Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This bickering is pointless.

The fact remains some gun control laws lack a rational basis and objective evidence to justify their existence.

For example: limiting the magazine capacity of semi-automatic rifles isn’t rational because so few gun crimes are committed by long guns.

Clearly it needs to be a limit on the magazine of all semi-auto including handguns.

And where are the data justifying that need?

The burden rests with government to support its desire to restrict a right, where that restriction is rationally based and pursues a legitimate legislative end.

That banning high capacity magazines ‘seems’ like the ‘right’ thing to do is neither rational nor objective.

The only thing relevant is what can be proven in court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is certainly a terrible story. But a hi cap magazine was used. If anything it supports a limit lower than 10 rounds.

Now lets look at the Tucson shooting. The shooter was stopped while he tried to reload:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/u...on-shooting-case-gabrielle-giffords.html?_r=0

If his first magazine had been smaller lives would have been saved.

I don't think so, the guy reloaded 15 times at a minimum.

The size of the magazine is inconsequential.

Loughner was stopped, but almost every spree shooting ends in the shooter committing suicide.

If one event makes an argument, Vice Principal Joel Myrick ended the spree of the Pearl High School shooter with a Colt .45, never firing a shot.

How an Assistant Principal With a Gun Stopped a School Shooter | FrontPage Magazine

That was actually the second example of a shooter being stopped that I have posted. I am certain I could find more. But they make my point that lives could be saved. And I would hope you would want to save lives. The only argument I have heard for hi cap magazines is because target shooters are lazy and don't want to reload. That is a good reason to not save lives? How sad.

Incidental, anecdotal examples do not constitute objective, documented evidence as they’re not representative of the issue being addressed.

Such anecdotal ‘evidence’ would not be admitted during a hearing determining the constitutionality of a law banning high capacity magazines.

 

[Brain357]

I don't think so, the guy reloaded 15 times at a minimum.

The size of the magazine is inconsequential.

Loughner was stopped, but almost every spree shooting ends in the shooter committing suicide.

If one event makes an argument, Vice Principal Joel Myrick ended the spree of the Pearl High School shooter with a Colt .45, never firing a shot.

How an Assistant Principal With a Gun Stopped a School Shooter | FrontPage Magazine

That was actually the second example of a shooter being stopped that I have posted. I am certain I could find more. But they make my point that lives could be saved. And I would hope you would want to save lives. The only argument I have heard for hi cap magazines is because target shooters are lazy and don't want to reload. That is a good reason to not save lives? How sad.

Incidental, anecdotal examples do not constitute objective, documented evidence as they’re not representative of the issue being addressed.

Such anecdotal ‘evidence’ would not be admitted during a hearing determining the constitutionality of a law banning high capacity magazines.

They have already been banned once and there is a long list of arms that are banned. I'm pretty sure a modern hi cap semi-auto is just as dangerous as a 30's automatic. It made sense in the 30's to limit who could have automatics, it makes sense now to limit hi cap semi-autos.

 

[Brain357]

The most prolific spree shooter in America, Cho at Virginia Tech, killed 32 and injured 17 with a .22 pistol (10 round magazine) and a 9mm pistol (15 round magazine).

He fired 174 rounds of ammunition.

That's, AT A MINIMUM, 15 reloads.

Mr. Brain, I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but this idea just isn't going to work.

It's just like anything else...there's always a workaround.

Cho found it.

With two guns, one is always loaded.

There is no reloading window.

So, you just wasted a shitload of money (had your proposal been implemented) for zero return.

Cho reloaded 15 times.

The only way anyone was going to stop him, or slow him down was with another firearm.

Those are the facts.

That is certainly a terrible story. But a hi cap magazine was used. If anything it supports a limit lower than 10 rounds.

Now lets look at the Tucson shooting. The shooter was stopped while he tried to reload:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/u...on-shooting-case-gabrielle-giffords.html?_r=0

If his first magazine had been smaller lives would have been saved.

However ONE life was too many. The problem isn't the instrument, but it IS defective people regardless if they have a total armory.

INTENT...Sanity...NOT Government CONTROL over the instrument(s).

Well it would be good to make it harder for these loons to get guns in the first place. Which is why I'm also for background checks on ALL gun purchases. We also need more rules on who can't purchase a gun. Many mass shooters had mental issues which should have kept them away from arms. While this seems to only make sense, the pro gunners fight this also.

 

[Brain357]

I don't think so, the guy reloaded 15 times at a minimum.

The size of the magazine is inconsequential.

Loughner was stopped, but almost every spree shooting ends in the shooter committing suicide.

If one event makes an argument, Vice Principal Joel Myrick ended the spree of the Pearl High School shooter with a Colt .45, never firing a shot.

How an Assistant Principal With a Gun Stopped a School Shooter | FrontPage Magazine

That was actually the second example of a shooter being stopped that I have posted. I am certain I could find more. But they make my point that lives could be saved. And I would hope you would want to save lives. The only argument I have heard for hi cap magazines is because target shooters are lazy and don't want to reload. That is a good reason to not save lives? How sad.

Banning alcohol would save lives.

Installing breathalyzers on car ignitions would save lives.

Radio controlled speed limiters would save lives.

Reducing the speed limit to 32.5 miles an hour would save lives.

Cutting to hours alcohol can be sold would save lives.

A lot of things would save lives.

It's a terrible argument...but like I said, I think your heart is in the right place.

It's not a good argument that "these people don't need this" so we should get rid of it to "save lives".

Spree shootings are tragic...but, there are millions and millions of highcap magazines...and one spree shooting every three years...and they are going down...fewer and fewer...

It seems to me they are going up. It's been much more than every three years. Just look at Aurora, Newtown, and the Sikh Temple shootings. Those were all in one year. People had the sense to make automatic weapons much harder to get in the 30's. Now we have to do the same with hi cap semi-autos. Here is a list of shootings:
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.

 

[Brain357]

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.

I guess you can't counter physics eh? Too bad.

 

[Hoffstra]

I only support those gun control regulations that will reduce crime and make crime harder.

That's why I support background checks for ALL handgun sales and a 1 per month limit on handgun purchases.

This will reduce handguns being accessable to criminals cause gun runners simply won't be able to make a profit if they can only buy one handgun a month and need to hire lots of people to buy them more guns.

 

[Geaux4it]

This bickering is pointless.

The fact remains some gun control laws lack a rational basis and objective evidence to justify their existence.

For example: limiting the magazine capacity of semi-automatic rifles isn’t rational because so few gun crimes are committed by long guns.

Clearly it needs to be a limit on the magazine of all semi-auto including handguns.

Clearly not

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

That is certainly a terrible story. But a hi cap magazine was used. If anything it supports a limit lower than 10 rounds.

Now lets look at the Tucson shooting. The shooter was stopped while he tried to reload:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/u...on-shooting-case-gabrielle-giffords.html?_r=0

If his first magazine had been smaller lives would have been saved.

However ONE life was too many. The problem isn't the instrument, but it IS defective people regardless if they have a total armory.

INTENT...Sanity...NOT Government CONTROL over the instrument(s).

Many mass shooters had mental issues which should have kept them away from arms. While this seems to only make sense, the pro gunners fight this also.

Already laws on the books to prevent this. Adding more will not change anything

-Geaux

 

[Hoffstra]

i see nothing wrong with a 10-roung magazine limit
though....it will only slow down a mass-shooter, not stop him

and should the lives of tens of millions of legal and law-abiding gun owners be affected by 5 mass shooters a year?

 

[Hoffstra]

we have to look at all existing and new gun laws, through a cost-benefit analysis.

cost to our constitutional rights & freedoms..........benefits of the law as it relates to reducing crime and body counts.

 

[Geaux4it]

i see nothing wrong with a 10-roung magazine limit
though....it will only slow down a mass-shooter, not stop him

and should the lives of tens of millions of legal and law-abiding gun owners be affected by 5 mass shooters a year?

Nope- And it didn't slow down the loons at Columbine either.

Arming our teachers will stop this chit after a few of these loons get taken out in the hallway

-Geaux

 

[Hoffstra]

i see nothing wrong with a 10-roung magazine limit
though....it will only slow down a mass-shooter, not stop him

and should the lives of tens of millions of legal and law-abiding gun owners be affected by 5 mass shooters a year?

Nope- And it didn't slow down the loons at Columbine either.

Arming our teachers will stop this chit after a few of these loons get taken our in the hallway

-Geaux

you're assuming that irrational and suicidal people will think logically and rationally.

 

[Geaux4it]

i see nothing wrong with a 10-roung magazine limit
though....it will only slow down a mass-shooter, not stop him

and should the lives of tens of millions of legal and law-abiding gun owners be affected by 5 mass shooters a year?

Nope- And it didn't slow down the loons at Columbine either.

Arming our teachers will stop this chit after a few of these loons get taken our in the hallway

-Geaux

you're assuming that irrational and suicidal people will think logically and rationally.

We need real consequences for crime. I think even mental cases will consider that teachers are armed. They plan in great detail for these things. The pick schools because of the easy target

-Geaux

 

[Abatis]

They have already been banned once

That bad law once was on the books is not an argument to repeat the mistake and reinstate (or expand) bad law.

and there is a long list of arms that are banned.

"IS" or "WAS"?
"ARE" or "WERE"?

I'm pretty sure a modern hi cap semi-auto is just as dangerous as a 30's automatic.

And your personal feelings on the "dangerousness" of the various types of "modern hi cap semi-auto" firearms is of zero consequence in the determination of the constitutionality of federal or state laws restricting their possession and use.

The determination of whether a type of arm is "dangerous" is a product of the application of the protection criteria that has been established by SCOTUS. Government does not get to begin the process of restricting possession and use of a type of arm by declaring it to be "dangerous". That descriptor can only be examined after all the protection criteria has been applied (and failed).

It made sense in the 30's to limit who could have automatics, it makes sense now to limit hi cap semi-autos.

Such rational basis criteria has no place in determining the constitutionality of gun laws.

It's not 1994 anymore. The legal standards are much different today and to dismiss that fact is only evidence of agenda driven ignorance of the law.

If you really want to know what the current situation is, then I would simply say that of all the weapons that can be said to be 'protected by the 2nd Amendment', semi-auto, detachable magazine, military look-alike rifles in .223/5.56 or .308/7.62 calibers, (so called 'assault weapons") enjoy the highest degree of protection for civilian possession and use . . .

 

[Hoffstra]

We need real consequences for crime. I think even mental cases will consider that teachers are armed. They plan in great detail for these things. The pick schools because of the easy target

-Geaux

there is no evidence that schizophrenics take into account the possibility of people being armed.

 

[Geaux4it]

Gun Control Facts: Why a "High Capacity" Magazine Ban Would Not Prevent Mass Shootings

Many gun control advocates, including Vice President Joe Biden are arguing for so-called “high-capacity" magazine bans that would restrict the number of bullets held in a single magazine to 10 or fewer.

Would so-called “high capacity” magazine bans prevent mass shootings?

It doesn't seem likely such a ban would prevent mass shootings. Consider that one of the Columbine shooters used a Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle, which uses 10 round magazines. He just carried 13 of them. Similarly, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 17 magazines – mostly of 10-round (but also some 15-round). Two of the highest profile mass shootings in recent history and shooters used 10-round magazines; they just brought a lot of them. These magazines would not have been affected at all by the proposed ban.

 

[Hoffstra]

no one has argued that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would "prevent" mass-shootings.

 

[Geaux4it]

no one has argued that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would "prevent" mass-shootings.

Then exactly, what does it accomplish?

-Geaux