Slog Comments
Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines
2
Not much you can do about the massacres...insane people lusting for fame will always find a way to kill people, but it is hard to argue against them having a ten round magazine over a thirty round one. The law needs provisions directed towards getting rid of old high capacity clips, and making it harder for manufacturers to bypass it on technicalities. Because they can and will do so.
But since about 60% of illegal handguns (the actual gun problem) come from 1% of dealers, what we really need are enforced nationwide laws forcing gun dealers to keep inventory and track purchases. If we can stem the flow of illegal handguns, maybe within a decade or so we can make a big impact on illegal handguns floating around our cities. Of course, the ATF would need some new teeth, and universal background checks would be required first. Root out those dealers, and dry up the source.
I think this is a common sense measure that could really make a difference down the line, and avoids the constitutional debates around simple bans of firearms and concealed carry laws.
But since about 60% of illegal handguns (the actual gun problem) come from 1% of dealers, what we really need are enforced nationwide laws forcing gun dealers to keep inventory and track purchases. If we can stem the flow of illegal handguns, maybe within a decade or so we can make a big impact on illegal handguns floating around our cities. Of course, the ATF would need some new teeth, and universal background checks would be required first. Root out those dealers, and dry up the source.
I think this is a common sense measure that could really make a difference down the line, and avoids the constitutional debates around simple bans of firearms and concealed carry laws.
3
@2: I have no objection with doing away with high capacity magazines. But when you consider that A. they're known for jamming as often as not and B. only a couple hundred out of the thousands murdered every year are killed with the kind of firearms that take these high capacity mags, it feels like a salve to those shouting for reform rather than effective action.
As you say: stop illegal gun sales, force the licensing and registration of guns and owners, fine owners who don't report stolen guns, and require universal background checks. There are more effective measures that could and should be taken.
As you say: stop illegal gun sales, force the licensing and registration of guns and owners, fine owners who don't report stolen guns, and require universal background checks. There are more effective measures that could and should be taken.
4
Addendum: It's true that Congresswoman Giffords and those around her were shot with a 9mm loaded with a high-capacity mag. And they're typically what's used in mass shootings or attacks on police officers. But those remain a small percentage of annual gun deaths. Again, I have no objection with banning large capacity mags, except that it draws attention away from the majority of gun deaths.
5
@2, @3, I agree completely. For instance, in Chicago, a startlingly high percentage of crime guns -- 20% in one year -- come from Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale, IL, just across the city line. Proving provenance is one thing; proving culpability is another. Another top source for crime guns is Mississippi, which is wholly unregulated. Good information is here: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazi…
The problem is, as always, that responsible gun rights supporters and gun rights activists SAY they want licensing and so on, but they never do anything that would forward that agenda.
There's a bill in the state house now that would require background checks on all purchases including private sales (the gun show loophole) but it's getting telephone calls 100-to-1 against -- which does not reflect the opinions of the populace, but only the NRA activists. But gun owners are historically quite content to let the NRA do their dirty work for them, under cover of the "they're coming to pry our guns out of our cold, dead hands" lie.
Sometimes a salve is all we've got.
The problem is, as always, that responsible gun rights supporters and gun rights activists SAY they want licensing and so on, but they never do anything that would forward that agenda.
There's a bill in the state house now that would require background checks on all purchases including private sales (the gun show loophole) but it's getting telephone calls 100-to-1 against -- which does not reflect the opinions of the populace, but only the NRA activists. But gun owners are historically quite content to let the NRA do their dirty work for them, under cover of the "they're coming to pry our guns out of our cold, dead hands" lie.
Sometimes a salve is all we've got.
6
@5: It really baffles me, because these are "nuts and bolts" reforms that could really have an impact, but do nothing to infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners and retailers. The American electorate has never really voted based on gun control, which is why the gun laws in this country are a mess. Hopefully this will change with some of these high profile shootings, and something good can somehow come of them.
I also want to point out that we have reached five comments on a gun thread, and no one has accused another of being a paid shill, no one has invoked nazis/Stalin, called gun owners murderous psychos, and there is a rational, sensible proposition that is being discussed.
Everyone should get a gold star, and I look forward to tonight's massive snowball fight in hell.
I also want to point out that we have reached five comments on a gun thread, and no one has accused another of being a paid shill, no one has invoked nazis/Stalin, called gun owners murderous psychos, and there is a rational, sensible proposition that is being discussed.
Everyone should get a gold star, and I look forward to tonight's massive snowball fight in hell.
7
@4
This concern troll is getting old. Is there one single proposal of any kind that does not "draw attention" away from something else? This is yet another tactic to enforce stasis, because it is used to prevent discussion of any action.
If you talk about background checks, they say you're drawing attention from suicide. If you talk about suicide they say you're drawing attention from street crime. If you talk about street crime they say you're drawing attention from m mass shootings. Don't get me started on mental health and video games.
There is no single proposal that addresses every aspect of gun violence. The proposals most likely to pass are not necessarily going to be the ones associated with the most deaths. You pass laws with the congress you have, not the congress you wish you had. No matter what gets done, don't expect to see results for many years.
This concern troll is getting old. Is there one single proposal of any kind that does not "draw attention" away from something else? This is yet another tactic to enforce stasis, because it is used to prevent discussion of any action.
If you talk about background checks, they say you're drawing attention from suicide. If you talk about suicide they say you're drawing attention from street crime. If you talk about street crime they say you're drawing attention from m mass shootings. Don't get me started on mental health and video games.
There is no single proposal that addresses every aspect of gun violence. The proposals most likely to pass are not necessarily going to be the ones associated with the most deaths. You pass laws with the congress you have, not the congress you wish you had. No matter what gets done, don't expect to see results for many years.
9
this is probably the best this congress can do, and i'll be impressed if boehner can actually pass this, or if reid can get it to the senate floor around Inhofe, Kyl, Paul, etc.
10
It is not the device people, its the crazy people.
If the ban goes through, will you genius-Libs then ban the amount of chops one can use on a machete' rampage? About the same logic (one bullet = one death, one chop = one death).
Is it really the device that causes mass shootings? Take your dunce hat off and think about it just for a second...
If the ban goes through, will you genius-Libs then ban the amount of chops one can use on a machete' rampage? About the same logic (one bullet = one death, one chop = one death).
Is it really the device that causes mass shootings? Take your dunce hat off and think about it just for a second...
11
BTW: the vast majority of "gun deaths" come from suicides. And you don't need a hi-cap mag for that...
13
@10: the "device", by which you mean a semi-automatic firearm with high-capacity magazines, FACILITATED the mass shootings in Aurora, VA Tech, Newtown. the Giffords massacre ended because Loughner had to reload and was tackled. CAUSE is not the issue.
you're not as good at Sophistry as you think you are.
you're not as good at Sophistry as you think you are.
14
@13
In the VA Tech shooting, he used 10 and 15 round magazines.
He also managed to kill more people than in your other examples.
The problem is that, statistically, the majority of shooting deaths (non-suicide) involve lower capacity magazines or revolvers.
So a law limiting higher capacity magazines will only change the number of bullets fired in less than 1% of incidents.
And it will not change the number of incidents at all.
So there will be opposition from the pro-gun people because they will see this as the first step in banning guns.
In the VA Tech shooting, he used 10 and 15 round magazines.
He also managed to kill more people than in your other examples.
The problem is that, statistically, the majority of shooting deaths (non-suicide) involve lower capacity magazines or revolvers.
So a law limiting higher capacity magazines will only change the number of bullets fired in less than 1% of incidents.
And it will not change the number of incidents at all.
So there will be opposition from the pro-gun people because they will see this as the first step in banning guns.
15
I'm all for it. Vogue's September issue has simply grown too large to comfortably carry in one's bag. It should be released in two volumes.
16
@14, and once again YOU ARE THE DEEP END DIPSHIT.
There is no "banning guns".
There is not now, nor will there ever be, even a glimmer of a political movement, even a fringe political movement, to "ban guns". It would take a constitutional amendment. Banning guns is less likely than mandating thigh-high neon platform boots. Your argument, your reason for finding fault with ANY CONCEIVABLE REGULATION, is a complete straw man. A red herring. A lie.
We're not coming for your precious guns, and you know it. But still you have to pretend that if you blink once your whole house will disappear. That is, in fact, the central lie that people like you tell. That is, in fact, why nothing sensible can ever, ever, ever occur. YOU are the stumbling block. YOU.
There is no "banning guns".
There is not now, nor will there ever be, even a glimmer of a political movement, even a fringe political movement, to "ban guns". It would take a constitutional amendment. Banning guns is less likely than mandating thigh-high neon platform boots. Your argument, your reason for finding fault with ANY CONCEIVABLE REGULATION, is a complete straw man. A red herring. A lie.
We're not coming for your precious guns, and you know it. But still you have to pretend that if you blink once your whole house will disappear. That is, in fact, the central lie that people like you tell. That is, in fact, why nothing sensible can ever, ever, ever occur. YOU are the stumbling block. YOU.
17
@10 "It is not the device people, its the crazy people." [sic, and sick, throughout]
Background checks and bans, etc. are designed to limit the intersection of these "devices" (that are perfectly safe without "bad" people, which is why there are no gun-related accidental deaths) and the cray-cray.
Your tone and some of your sentences would indicate that you're arguing something, where your actual arguments support the converse.
Background checks and bans, etc. are designed to limit the intersection of these "devices" (that are perfectly safe without "bad" people, which is why there are no gun-related accidental deaths) and the cray-cray.
Your tone and some of your sentences would indicate that you're arguing something, where your actual arguments support the converse.
18
@16
Wow. Four paragraphs and you still did not address the core of my post.
The problem is that, statistically, the majority of shooting deaths (non-suicide) involve lower capacity magazines or revolvers.
So a law limiting higher capacity magazines will only change the number of bullets fired in less than 1% of incidents.
And it will not change the number of incidents at all.
"That is, in fact, why nothing sensible can ever, ever, ever occur. YOU are the stumbling block. YOU."
No.
The problem is that (as I've pointed out in the past) that the "discussion" usually avoids addressing the facts and instead focuses on ranting against people who do not hold the same political views as the ranter.
It's easier to demonize the opposition than it is to address the facts.
But it does not do anything to move the discussion forward.
Wow. Four paragraphs and you still did not address the core of my post.
The problem is that, statistically, the majority of shooting deaths (non-suicide) involve lower capacity magazines or revolvers.
So a law limiting higher capacity magazines will only change the number of bullets fired in less than 1% of incidents.
And it will not change the number of incidents at all.
"That is, in fact, why nothing sensible can ever, ever, ever occur. YOU are the stumbling block. YOU."
No.
The problem is that (as I've pointed out in the past) that the "discussion" usually avoids addressing the facts and instead focuses on ranting against people who do not hold the same political views as the ranter.
It's easier to demonize the opposition than it is to address the facts.
But it does not do anything to move the discussion forward.
19
@18, yes. Because people like you refuse to allow the discussion to move in the direction of more serious control measures, because you treat every possible discussion as the first step down the slippery slope of "banning guns". Which you know full well is a load of horseshit.
I am not ranting against anyone's political views, and you know it. I am ranting against a rhetorical style that is specifically designed to deflect any argument without addressing that argument. You are a textbook example; and you will continue to run rings around the discussion without ever addressing what it is about.
You have no intention of addressing the majority of shooting deaths OR the smaller in quantity but higher profile mass killings. In effect you support both of those situations. You argue FOR MORE DEATH. You've always got a reason. It's what you do.
And you are utterly dishonest about it.
I am not ranting against anyone's political views, and you know it. I am ranting against a rhetorical style that is specifically designed to deflect any argument without addressing that argument. You are a textbook example; and you will continue to run rings around the discussion without ever addressing what it is about.
You have no intention of addressing the majority of shooting deaths OR the smaller in quantity but higher profile mass killings. In effect you support both of those situations. You argue FOR MORE DEATH. You've always got a reason. It's what you do.
And you are utterly dishonest about it.
20
I've got to side with fairly.unbalanced @14:
The fact that 20 children were killed in Newtown rather than four or five (if there had been a ban on high-capacity magazines) is no big deal. It doesn't make it any more of a tragedy. In fact, it makes it less of a tragedy. I'm reminded of a wise quote from a great man: "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
Frankly, I think we could reduce the number of gun incidents if we overturned the patently unconstitutional ban on fully automatic weapons. Once you have automatic weapons out there, you'll eventually have fewer people left to kill.
So a law limiting higher capacity magazines will only change the number of bullets fired in less than 1% of incidents.
And it will not change the number of incidents at all.
The fact that 20 children were killed in Newtown rather than four or five (if there had been a ban on high-capacity magazines) is no big deal. It doesn't make it any more of a tragedy. In fact, it makes it less of a tragedy. I'm reminded of a wise quote from a great man: "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
Frankly, I think we could reduce the number of gun incidents if we overturned the patently unconstitutional ban on fully automatic weapons. Once you have automatic weapons out there, you'll eventually have fewer people left to kill.
21
@20
"The fact that 20 children were killed in Newtown rather than four or five (if there had been a ban on high-capacity magazines) is no big deal."
I think you missed the point of my post.
Let me refresh your memory by reposting the first two lines of it.
Okay?
In the VA Tech shooting, he used 10 and 15 round magazines.
He also managed to kill more people than in your other examples.
You are incorrectly equating the number of bullets fired before reloading with the number of victims.
The VA Tech example shows that that is not a correct assumption.
As I had pointed out.
"The fact that 20 children were killed in Newtown rather than four or five (if there had been a ban on high-capacity magazines) is no big deal."
I think you missed the point of my post.
Let me refresh your memory by reposting the first two lines of it.
Okay?
In the VA Tech shooting, he used 10 and 15 round magazines.
He also managed to kill more people than in your other examples.
You are incorrectly equating the number of bullets fired before reloading with the number of victims.
The VA Tech example shows that that is not a correct assumption.
As I had pointed out.
22
fairly.unbalanced, excellent point @21. In addition to agreeing with you that number of incidents is more relevant than number of people killed, I now have to agree with you that, since having to stop and reload doesn't always reduce death count, it's pointless to force any mass shooters to stop and reload.
Besides, that's beside the point. If Jared Loughner had managed to shoot 20 or 30 people--if he hadn't been tackled while trying to reload--why should we care any more? Really, we should care less. The more people killed --> the rarer the incident --> the less relevant to any reasonable discussion.
Besides, that's beside the point. If Jared Loughner had managed to shoot 20 or 30 people--if he hadn't been tackled while trying to reload--why should we care any more? Really, we should care less. The more people killed --> the rarer the incident --> the less relevant to any reasonable discussion.
23
@22
"If Jared Loughner had managed to shoot 20 or 30 people--if he hadn't been tackled while trying to reload--why should we care any more?"
And another repost from my post at #21:
You are incorrectly equating the number of bullets fired before reloading with the number of victims.
And now I will repost my statement from my post in #14:
So there will be opposition from the pro-gun people because they will see this as the first step in banning guns.
At what point do YOU say "that is an acceptable number of people killed so we do not need more gun control laws"?
When you can answer that question you will understand why the pro-gun people see that as the first step in banning guns.
"If Jared Loughner had managed to shoot 20 or 30 people--if he hadn't been tackled while trying to reload--why should we care any more?"
And another repost from my post at #21:
You are incorrectly equating the number of bullets fired before reloading with the number of victims.
And now I will repost my statement from my post in #14:
So there will be opposition from the pro-gun people because they will see this as the first step in banning guns.
At what point do YOU say "that is an acceptable number of people killed so we do not need more gun control laws"?
When you can answer that question you will understand why the pro-gun people see that as the first step in banning guns.
24
fairly.unbalanced @23, quite well-stated. Better than I could have made the statement. Impeccable logic.
I completely agree with you that there's a slippery slope from 26 people killed to 10 people killed to one person killed. I mean, eventually the government's going to think it's its business to try to keep there from being any more than zero people killed. Even the death of 0.01% of a person will be considered unacceptable in the government's view, and this will serve as an excuse to deny all kinds of rights.
Folks have to remember that the right to keep and bear arms is "in the interest of a well-regulated militia." Militia = military. It's time we realized that all individually operable military weapons are legal according to the Constitution. Let's face it, we're talking war. And in war, if you kill one or 10 or 26 or 126 enemy, it's doesn't matter. It's war.
We've already gone down the primrose path by banning fully automatic weapons, and if we're really going to do anything more than pay lip service to the Second Amendment, we need to lift that ban ASAP.
I completely agree with you that there's a slippery slope from 26 people killed to 10 people killed to one person killed. I mean, eventually the government's going to think it's its business to try to keep there from being any more than zero people killed. Even the death of 0.01% of a person will be considered unacceptable in the government's view, and this will serve as an excuse to deny all kinds of rights.
Folks have to remember that the right to keep and bear arms is "in the interest of a well-regulated militia." Militia = military. It's time we realized that all individually operable military weapons are legal according to the Constitution. Let's face it, we're talking war. And in war, if you kill one or 10 or 26 or 126 enemy, it's doesn't matter. It's war.
We've already gone down the primrose path by banning fully automatic weapons, and if we're really going to do anything more than pay lip service to the Second Amendment, we need to lift that ban ASAP.
25
@24
"I completely agree with you that there's a slippery slope from 26 people killed to 10 people killed to one person killed. I mean, eventually the government's going to think it's its business to try to keep there from being any more than zero people killed."
And as I posted in #23 and will repost here for your edification:
At what point do YOU say "that is an acceptable number of people killed so we do not need more gun control laws"?
When you can answer that question you will understand why the pro-gun people see that as the first step in banning guns.
"I completely agree with you that there's a slippery slope from 26 people killed to 10 people killed to one person killed. I mean, eventually the government's going to think it's its business to try to keep there from being any more than zero people killed."
And as I posted in #23 and will repost here for your edification:
At what point do YOU say "that is an acceptable number of people killed so we do not need more gun control laws"?
When you can answer that question you will understand why the pro-gun people see that as the first step in banning guns.
26
@25
Every day somebody new rubs your nose in your shit like a bad puppy. And every day you come back and shit on the carpet again.
Every day somebody new rubs your nose in your shit like a bad puppy. And every day you come back and shit on the carpet again.
27
If the city wanted to ban people from firing .50 cal machine guns between the hours of 2am and 5am within city limits, the NRA and all of their lackeys would wail in opposition.
There is no limit, law, common sense, or anything that anyone can propose, no matter how modest or sane, without the NRA opposing it. At this point everyone may as well ignore anything the gun lobby has to say on any of these matters.
There is no limit, law, common sense, or anything that anyone can propose, no matter how modest or sane, without the NRA opposing it. At this point everyone may as well ignore anything the gun lobby has to say on any of these matters.
28
@24
You've gone rather quiet.
Here it is again:
At what point do YOU say "that is an acceptable number of people killed so we do not need more gun control laws"?
When you can answer that question you will understand why the pro-gun people see that as the first step in banning guns.
And now I will repost my statement from my post in #14:
So there will be opposition from the pro-gun people because they will see this as the first step in banning guns.
You've gone rather quiet.
Here it is again:
At what point do YOU say "that is an acceptable number of people killed so we do not need more gun control laws"?
When you can answer that question you will understand why the pro-gun people see that as the first step in banning guns.
And now I will repost my statement from my post in #14:
So there will be opposition from the pro-gun people because they will see this as the first step in banning guns.
Comments (30) RSS