Comments On: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines by Eli Sanders

Comments On: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines by Eli Sanders http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/19/support-grows-for-a-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines Comments On: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines by Eli Sanders en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 22:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> Posted by GeneStoner]]> Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:38:02 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> Posted by CPN]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:18:02 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> 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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:09:11 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> 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.
Posted by SPG]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:03:57 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:50:35 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> "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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:20:51 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by cressona]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:44:33 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> "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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:42:24 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> 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.
Posted by cressona]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:23:49 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> "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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:34:07 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>

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.
Posted by cressona]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:19:44 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:14:20 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> 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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:27:59 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by Bullets - Those Are _THE_ Problem!]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:09:33 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:52:13 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> Posted by thatsnotright]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> 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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:50:00 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
you're not as good at Sophistry as you think you are.
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:27:03 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> Posted by JonnoN]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:06:00 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> Posted by GeneStoner]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:57:49 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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...
Posted by GeneStoner]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:54:55 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]> Posted by Max Solomon]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:53:11 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
Posted by NateMan]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:50:25 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:53:41 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Support Grows for a Ban on High-Capacity Magazines]]>
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.
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:47:08 -0800 The Stranger