Mark wrote:No, and laws prohibiting guns won't stop people from shooting/or killing each other.
Mark wrote:by the way...I never once said we do not need certain gun controls
Why would we need gun controls if they won't stop people from killing each other?
The answer, is because unless you can bait Darth J or DT into a false dilemma, which is unlikely, it isn't a choice between stopping all killing or doing nothing at all. So if restricting a magazine will reduce the number of killings, though not all of them, then it's on the table.
The first line of argument was substitution -- if we ban the AR then killers will use something else. But if the argument succeeds, and we ban until there are no substitutions, the goal posts are moved; by lowering death tolls policy advocates are saying it's okay to kill 8 people instead of twenty. And my prediction is it won't matter what policies are put forward, if there are any killings at all, including non-gun "substitute" killings, then policy advocates have completely failed. So when you say policy advocates don't understand the issues, you're really saying that policy advocates don't understand that they have to eradicate all forms of murder completely, or they failed, and we're better off doing nothing. What am I missing?
Please link to a post by yourself, Rockslider, Stem, or any other right-wing source that displays a greater understanding of the issues than I do in this post from a while back:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40398Gadianton wrote:I looked through the bill with interest specifically in how it would affect the legality of guns that have been used in mass shootings. According to the Mother Jones data, there have been 74 mass shootings in the last 30 years, which is 74 too many, but my gut feeling is that it would take a massive drain of guns, well beyond what that bill proposes to make a difference. Just to get a handle on it, I made a list of the guns used in the top 5 total victim count, the bottom 5, and then 5 somewhere in the middle. Would the bill get rid of these guns? Take my results this with a grain of salt and corrections welcome.
Will it be banned with this bill?
YES
.223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P15 semiautomatic rifle
9mm Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle
9mm Israeli Military Industries Uzi Model A carbine semiautomatic rifle
9mm Intratec DC-9 semiautomatic handgun
WASR-10 Century Arms semiautomatic rifle
AK-47 Norinco Arms variant
AK-47 Romarm Cugir variant automatic rifles
.40 caliber semi-automatic handgun, pistol grip shotgun
NO
12-gauge Remington 870 pump-action shotgun
Two .40-caliber Glock semiautomatic handguns; (15 rounds) not banned
12-gauge Winchester 1200 pump-action shotgun
9mm Glock 19
.22-caliber Walther P22
9mm Glock 17
12-gauge sawed-off Savage Stevens 311D
12-gauge sawed-off Savage Springfield 67H pump-action shotguns
.38-caliber Colt revolver
.22-caliber rifle
two 12-gauge shotguns
Two 9mm Ruger SR9 semiautomatic handguns
.45-caliber semiautomatic handgun
9mm Beretta 92FS semiautomatic handgun
9mm Glock 17 semiautomatic handgun
.38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver
.25-caliber semiautomatic handgun
9mm Llama semiautomatic handgun
There's some confusion on magazine capacity. The blog faqs links states big and bold that the bill limits all guns to 10 rounds in the magazine. The 10 round limit seems to include all semi-auto rifles. But pistols are described as having "fixed" or "detachable" magazines. From what I can tell, usually magazines are "detachable," but it's the fixed held to the 10-round limit, not the detachable.
Eyeballing the the 74 incidents, what really stands out is the number of 9mm pistols used in mass shootings, especially the Glock. These seem pretty high capacity, 15-20 rounds in the detachable magazine. The bill leaves pistols pretty much untouched, the way I understand it. For rifles, without a high capacity magazine, features like pistol grip and forward grip to hold the gun Rambo style seem muted. Most of the rest seems pointless to me. Once a magazine is greatly restricted, then I don't see why any semi-auto rifle body style matters more than an other. At a 10-round limit, no assault rifle otherwise put on the ban list would be better suited for mass shooting than high-capacity pistols.
My recommendation for congress: Restrict all semi-auto rifles/pistols to 7 round capacity magazines and do not outright ban based on body style. At 7 rounds, the most controversial body styles such as the Uzi, which are easy to conceal, wouldn't matter much. The pistol will always be a better choice. There could be an additional provision though. Possession of a high-capacity magazine is illegal, except at a controlled shooting range. Buy the 30-round clip, but it ships to the range and put in a locker. A 7-round clip is plenty for protection and hunting. If I were a republican and gun manufacturer, I might just push something that controls the damage that can be done by my weapons, because going for broke probably isn't going to work, and ultimately the left is going to win this one and massively restrict body styles.
Some further issues brought up in this thread are media and gun culture. Nightlion brought up media attention. I think it's a reasonable speculation that getting immortalized by the news is a driving factor for committing a mass shooting. If there's any truth to that, then limiting magazine capacity may have a positive psychological effect. If the prospective killer can't see the ready means to beat the current high score, then it may not be worth trying at all.