturers seemed to be more focused on how many rounds they can put into their weapons, and not on quality and safety.
So do they want to keep their guns but everyone else has to give up theirs?
What?
Don't they want to ban above 10 round magazines? They own something they want to ban?
(I am for universal background checks and dislike the NRA BTW so don't hate.)
No, it just means that they are trying to regain face after her husband was caught trying to buy an assault rifle to furnish it to another individual (Straw Purchase).
"Kelly isn't shooting with just any kind of gun – he's using a Glock 9 millimeter handgun, the same kind of gun his wife was shot with.
"But in that case it had a magazine that held 33 rounds," he said. "This, when it's full, holds 17.""
Hypocrite. Only 17 rounds, the exact type of magazine people like him are trying to get banned, extended magazines of more than 10 rounds.
Cho killed 30 some, injured 50 some with two handguns, two 15 round mags and fourteen 10 round mags. It's all meaningless.
She is a wonderful voice of reason. She is NOT anti-gun. As much of the media would love to twist their words and actions, in the end tthey are NOT. They are however, aware there needs to be in place a system in place that actually works. . . to keep weapons out of the hands of those that are criminally insane. It will not stop the Conneticut style shooting where the perp MURDERED to get the guns. But it would have saved her and the Colorado victims.
Another liberal hypocrite.