Why not call it, 'CHRISTINA'S LAW'? (restoring the ban on high-capacity magazines

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Why not call it, 'Christina's Law"? (restoring the ban on high-capacity magazines

that expired in 2004).

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who herself lost a husband in a 1995 psychotic-with-gun episode on a train, has proposed legislation to restore a ten-year ban on high-capacity firearm magazines that Dubya allowed to expire in 2004. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html .

Amazingly, even in the wake of highest-profile mass murders and maimings in Tucson last week, where a madman tried to assassinate a Democratic Congresswoman using a 31-bullet magazine in his Glock handgun, pundits give McCarthy's legislation slim chances of passing.

Here's an idea: The nation has been transfixed by the murder in Tucson of 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, who as bad luck would have it had been born exactly on September 11, 2001. President Obama immortalized her as "dancing in rainpuddles if there are rainpuddles in Heaven.". That sweet girl still might be alive had Jared Loughner been forced to attempt reloading his Glock after just 10 shots from his magazine, rather than after 31.

Why not call McCarthy's legislation "Cristina's Law"? Who would DARE vote against "Christina's Law"? In recognition of the political threat to the ultra-right that would be posed by legislation with such a name, would even the NRA negotiate with McCarthy to craft a compromise that the NRA could support?

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[Nye Bevan]

1. I hate laws being named after people

This sums it up pretty well:

Crime Laws Named After People Are Generally Bad Ideas

Radley Balko, Senior Editor of Reason, takes on one of my pet peeves in an interview in the Atlantic: crime laws named after individuals. He says (linking to this TChris Post):

Here's a pretty good rule of thumb: If you're naming a piece of crime legislation after a crime victim, it's probably a bad law. It means you're legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That's generally not how good policy is made.

Or, as I like to put it, Let us not enact laws out of grief and passion, or in response to a singular criminal event, however horrific it might be. Cooler heads are needed where our fundamental liberties are at stake. Examples: The Laci and Connor Law. Megan's Law. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.

I'm also not thrilled with Attorney General Eric Holder's proposal today for a federal hate crimes law, for reasons well noted by Colorado Independent.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/6/16/182136/398

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

11. I unrecced it..

taking advantage of a young girl's death to further a political agenda is never a good idea..

McCarthy's proposal stinks anyway..

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. As did I.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Why not simply post a cogent argument against my idea, which you still have not done?

Instead of an anonymous inarticulate attempt to "sink" a thread off Page 1, suppressing a debate in which you seem unable to participate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. I'll do my best.

Banning that which already exists in such numbers that even a door to door search couldn't enforce isn't effective in any sense.

It's like banning tennis shoes. Good luck with that.

You're proposing a "feel good" law whose effect would be no more than banning rain on Sunday.

[Cid_B]

56. Few things...

You got more than it deserved because when he responded he "bumped" you back up...

The idea that we are counting on people not to practice efficient magazine transition is silly at best...

Lastly as is stated in other posts, this smacks of using an isolated tragedy for personal political gain and ideology advancement.

[GSLevel9]

84. too bad the software doesn't show total negative rec tally. nt

[petronius]

14. Perhaps what's being unrecced is the callous use of a tragesy - and one specific victim

of that tragedy - to push an agenda. Not to mention the childish insults directed at other DUers.

If you want my opinion on the ban, it's the same as my view on every other proposed ban - if you want to limit freedoms, access, or opportunities, you need to have a damn good reason for doing so. The only arguments I've seen proposed against high-capacity magazines are based solely in coulda- mighta- maybe emotionalism, which carries no weight and never should...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. Isn't it just sophistry to try to justify the NRA position on ANY firearm restrictions

with "concern" for a direct victim of hardware that legitimate gun users do not need? Hardware whose only function is to kill dozens of people in seconds? What legitimate purpose is served by high-capacity magazines in the hands of non-law-enforcement gun owners? What is your "damn good reason" for insisting that there be unlimited numbers of Christinas in future incidents involving psychotic gun owners with assault hardware? Remember, even George W Bush favored continuing the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.

IMO, if a "Christina's Law" finally could bring back the sensible restrictions on high-capacity magazines we had from 1994 to 2004, that law would be the best possible commemoration for a little girl who was born and who was killed on two days of historic and senseless extreme violence.

[petronius]

No - in any call for a restriction, no matter in what context (whether it's hi-cap

magazines, or gay marriage, or marijuana, or pit bulls, or outdoor smoking, or pregnant women in bars, or backyard chickens, or...) the onus is on those proposing the ban to produce a significant and measurable justification. However, the calls against big magazines are based on nothing other than anger-driven hypotheses, and preconceived antipathy.

Your use of "legitimate" and "sensible" are tautological - you have particular opinions about what is legitimate and sensible, and you've defined those terms by those opinions. But, no actual justifications have been presented by you or anyone else...

[appal_jack]

25. +1 to this response. un-rec to the OP

Opportunistic emotionalism used to further erode our Constitutional liberties does no one any good.

-app

[ProgressiveEconomist]

31. 'Further erode our Constitutional liberties'? You mean, the right to be killed in an instant

by an overarmed psychotic, even though some of the people he assaulted prevented him from re-loading his semi-automatic?

[appal_jack]

85. My copy of the Constitution lacks those words

Recalling my last reading of the Constitution, I don't remember "overarmed psychotic" anywhere in there.

Look, with freedom comes danger.

The First Amendment protects the hateful speech that perhaps helped to incite Loughner to violence. But we keep it (basically) intact, because the net good of an open and free exchange of ideas outweighs the bad done by a few nutcases yammering about blahblahblah.

The Second Amendment is similar (if yet more regulated: remember that projectiles >.50, steel-core/AP ammunition, and fully-automatic weapons are already heavily regulated or banned). Does the level of freedom enjoyed by most Americans to keep and bear arms lead to some innocents coming into harm's way? Yes, sadly. But more are protected by the good that the 2nd Amendment provides: to defend oneself against wrongdoers, to hunt for food, to enjoy a decent sport, and much more.

I could go on. The 4th Amendment could be construed as dangerously facilitating criminals hiding contraband. The 5the Amendment allows malicious individuals to stay silent when their forced testimony might be 'good' for society.

But, to the extent that we adhere to our national principles, we don't just throw out Constitutional liberties when we suddenly find them threatening.

You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Agitate to repeal it.

-app

[ProgressiveEconomist]

33. Even more pro-status-quo sophistry? The FBI has access to some security videos

that may identify who loughner shot in what sequential order. Anyone who was uninjured before Loughner fired bullet #112 or #17 may be PROVED to have been a victim of Loghner's high-capacity magazine, given th evulnerability of a lone gunman at the point when he must reload.

Even if Christina was killed by bullet #1 rather than by bullet #31, though, I'd STILL want to call restoration of the ban "Christina's Law", because she COULD have been one of those killed in sequence after Loughner would hav ebeen forced to reload had he had the knd of magazine that was mandated by Federal law from 1994 to 2004.

Are you STILL going to respnd with sophistical and cynical generalitites?

[petronius]

36. You need to look up the words "sophistry" and "proved", because they don't mean what you think

Your entire argument is hypothetical (which is a polite way of saying imaginary, which itself is a polite way of saying you pulled it out of your ass). If Loughner had been limited to factory magazines, it's very likely he would have reloaded at a different point in the spree, likely that he might have reloaded more quickly, and possible that he could have opted for a second gun. Also, as has been pointed out, the reports are that he wasn't tackled while reloading, it was after his successfully-inserted second magazine had failed, which is more common with the extended versions. With a standard magazine, the failure may not have happened and he could have kept shooting.

In other words, you've proven nothing, a video would prove nothing, and your entire argument is vapor.

Bottom line, neither you nor anyone else has presented a substantial, objective, unemotional, measurable justification for banning hi-cap magazines. Until you do, the genuinely progressive position is to reject unsupported calls to limit freedoms and choices. In my opinion, of course...

[crazyjoe]

129. but but, what if he had another gun?

[pipoman]

144. He did, he bought both at the same time. He left it home

[sabrina 1]

76. The restriction WAS there. It was allowed to expire.

I can of more important things for people to get all uptight over than simply not being able to walk into Wallmart and walk out with a clip, as this shooter did, that can hit over 20 people in a matter of seconds. I think the country could survive such a restriction. What people cannot survive is being shot at by some lunatic who loves guns more than people.

Rec'd although it didn't do much good. I remember when Carolyn McCarthy's husband and others were mowed down on the LIRR and her turned into a cripple for life.

[petronius]

79. Right, and can anyone point to any concrete evidence that the old ban

was an effective public safety measure, or that a revised and strengthened version would be?

I don't particularly care about high-capacity magazines either, but I do see it as a deeper philosophical issue. I oppose any restriction on freedoms or choices, whatever they are, without significant and demonstrable reason (frankly, I think that's part of what it means to be a liberal). And so, I'm against bans that are anger- or fear-based, feel-good, so-called-'common-sense' legislation, absent empirical justification...

[sabrina 1]

90. 'can anyone point to any concrete evidence that the old ban

was an effective public safety measure'? Yes, in the Tucson case, had it been in effect, the shooter could not have hit so many people. He would have had fewer shots before having to reload.

'I oppose any restriction on freedoms or choices, whatever they are without significant and demonstrable reason

I just gave you one example of how lives could have been saved. That is a very broad definition of 'freedom of choice'. We don't need any of the laws we have for the majority of people. Most people are not going to commit murder, rob a bank, rape anyone or shoot up a McDonald's. Our freedoms, mine and yours, are restricted all the time because of the minority of people who WILL kill and rob and rape. The laws are for the common good. I would love to live in a society that has no laws, but the reality is that there are people out there who are going to harm others.

Going with your logic, I suppose we could say that the laws against murder don't prevent murder. The only reason for them is that we know somone is going to murder someone and we need a way to prosecute them.

It makes no sense to have laws against murder, especially since we know those laws do not stop murderers, and then refuse to limit their access to weapons that make it possible for them to kill even more people.

Sometimes I wonder about this country. It seems to be devoid of logic with everyone protecting their pet issues, while every day, people die as a result.

[petronius]

94. You have not correctly understood my reasoning. Murder, rape, and a whole

bunch of other things have clear and demonstrable negative impacts on society - thus, bans on those things are appropriate. No one has shown evidence that a ban on high-capacity magazines provides a public safety improvement, and until they do I'll continue to oppose the ban.

The weakness of the Tucson example - with all of its underpinning assumptions and guesswork - as evidence has been thoroughly hashed out here.

I tend to agree with your last comment about people being "devoid of logic", but you're aiming it in the wrong direction this time - it's those calling for a ban with an empirical justification who are on a logic-free footing. I wonder about this country too, but I wonder about those who are so eager to pass laws and restrict freedoms based on fear, anger, guesswork, and biases...

[sabrina 1]

98. Well, I have not read where the Tucson example has been

hashed out. The reality is that if the gunman had had to reload after getting off fewer shots, lives would have been saved.

I can see where someone might anticipate not being able to reload and bring a second gun already loaded could result in as many or more killings, but that wasn't the case here. He had only one gun and had enough shots to hit 19 people.

It's interesting that people fight so hard to have the right to purchase weapons that can kill so many people in a matter of seconds and then complain about losing their freedoms if anyone suggests reducing the number of rounds they can get off before emptying the chamber. Yet, where is that same passion to protect our freedoms when it comes to the Patriot Act eg. A freedom destroying bill that is about to pass without a whimper from the same people.

I am of the opinion that selfishness motivates the huge resistance to curtailing the availability of weapons that have the potential to kill so many people. If I were to see the same effort by the same people going into curtailing Constitution destroying laws such as the Patriot Act, the FISA bill eg, I might be more impressed that the issue is 'freedom'.

And btw, for what it's worth, we own guns and I know how to hit a target but would be willing to give them up in a second if it meant saving a single life.

[petronius]

104. To say that fewer lives would have been lost in Tucson requires assuming that

he wouldn't have brought a second gun, would have reloaded at the same time and in the same place relative to other people, would have done everything else exactly the same. It's a whole set of unsupportable assumptions. Plus, every report I've seen says that he wasn't tackled while reloading, it was after he finished reloading and the magazine failed. Considering that such failures are more common with the long magazines, it's as valid to conclude that he could have killed more people rather than less if he'd brought factory equipment. So when you say "the reality is" you mean "given a whole host of arbitrary assumptions, the reality is..." That's not evidence of anything.

The whole crux of it is right there in your last line; you say you'd give up your guns if it meant saving a single life. All the 'common sense' that gets tossed around here tells us that you'd be safer without them - no kids would get them, you wouldn't have an accident, burglars wouldn't take them and shoot you, etc - and yet you still have them. Why? Because you know the 'common sense is' bogus and misapplied, and clearing your house of guns would have near-zero impact on your safety or anyone elses. It's the exact same with calling for bans on high-capacity magazines - it feels good, and 'makes sense', but it has no significant public safety benefit. If it does, the people advocating it need to demonstrate that for real...

(Edit: fixed a word that exactly reversed the meaning...)

[beevul]

110. Wrong.

"Yes, in the Tucson case, had it been in effect, the shooter could not have hit so many people. He would have had fewer shots before having to reload."

The ban only effected magazines manufactured AFTER the ban. Didn't effect those made BEFORE the ban, at retail, where possession was concerned, or where transfer was concerned.

So hed have bought a pre-ban mag, had the ban been effect and he really wanted one. They were READILY available the entire ten years the ban was in effect.

Were you aware of that?

[beevul]

111. Dupe N/T

[benEzra]

86. Actually, the 1994 law didn't affect magazine availability; it affected magazine *prices*.

You could still legally buy ordinary 15- and 17-round magazines and extended 30-round magazines for pistols 1994-2004; they just cost more. My wife bought a Glock 19 magazine in the late '90s for between $80 and $100, as I recall. But they were indeed legal. Rifle magazine prices weren't affected much at all, though. (A case in point, AK magazines were $9.99/ea in 2002-2003 during the non-ban, and new AK's themselves were cheaper then than they are now.)

Ms. McCarthy is now proposing a far harsher ban than the 1994 law, FWIW.

[sabrina 1]

92. Thank you for the information.

Maybe if the law had restricted the number of rounds someone can get off, a lot of people might be alive today.

[benEzra]

93. Exceedingly unlikely. The Virginia Tech shooter used standard, non-extended magazines

and he murdered six times as many people. For a violent attacker who initiates something like this, capacity is less relevant than it is to defensive use, IMO, because the attacker can plan for reloads, as the VT shooter did. He brought two guns and nineteen magazines, all of them standard, non-extended magazines; the Luby's Cafeteria shooter (who also used a Glock) likewise used standard-capacity magazines, two guns, and many reloads. Capacity limits primarily affect lawful gun owners, not spree shooters.

Here's what a competent magazine change looks like, FWIW:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXNPo5krvw

Given that 30-40 million Americans collectively own a couple hundred millions over-10-round magazines, turning the clock back to the 1860's on magazine capacity is both useless and politically untenable. For comparison, roughly 13 to 16 million Americans hunt.

[Rocknrule]

142. Actually some of his clips were extended too

The reason he got so many kills (actually more kills than injuries, which is unusual) was because he used hollow-point bullets

[beevul]

149. No, they weren't.

They we're ALL standard capacity mags.

[benEzra]

187. None of Cho's magazines were extended. Every single one was a standard flush-fit,

which are faster to reload. Initial media reports that Cho used hi-caps were erroneous.

Using civilian JHP instead of FMJ may have been a factor, but the VT shooter's use of JHP was hardly unique. A much bigger factor, IMO, was that he shot slowly and deliberately, like the Luby's cafeteria murderer who also had more killed than injured. It appears that the Arizona shooter was shooting rather quickly.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

256. Thank you benEzra for that info.

Also, the longer the magazine the more of a chance of jamming. They don't happen often but it happens.
Just saying...

[oldhippie]

116. Maybe if the law had restricted shooting people ....

... a lot of people might be alive today. Oh, wait .......

[sabrina 1]

118. Or maybe if we lived in a society where people didn't

feel the need to own deadly weapons, a lot of people would be alive.

I wonder how the world worked before there were such things as weapons that could safely be fired from afar at an-armed people? I guess if you wanted to kill someone you had to at least have some courage and go do it face to face where the other person had an equal chance of hurting you in return. I think if that were the way it was today, all those cowards who hide behind guns and shoot unarmed women and children and the elderly, would think twice about it.

[beevul]

119. Thats quite an assumption.

"I guess if you wanted to kill someone you had to at least have some courage and go do it face to face where the other person had an equal chance of hurting you in return."

If your 6'5 and the other person is 5''1 do you really think theres an equal chance in a brawl/fistfight?

Do you think that before guns people were born and grew into bodies with the same size/strength/skill?


You'd have to, to actually believe hat I quoted you as saying.

[sabrina 1]

122. Size does not always equal strength. And it's an assumption

to think that it will always be the bigger guy who is the aggressor.

Guns of course, give weak, little guys a false sense of being bigger than they are, in every sense of the word.

[beevul]

123. 99 times out of a hundred...

An nfl linebacker sized guy, is going to win in a physical confrontation, with a 5'5 beanpole.

Physical confrontation, IS what you meant, is it not?

I was not speaking of the agressor. I was speaking of which one walks away when its all over, and which one crawls.

Advocating that things be reduced to physical confrontation like you did, is to advocate the weak being walked on by the strong, with very few exceptions.

[sabrina 1]

124. Well, I'm not advocating physical confrontation at all.

I AM saying that if someone is inclined to physically confront someone, it is easy to do with a gun. But knowing, especially if it is a little guy, that he might get hurt, is a sort of deterrent which is why most people refrain from punching each other even when tempted to do so.

An NFL Linebacker would fall as quickly as a 5'5' beanpole from a gunshot. If the beanpole were to pysically attack him however, he would definitely survive and beanpole would get pretty much what he deserved.

The chances of surviving a physical fight are far greater than surviving a gun shot, no matter how small the victim of the attack is. Crawling away is better than lying dead on the ground.

[CTyankee]

133. I wonder...are you safer in Tucson, AZ or say Copenhagen, Denmark?

Hell, do they even HAVE conversations like these in Denmark?

I wonder. I am posting this without having checked the murder rate by gun in Copenhagen, but I'm betting on one outcome. Care to guess, just for laughs?

[benEzra]

189. You do know that "assault weapons" are legal in Denmark, yes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roUsxNpCodI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vxhxqA81hw

As well as in Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc. etc...

You are fighting to outlaw guns here (and the most popular guns, at that) that aren't even banned in Europe. And you think that will be OK with gun owners here?

[CTyankee]

190. This website begs to differ...

http://www.ehow.com/list_6849755_criminal-laws-denmark.html

[CTyankee]

196. Since BenEzra failed to respond to my post here is the quote about Denmark's gun laws:

Gun and Assault Laws
•Guns are illegal in Denmark and the laws against them are stringent, putting anyone who carries a gun and is not legally allowed to do so in jail. Only police officers and soldiers are legally allowed to carry guns, which effectively prevents would-be criminals from the ability to rob or harm anyone by using a gun. As such, knives and lead pipes have become the weapon of choice and are now considered deadly weapons in Denmark. In January 2008 more then 13 people were knifed in Denmark, resulting in two deaths. Stricter laws have been enforced in recent years regarding assault with a deadly weapon, putting those convicted in prison for longer sentences, which vary based on the severity of the crime


Read more: Criminal Laws of Denmark | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6849755_criminal-laws-denmark.html#ixzz1B9fbLCh3

I hope you are all aware of the distribution of false information on DU...

[X_Digger]

205. ehow is a definitive source, now?

You might actually want to hit this site..

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark (This is a University of Sydney site, not some random gun org.)

Which pulled data from:

Karp, Aaron. 2007. ‘Completing the Count: Civilian firearms.’ Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City, p. 67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 27 August.

The number of guns in Denmark is 12 per 100 residents.

In Denmark, only licensed gun owners may lawfully possess firearms and ammunition
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Denmark are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection
Minimum Age for Firearm Possession
The minimum age for gun ownership in Denmark is 18
Gun Owner Background Checks
An applicant for a firearm licence in Denmark must pass background checks which consider criminal and mental records

Data about regulation in Denmark was pulled from the United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation

http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

I hope you are all aware of the distribution of false information on DU...

Yes, I'm sure everyone's aware now.

[CTyankee]

209. Hi there!

"In Denmark hand guns are also banned unless you are a licensed, and you can only get that license if you compete in in tournaments, and the guns have to be kept in a safe at the club where you practice.
In order to get a permit to own a rifle you have to participate in a course that takes 3 months to complete.
You also have to me minimum 20 years old."

Response to a question on Yahoo....seems like there are reasonable laws there, which I would agree with.

How d'ya think those restrictions would go over with the NRA?

[CTyankee]

211. So, I read some of the material from the U. of Australia. Looks to me like

significant restrictions on gun ownership and use.

Again, how d'ya think the NRA would view such a situation?

I am sure also that folks are aware...

[X_Digger]

214. So you admit you were wrong about Denmark's gun laws, yes?

And you retract the allegation you made about benEzra? Let's get that cleared up before we go any further.

[CTyankee]

224. If you will remember, my original question was whether you would be safer

in Tucson or Copenhagen. I think it's clear that I was right, but please feel free to compare gun stats and any other data on violence in both cities. I didn't misrepresent any factual information about Denmark.

[benEzra]

254. AR-15's are used in civilian target competition all over Europe.

and many (most?) of those nations allow their possession. It kind of undermines the U.S. ban-lobby meme that modern-looking small-caliber rifles are "only useful for mass murder" and "have no sporting purpose", yes?

If you watched the video, it was a bunch of Danish shooters competing in an IPSC match (the same circle I compete in, FWIW) with AR-15 type rifles. They are used in civilian IPSC competition all over Europe.

FWIW, here are some links to videos of IPSC shooters from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, and Spain, all shooting with guns you are proposing to outlaw in the United States:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/139

No, we'll keep them, thanks. :hi:

[CTyankee]

257. I'm not one arguing for banning. Restricting and heavy regulation will do.

Just like they do in the countries you listed. That way, if you qualify, you can keep them and do your target shooting all within the confines of heavy regulation.

I'm assuming, from your answer, that you havae no probem with the strictness of their gun laws in those countries.

N'est pas?

[benEzra]

262. I think the Czech Republic and Switzerland treat them most rationally...

And while I may be wrong here, I believe both those nations have a lower overall homicide rates than the UK. (And I'm talking about Swiss laws governing non-automatic civilian "assault weapons", not the regulations governing Swiss military assault rifles stored at home, which are a separate issue.) I believe Finnish laws aren't too bad, either, at least as regards modern-looking rifles, but I have that secondhand.

It is my understand that most European nations do not, in fact, require non-home storage of most personally owned guns, and that Denmark is an exception in that regard, but I haven't looked into it.

No, I wouldn't be OK with a Denmark-style "pay for someone else to keep your guns for you" system, and I think it is pretty obvious that such a system would not work in the United States (from either a political standpoint or an enforcement standpoint).

[Straw Man]

161. The world before firearms?

I applaud your sentiments, but the reality is that the strong often terrorized the weak, either with their bare hands or with a variety of bladed weapons.

[benEzra]

188. Humans have used standoff weapons ever since there have been humans.

I wonder how the world worked before there were such things as weapons that could safely be fired from afar at an-armed people? I guess if you wanted to kill someone you had to at least have some courage and go do it face to face where the other person had an equal chance of hurting you in return. I think if that were the way it was today, all those cowards who hide behind guns and shoot unarmed women and children and the elderly, would think twice about it.

That imaginary scenario has never existed, not even in the Paleolithic. Humans have used standoff weapons as long as there have been humans.

The 5300-year-old body of the man recovered from a glacier in the Ötz valley, Italian Alps, in 1991 (Google search link, WARNING potentially disturbing photos for some people at the linked pages) was carrying arrows and a yew longbow, and had an arrow wound in his shoulder when he died. The lethality and effective range of a longbow is similar to that of a firearm. Bows go back at least to the Neolithic period, and bows weren't the first standoff weapons.

[PavePusher]

220. Is it just me, or has the level of ignorance in the last week...

been about an order of magnitude higher than usual?

[PavePusher]

218. Your (lack of) knowledge of history disqualifies you from theorizing about it.

The strong very often had no compunctions about forcing their will on the weak. Go to the library and read.

And look up the phrase "nasty, brutish and short".

[beevul]

27. Therein lies the problem.

"Isn't it just sophistry to try to justify the NRA position on ANY firearm restrictions with "concern" for a direct victim of hardware that legitimate gun users do not need?"

First: Who says that high capacity mags are "hardware that legitimate gun users do not need"?

Second, the best people to decide what "legitimate gun users" need or not, are "legitimate gun users" and most certainly not gun control proponents, or gun haters.

"IMO, if a "Christina's Law" finally could bring back the sensible restrictions on high-capacity magazines we had from 1994 to 2004, that law would be the best possible commemoration for a little girl who was born and who was killed on two days of historic and senseless extreme violence."

You don't appear to know anything about the ban you want brought back into existance.

Did you know that it did not outlaw possession of pre-ban mags?

Did you know it did not outlaw sales of pre-ban mags?

Did you know that pre-ban mags were available throughout the entire duration of the ban you want brought back?

[right2bfree]

49. Anyone with a history of mental health care and meds should be banned from EVER owning guns. nt

[JonLP24]

132. Damn

That leaves me out. However I don't want a gun, not that I'm against having them, it is because I don't want the responsibility that comes with owning a gun. Plus I have dogs which greatly reduce the odds of my home being robbed.

[ScreamingMeemie]

121. ...and what about the others who lost their lives as well...?

Oh wait, it's not as tragic... :eyes:


This is a horrible idea. Horrible.

[Posteritatis]

45. Never mind the suggestion in the proposed bill's name that the other victims don't really matter. nt

[Kievan Rus]

16. I have to agree with you on that...

because most laws named after people are "feel good" legislation that doesn't really do anything.

Instead of passing new gun laws, why don't we actually enforce the gun laws we already have...such as the prohibition of the severely mentally ill from purchasing firearms, which was signed by President Bush in 2007.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

69. Amber Alert, nt

[varkam]

115. +1

[Zoeisright]

2. I think that's a great idea. And it's way, way overdue.

Nobody needs the ability to kill dozens of people in seconds. NOBODY.

[cowcommander]

7. Banning high-cap mags doesn't lessen the killing ability of any gun...

The only real way to stop the killings is to just ban them all outright.

[right2bfree]

26. Hell ya. Lets get these things banned now!!

and we need laws for keeping insane people from legally buying a gun too.!!!!

[beevul]

28. Can we safely assume...

Can we safely assume that law enforcement would also no longer have access to high capacity mags then?

You DID say NOBODY.

[Straw Man]

32. Nobody.

Nobody needs the ability to kill dozens of people in seconds. NOBODY.

Yet that is exactly what you have whenever you get behind the wheel of a car. Especially with a couple of drinks under your belt. Which shall we ban: the cars or the alcohol? Never mind the song-and-dance about cars not being "designed to kill"--they kill just the same, in the hands of irresponsible people.

BTW, to the OP, Dubya did not allow the ban to lapse. Presidents don't create legislation. It had a sunset provision, and Congress did not re-authorize it. He said he would sign it if it came to his desk: another reason I don't like him.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

130. Thanks for your support in a sea of opposition from a tiny minority

[PavePusher]

228. "sea of opposition from a tiny minority"

O.K., which is it? Or are we just stuck on oxymoron today?

[Upton]

4. Lipstick on a pig..

Call it anything you like, but McCarthy's nonsense doesn't have a chance in hell anyway..

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. Yeah! Because criminals would NEVER have access to EXISTING high-capacity mags.

And if they did have access to them, they'd never use them because it's um, against the law or something.

Kneejerk reaction is never validated by hindsight.

[LisaL]

9. How would he have access to it?

Do they grow on trees or something?

[aikoaiko]

13. There are already millions upon millions of high capacity magazines out there.

Unlike the old ban on high-cap mags, the proposed new law will likely have bans on transferring existing magazines legally.

Nevertheless, given how easy it is for criminals to acquire entire handguns illegally, I'm not confident that the will keep magazines out of people who plan mass shootings or other criminals.

[LisaL]

17. Loughner wasn't a professional criminal.

He bought his gun legally.

[aikoaiko]

18. Yes, I know, but buying illegal guns is only a smidgeon harder than buying illegal drugs.

Its not that hard.

But even if he didn't. No one can be certain that things wouldn't have turned out about the same if he had bought 10 round mags. Sure, the story is that he was stopped while reloading, but the story also says that the gun jammed. Who knows how things would have been different (or not) if there were 10 round mags.

[RamboLiberal]

101. And Loughner certainly knew how to buy drugs illegally

[JonLP24]

134. So do I

but I don't have a clue where to buy guns illegally.

[krispos42]

208. Ask your source of drugs. If he doesn't know, he knows somebody that knows.

Of course, you have the option of buying guns legally AND avoiding a federal background check, too. Simply buy one from somebody you already know. A friend or relative, perhaps, or somebody at work.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

230. Not going to happen. We have a GOPuke congress.

There is NO gun law that will pass. Zip. Nada. None.
Doesn't matter how common sense it may be. Nothing will be done for the next two years.

[Straw Man]

34. Pro/Con

Loughner wasn't a professional criminal.

He bought his gun legally.

Neither were Harris and Kleibold.

They bought theirs illegally.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. Just because harm reduction can't be 100% effective is no reason to give up on

harm reduction, IMO.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Did you say the same about Raygun's "Star Wars"?

[Hippo_Tron]

75. A ban on high capacity magazines won't cost billions of dollars

[beevul]

120. Would cost millions of votes though.

See the 90s for an example.

[PavePusher]

229. Really?

How do you plan to collect them all? PFM?

[beevul]

40. Nobodys saying for anyone to give up on harm reduction.

Nobodys saying for anyone to give up on harm reduction. Unless gun control is in your mind the only means of it.

Better mental health care, etc. Great.

Better reporting of mental health problems so that those that shouldnt don't pass NICS checks. Great.

Banning something for dubious reasons? Not so great.

Pissing off the gun lobby , and the gun culture, leading to a repeat of the path of the 90s? Worse.

Doing so would be DISASTROUS.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

135. Let me get this straight: Psychos are getting legal access to high-capacity magazines

for semi-automatic weapons, and you want to CONTINUE legal sales of high-capacity magazines, but somehow keep better track of psychos?

How many hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be spent on improving the mental health system to prevent the next Christina from being murdered, while letting high-capacity magazine sales continue?

What would it cost to BAN legal sales of high-capacity magazines? A few hundred thousand dollars for the ATF to notify gun and ammo sellers, with enforcement of magazine restrictions just added to the list of items agents in the field alreacy monitor?

Seems to me anybody who's serious about preventing the next Christina from getting mowed down in seconds would want to take action that would be MILLIONS of times more effective than somehow keeping massive public records on healthcare for psychotics.

[beevul]

136. Yep.

"Let me get this straight: Psychos are getting legal access to high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons, and you want to CONTINUE legal sales of high-capacity magazines, but somehow keep better track of psychos?"

Yep. Because even if you could flip a switch, and make every so called "hi cap" mag disappear, and flip another and prevent any more from being made, theres still 300 million guns in America. And when the next "mass shooting" happens without them, by someone thats clearly a loon like the one in tuscon, you and people that view guns like you will be screaming for more controls.

Sorry, not having any, thanks.


"How many hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be spent on improving the mental health system to prevent the next Christina from being murdered, while letting high-capacity magazine sales continue?"

Yeah, your right, improving the mental health system is useless and fruitless. Its much better to draw the ire of the gun lobby, the gun culture, gun owners et al, and lose elections over it. Besides, nobody in America needs a better mental health system anyway. :eyes:

"What would it cost to BAN legal sales of high-capacity magazines? A few hundred thousand dollars for the ATF to notify gun and ammo sellers, with enforcement of magazine restrictions just added to the list of items agents in the field alreacy monitor?"

Monetary cost is not the only cost. Plus, there are between 500 million and a billion "hi cap" mags in private hands already. If you ban those, your entering the area where those non monetary costs start biting you and everyone else in the ass.

Besides, whether you know it or not, the ATF may be history soon, or at the very least, a far different agency than they used to be. You'll see in a few weeks.

"Seems to me anybody who's serious about preventing the next Christina from getting mowed down in seconds would want to take action that would be MILLIONS of times more effective than somehow keeping massive public records on healthcare for psychotics."

Yes, I'm sure it seems that way to you. However, at one point, someone spent "a few hundred thousand dollars" making murder illegal, and that law didn't stop the shooter.

Kindly explain to me how making "high cap" mags illegal would be different.

[X_Digger]

139. What's the cost of the life of the person who is killed by the 3rd assailant..

.. in a home invasion?

What's the cost of the GLBT person's life who faces a few homophobes with baseball bats and tire irons?

What's the cost of the life of an african american man who faces a pack of rednecks with a rope?

If standard capacity magazines (yes, standard, because Rep Carolyn 'Shoulder-thing-that-goes-up' McCarthy's ban limits magazines to 10 rounds) are only useful to mass murders, and not appropriate for any other purpose, why is there an exception for police?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

141. 'Why is there an exception for police?' SWAT teams sometimes NEED to wound or

kill multiple armed bankrobbers, kidnappers, drug enforcers, militia psychos, etc. But of course they've been trained thoroughly for months to cause the least possible harm to dangerous criminals while stopping them from harming their intended victims. Law enforcement first tries using other means, such as smoke or tear-gas bomb attacks, before turning to massive fconcentrated firepower as a last resort, but they MUST have the capacity for an Entebbe raid or Somalian pirate confrontation, to rescue kidnap victims.

Has there ever been a case where non-law-enforcement citizens used high-capacity magazines effectively for an extremely worthy purpose? I'm not talking about target practics or competetive marksmanship, which IMO are basically infantile entertainment that makes profits for arms traders by proliferating weapons of skyrocketing firepower. I doubt it, but would enjoy hearing what you can come up with..

If you're facing criminals who are so well-armed you think you need high-capacity semi-automatic weapons to stop them, IMO it would be a much better idea to just call the local police, sheriff, state police, park rangers, Coast Guard, or FBI. Ordinary citizens are not trained to work effectively as private SWAT teams or Navy SEALs. IMO, no one other than law enforcement EVER has used high-capacity magazines for any purpose worth the risk of having high-capicity magazines fall into the hands of Jared Loughners.

[X_Digger]

143. The police are under no obligation to protect *you* or *me*..

.. unless we're in police custody.

I notice you dodged the meat of my post though, care to take another swing?

What's the cost of the life of the person who is killed by the 3rd assailant in a home invasion?

What's the cost of the GLBT person's life who faces a few homophobes with baseball bats and tire irons?

What's the cost of the life of an african american man who faces a pack of rednecks with a rope?

[Straw Man]

163. Just so I can be sure I have this correct...

IMO, no one other than law enforcement EVER has used high-capacity magazines for any purpose worth the risk of having high-capicity magazines fall into the hands of Jared Loughners.

...are you defining "high-capacity magazines" as 31-round, like Loughners? Or >10, as the McCarthy bill would ban? Compact semi-autos like the Glock 19, with magazine capacities of 15 or 16 rounds, are among the most common handguns in this country, if not the world. Accurate figures on the frequency of self-defense with a firearm are a very hard to pin down, but the lowest estimate is still in the thousands per year. Certainly these 15-round magazines figured in more than one of those. "Worth the risk"? Certainly, unless these people's lives were not of comparable value to those of Loughner's victims.

If you're referring to the 30+ magazines, they aren't commonly carried due to their bulk and awkwardness. I don't know what we'd find there as far as self-defensive uses. Possibly none, I'll grant you that. So are we amending the McCarthy ban to be >30 rather than >10?

If you're facing criminals who are so well-armed you think you need high-capacity semi-automatic weapons to stop them, IMO it would be a much better idea to just call the local police, sheriff, state police, park rangers, Coast Guard, or FBI.

I don't know what to make of this. Do you actually think that the victims of violent assaults can press a magic "freeze" button while they call for the cavalry? That the home invader, gang of rapists, or lynch mob will politely wait while their victim dials 911? You have slung the word "infantile" around, so I'll apply it here: this is an infantile worldview.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

243. What is the actual number of home invasions a year? 500, in a country of 300 million,

according to Rachel Maddow this evening, in her conversation with Michael Moore. You want to fact-check them?

I stand by what I said.

"Self-defense: statistics IMO are extremely dubious self-reports. A self-reported "self-defense" event could have been waving around your handgun in a drunken argument to express disagreement with something somebody else said.

[friendly_iconoclast]

249. "The Honorable Rachel Maddow has said.." And where did she come up with that figure?

I missed where she obtained her degree in criminology or statistics.

You cited her as an expert, you come up with the proof.

May I suggest you start your search here?:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. The figures back to 1960 are available online.



And even if accurate- they are irrelevant if you are the person who is getting invaded, which I might point

out happens at least 250X more than the criminal use of the "big boomer" S&W 500 you mentioned upthread.



You were saying something about realistically assessing threats, again?

[X_Digger]

255. In 2009, there were 450,000 burglaries of residences at night..

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_07.html

The problem with 'home invasion' is that it's not a standardized category of crime. Only Michigan has a formal definition in their legal code.

It could be recorded as robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, or even homicide.

For example:

Jury screened in 2007 home invasion, rape case
http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/home-10089-invasion-jury.html

BARSTOW • Attorneys are currently screening prospective jurors in the case of a man accused of raping a Barstow woman and her two teenage daughters during a home invasion robbery in 2007.

Randall Zackery — who briefly escaped from the Barstow Jail in 2008 — is charged with 27 felony counts related to the Sept. 10, 2007, incident. Zackery’s charges include rape, burglary, robbery, and a host of sexual assault charges.

Phoenix home-invasion suspects to face murder charges
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/01/14/20110114phoenix-home-invasion-murder-charges-for-suspects.html

Authorities plan to add murder to the robbery, assault and kidnapping charges lodged against two men in connection with a pair of November home invasions in south Phoenix

Two shot in home-invasion robbery in Dallas
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/14/2768848/two-shot-after-home-invasion-in.html

Dallas police are searching for answers after two people were shot in a home invasion in east Oak Cliff Thursday night.

Man shot in head during Butler County home invasion
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20101230/NEWS010701/312300016/Man-shot-in-head-in-home-invasion

FAIRFIELD TWP. – A 21-year-old Hispanic man was shot in the head during a home invasion robbery in the 6600 block of Fayetta Drive early Thursday, according to Fairfield Township police.

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=13855931

Johnson was charged with first-degree burglary, first-degree robbery, second-degree conspiracy, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, wearing a disguise, criminal mischief, and multiple illegal prescription drug related offenses.

Pair Charged In Overnight Home Invasion
http://www.wlwt.com/r/26496083/detail.html

Anthony Russo, 24, and Kevin Hendley, 33, are both charged with aggravated robbery.

http://www.abc24.com/news/local/story/Ex-Husband-Charged-in-Home-Invasion/t1eWtH11W0OY0dld0_xNuQ.cspx?rss=59

MEMPHIS, TN – An affidavit says a man invaded the home of his ex-wife, where he and an accomplice beat the occupants, robbed them and committed aggravated rape.

http://www.kwtx.com/localnews/headlines/Man_Shot_During_Thwarted_Home_Invasion_Charged_112727139.html

KILLEEN (December 31, 2010)--David Rashad Sims was in the Bell County Jail Friday charged with burglary of a habitation after a Killeen resident shot and injured a man who kicked in the door of his home Thursday morning.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_17087719?source=rss&nclick_check=1

OAKLAND -- One hundred thirty-two criminal charges -- the most ever brought by Alameda County prosecutors in a case in recent memory -- have been filed against two men suspected of at least 24 Oakland home invasion robberies last year, including one during which a 2-year-old boy was threatened with death to make adults comply, authorities said Thursday.

The 132 charges against the two men -- Romier Simmons, 24, of Stockton, and Christopher Malbrough, 23, of Hayward -- include multiple counts of residential robbery, robbery, gun possession, and other counts of burglary and assault among others. They are both being held in lieu of $5 million bail and are due in court Feb. 18 to enter pleas.

[Statistical]

186. You seem to be confused ...

McCarthy wants to ban 11 round magazines. These are used by law abiding citizens in self defense and by every Police Officer in the country.

The idea that she is banning some ultra high capacity hardware only used legitimately by the elites of the elite is a falsehood. A falsehood that I am sure you are aware but continue to spread. Using falsehoods is the only way gun control crusaders can even gain a token level of support for their stupid bans and restrictions.

[Straw Man]

167. Let me get this straight...

You want to let psychotics go untracked and untreated because it isn't cost effective? You'd rather focus on the magazine capacity of the murder weapon?

And you accuse the "gunners" of fetishizing the hardware...

[PavePusher]

231. How much would it cost to collect existing mags?

Your "ban" won't have the effect you want unless you can gather them all up. (Not that I concede any net positive effect at all.)

Cost estimate, please?

[Straw Man]

42. 100% Harm Reduction?

Just because harm reduction can't be 100% effective is no reason to give up on

harm reduction, IMO.

Let's say harm reduction is in the neighborhood of 1% and the law has the following corollary effects:

• creation of a new class of felons much like that created by the war on drugs
  
• massive expansion of police powers in order to facilitate confiscations, etc.
  
• loss of Democratic seats in Congress, and possibly even the Presidency
  

Would you still think it's worth it?

Smells like culture war to me, disguised as moral outrage.

[aikoaiko]

50. I generally agree, but in this case I'm not sure if we are reducing harm enough to

justify curtailing of a civil liberty for the law abiding.

[Statistical]

55. But if there is no evidence that it reduced harm at all it would be a good reason to give up

on do nothing feel good laws that cost Democats control of Congress.

Wouldn't you agree? Neither the CDC nor ATF could conclude the AWB (including ban on standard capacity magazines) had any effect on violent crime.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. They've already grown on trees, and fallen on the ground.

Get that? They exist.

Writing a new law doesn't make the ones that already exist magically disappear.

[right2bfree]

39. Naw, but if you get cuaght with one, you are UP THE CREEK!!, Ban these magazines !! nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. How big is a 31 round clip? Do you know?

Could you see that I had one while I was driving a car? If I were in a bar? If I were walking down the street with it in my sock? In my front pocket? What if I had it in my purse? In my backpack?

Are you serious?

I could probably carry 50 31 round clips in my JanSport backpack and bump you in the supermarket checkout line and you'd never know.

I could certainly carry as many down the creek in my kayak, get them wet even, and you'd never know.

Please be realistic.

[right2bfree]

46. Realistic as in 20 people getting shot in _seconds_ by a GUN-man? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

74. The Luby's killer shot and killed lots more people, and he reloaded, repeatedly.

So did Cho. Reloading takes only a couple of seconds, less than one if you practice.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

53. Hey, big boy, is that a high-cap mag in your pocket?

Or are you just happy to ...

ahh, never mind.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

212. well, it's the next best thing...evidently...

[beevul]

43. So turn millions of the law abiding into criminals...

So turn millions of the law abiding into criminals overnight, with the stroke of a pen?

I'm sure that will go over well. :eyes:

[right2bfree]

47. We had ten years of the assualt-weapons ban and it worked. If you commit a crime you go to jail. nt

[Statistical]

59. Um no it didn't work.

The AWB had no effect on violent crime or homicides.
When it expired violent crime & homicides continued to decline.

The only thing the AWB accomplished was give Republicans control of Congress for a decade.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

61. Is 'effect on violent crime' the right metric, or is it rather the incidence of lone gunmen

killing or wounding more than fifteen strangers within minutes or seconds?

When measuring "success" for legislation, you must use a metric that tracks the precise concerns of the legislation's framers. It seems to me the rationale for banning large capacity magazines is the invulnerability of lone gunmen to unarmed counterattack by their victims until the gunmen's initial magazines have been exhausted, and they need to re-load.

What was the incidence per year of lone gunmen killing or wounding more than fifteen strangers within minutes or seconds-- before 1994, from 1994 to 2004, and since 2004? That seems to me to be the RELEVANT question here.

We're concerned with a specific kind of violent crime--not violent crime in general.

[Statistical]

62. Neither the ATF nor CDC or DOJ could find any evidence of any benefit from AWB.

The University of PA even looked at secondary stats like average number of rounds fired per event, number of victims per homicide, number and frequency of mass shoootings. There was absolutely no benefit under any detectable metric to the AWB. Period.

"It seems to me the rationale for banning large capacity magazines is the invulnerability of lone gunmen to unarmed counterattack by their victims until the gunmen's initial magazines have been exhausted, and they need to re-load."

However that isn't true. Cho used no high capacity magazines. Instead he used two firearms reloading one and using the other for cover. He reloaded 4 times and killed 32 people. By having a second weapon he was never vulnerable to counter attack. He likely could have killed dozens more but he killed himself to avoid capture. This shooter HAD a second gun however the chose not to take it with him. Why? Well we may never know but he may have (incorrectly) believed the high capacity magazine made it unecessary. What if he had brought the second firearm and reloaded one while using the other to prevent counter attack?

There is no evidence the AWB did ANYTHING except
a) make semi-auto rifles the most popular weapons in the country.
b) make the NRA the most powerful lobbying organization in history of US politics.
c) give Republicans control of Congress for the next decade.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

66. 'By having a second weapon Cho was never vulnerable to counterattack'. How did that

work, exactly? He would hold the loaded gun in one hand, and reload the other weapon with the other hand? IIRC correctly, even DeNiro's violent character in "Taxi Driver" needed much pracitce with a special slide-holster inside a fake cast on his arm to use a second weapon effectively ("Are you talking to me?"). Maybe Cho was ambidextrous. or the Virginia Tech students were too afraid to fight for their own survival. It seems to me Cho is the exception to a long list of lone shooters who were tackled by heroes when they had to re-load.

I can see your argument if the gunman has a PARTNER, like the pair of lunatics at Columbine High. But logic dictates that a lone gunmen MUST be most vulnerable at those moments when he has to re-load.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

73. For the record... when reloading a semiautomatic the gun can still fire.

You can cover yourself while reloading even if you only have one gun. Proper proceedure would be to reload before your magazine is empty... then there is always a round in the chamber that can still fire (even with no magazine inserted into the gun).

I shoot in competitions and this is common. Takes me all of 1.5-2.0 seconds to reload in-stride while running/moving. A good shooter in competition can often reload when moving from one target to the next.

Look up some USPSA competition times for identical stages between "Limited 10" class and "Unlimited" class. There is a class of shooting where you are only allowed 10 round mags and another class where HUGE magazines are allowed. This REAL WORLD data comparing two groups of people in identical situations will show you how silly a 30 round ban will be.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

81. 'Takes me all of 1.5-2.0 seconds to reload'--IMO that's enough time for a big guy

who's close to the shooter to lunge at him and build up enough momentum to take him down, whereupon others in the crowd can render him harmless. Competitive marksmen such as yourself aren't shooting at living human beings who will do anything to try to survive a gun assault. MO you are comparing apples and oranges.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

82. Smart money says that typical gunmen shoot those closest to them...

Thereby creating some separation between themselves and others when the need comes to reload. If a typical reload takes about 2 seconds I would guess someone would have to be closer than 10 feet to have a chance of doing anything. Then again, we all know Loughner was missing quite a few marbles. Perhaps such a tactical error on his part led to his premature capture. :shrug:

Speaking of gun assaults... I think the most prudent thing to is run for cover. Knowing that most handgun shootings are not fatal (I think pistol GSW mortality rate is ~30%?) and that, in general, people have terrible aim shooting at moving targets (Even the NYPD only has a 34% hit percentage) you should rest assured that if you haul-ass away from the shooter you have a very good chance of surviving. I mean, if you want to stick around waiting for somebody to have to reload, be my guest... just hope it's not this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XqDaqvVvbk. Me? I'm finding cover ASAP!

[fishbulb703]

191. Sorry, if a guy starts firing a gun into a crowd, the crowd will scatter away.

No one will try to tackle the shooter. This isn't hollywood.

[CTyankee]

213. In a way, such thinking IS Hollywood...in fact it could be called "Dreamworks."

[GreenStormCloud]

77. The Luby's killer shot and killed lots of people, and he reloaded, repeatedly.

[RamboLiberal]

102. Cho was in a big ass building

My bet is when he knew he was close to reloading both of the guns he left the class rooms to do so.

[PavePusher]

232. If you are basing any of your assumptions off of fictional movies...

I think I know what you problem is...

[Straw Man]

80. Metrics

What was the incidence per year of lone gunmen killing or wounding more than fifteen strangers within minutes or seconds-- before 1994, from 1994 to 2004, and since 2004? That seems to me to be the RELEVANT question here.

No--the relevant question is how many those killings or woundings involved high-capacity magazines such as those covered by the ban and whether or not those magazines had been legally purchased within the terms of the ban, such as they were.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

147. IMO you are exactly wrong. The instrumentality being investigated belongs solely on the

right-hand-side of the regression equation. The outcome on the left-hand side has to be independent of the instrumentality being studied.

I specified the outcome independent of the law on HCMs I thought would be most correlated with changes in the law.


If I had to do it over again, I'd add PER MILLION POPULATION to the "incidence", to account for population growth that would make evnts more frequent even in th absence of changes in the rate per million people.

[Straw Man]

166. Perhaps you could explain in layman's terms...

...how you intend to draw a conclusion about the use of high-capacity magazines without using data that tabulates that use?

[PavePusher]

227. Didn't you see the "IMO"?

That explains everything, didn't you get the memo?

He certainly seems to use it a lot. "IMO" must carry a lot of weight where he comes from.

[X_Digger]

60. "it worked"? Only if the intent of the law was to hand congress to the rethugs.

President Clinton's DOJ could find no measure of a drop in crime attributable to the ban..

Here are some quotes from the study-

Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs (Large Capacity Magazines) in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.
...
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
...
But this still begs the question of whether a 10-round limit on magazine capacity will affect the outcomes of enough gun attacks to measurably reduce gun injuries and deaths.

And here's a quote from President Clinton:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[benEzra]

87. It banned no guns and it banned no magazines. The only thing it worked at

was to raise magazine prices, require new AR-15's and civilian AK's to have smooth muzzles/nonadjustable stocks/etc., and to restrict marketing under 19 banned names. It easily tripled sales of AR-15's and civilian AK's, and I have now idea how much it upped the market for over-10-round magazines.

Crime declined, but it declined even as sales of nontraditional looking rifles dramatically increased.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. They can be homemade fairly easily. N/T

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. I'm not afraid of professional criminals, who tend to kill other criminals because

they cannot rely on the police to secure their business interests. I am afraind of psycohtics, who would have more trouble getting access to illegal firarms and gubn paraphernalia

[aikoaiko]

8. Apparently the proposed law will be worse -- no further transferring of existing magazines.

To some this would be a better law, I suppose.

Either way, it will be used to vote Obama out and gain more republican seats in the house and senate.

[TRJuan]

63. It would be worth it

If it got hi cap clips off the streets.

[Codeine]

96. What other rights should we give up to keep ourselves safe from

statistically insignificant dangers?

[beevul]

112. The problem with that...

The problem with that, is as has been demonstrated, "off the streets" really means "out of the possession of law abiding gun owners".

Not real honest, IMO.

[Fla_Democrat]

12. Who would DARE vote against "Christina's Law"?

Who would DARE vote against the Patriot Act? :shrug:









:smoke:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Or against curbing 'partial birth abortion', or for the 'death tax', or agianst 'tax relief'?

Why should Republican extremists be the only ones to use corny but effective gimmicks?

[krispos42]

21. We're speculating quite heavily here

"If only he didn't have such a big magazine" is something I've seen a lot on here.

Probably didn't matter. If he had a smaller magazine, he would have had to change magazines sooner, when people were more confused about what was going on and less certain to act in a decisive manner. Maybe.

Keep in mind that regular-length magazines might well be faster to change than the long ones due to being easier to insert into the magazine well. But I'm just hypothesizing.



I doubt it matters on a practical level. Something like 98 or 99 percent of all murders situations only have 1 or two victims, and only a tiny fraction have more than 5.

Except, of course, the risk Democrats run for proposing and supporting such an idea.

The Tucson shooter could just as easily have a sawed-off pump-action shotgun or two at the rally. Each one, depending on model, would have held at least 5 shells of buckshot, with each shell containing 9 to 15 pellets nearly as powerful as the 9mm bullets his Glock shot.


Regardless, crime is going down DESPITE the fact that we are one fuckin' well-armed country awash in high-capacity magazines. Murder down by over 7%!!!

January to June 2010
Percent Change
by Population Group


Number of agencies 12,414
Population 256,093,208
Violent crime -6.2
Murder -7.1
Forcible rape -6.2
Robbery -10.7
Aggravated assault -3.9
Property crime -2.8
Burglary -1.4
Larceny-theft -2.3
Motor vehicle theft -9.7
Arson -14.6

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-1

[ProgressiveEconomist]

24. The WTC devastation on 9/11 was a rare event too. We're talikng about TERROR, not crime

Many crime victims could have taken but did not take precautions to prevent being victimized. What makes TERROR so different is that you very likely could have done nothing unsafe or inattentive yet stil fall victim to extreme, lights-out-in-seconds violence.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. What a great way to go down the defeat path of 1994.

It was a dumb law then and it is a completely asinine law today - because we KNOW the results.

[beevul]

30. No. Why not call it nonsense.

"Amazingly, even in the wake of highest-profile mass murders and maimings in Tucson last week, where a madman tried to assassinate a Democratic Congresswoman using a 31-bullet magazine in his Glock handgun, pundits give McCarthy's legislation slim chances of passing."

This is a good thing. Anyone with any sense, ought to be thanking republicans for not allowing this nonsense to see the light of day. Of course, theres always the alternative...

The republicans ALLOWED the original AWB to see the light of day. They didn't have to, but they did, and they did it deliberately. Why do you think they did that?

Because they knew the damage it would do to Democrats, should it pass. And anyone that needs to be reminded of how bad the damage was, wasn't paying attention in the 90s.

"Here's an idea: The nation has been transfixed by the murder in Tucson of 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, who as bad luck would have it had been born exactly on September 11, 2001. President Obama immortalized her as "dancing in rainpuddles if there are rainpuddles in Heaven.". That sweet girl still might be alive had Jared Loughner been forced to attempt reloading his Glock after just 10 shots from his magazine, rather than after 31."

Heres another idea:

First, note that high capacity mags are prone to magazine spring failure, then note that a failure, and a resulting weapon jam, are WHAT DID actually happen, which caused a stoppage in shooting. Then consider that had he been using standard capacity factory mags, which anyone knowledgeable about firearms and magazine failures and failures to feed/jams/spring breakage will tell you, have about the top reliability of all available mags, that instead of a broken mag spring and a jam, he might have instead had a 1.5 second mag swap and continued to shoot. Since were talking might, and all.

"Why not call McCarthy's legislation "Cristina's Law"? Who would DARE vote against "Christina's Law"? In recognition of the political threat to the ultra-right that would be posed by legislation with such a name, would even the NRA negotiate with McCarthy to craft a compromise that the NRA could support?"

Over the last few days, I've been waiting for that word to pop up. "Compromise". Historically, when "compromising" with gun control, the pro gun side loses less than the pro control side wants to take this year, but far more than they'd like, and gets NOTHING in return. And the pro control side comes back next year wanting what they didn't get this year, plus new stuff. Compromise is going to have to work both ways now days, methinks.

So, if we gun owners were to compromise, and allow this nonsense, what do we get in return?

Repeal of the NFA?

Nationwide CCW reciprocity?

Reopening the nfa registry?

In case you hadn't noticed, gun owners are in a position of power, and they're not just going to capitulate to this nonsense without something REALLY big in return - and compromise being a two way street for a change.



Unrec for the AWB being nonsense then, and nonsense now. And people still believing otherwise.

[right2bfree]

48. I say that we vote in a 6 bullet magazine limit; thats plenty enough since six-shooters use them. nt

[Statistical]

58. Which is why no Police use 6 shooters anymore.

And semi-auto pistols outside revolvers 5 to 1.

Although the Ruger LCR is pretty nice weapon.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. I don't think I've ever seen a six-shooter with a magazine

[Posteritatis]

44. I automatically hate legislation named in an emotive, how-dare-you-vote-nay way.

If a bill can't stand on its own merits and needs to manipulate people into voting for it because of a heavily loaded name, it shouldn't even be considered as a possible law. If it can, then just slap a number on it and pass it with a little more confidence that people were voting for it, not for their electoral odds in the next campaign.

The various insert-name-here's laws are, as far as I'm concerned, identical to the USA PATRIOT Act in that regard.

[jody]

51. IMO the best name would be "Democrats Lose Again" as we did with the sunset Assault Weapons Ban. nt

[steve2470]

52. I agree with you 100%

We Democrats are really tone deaf on this issue. If we want to lose, then yes, by all means, push for this law.

[Statistical]

57. Bingo. Bill Clinton agrees. Many Democrats tried to warn him. He didn't listen.

How many people did the Assault Weapons Ban kill globally?

I don't know but CDC and ATF conclude it had no effect on violent crime or homicides and it gave Republicans control of Congress for a decade.

So net-net I would say a lot of people died so some people could "feel" safe.

[beevul]

113. Well said Jody...

And spot on.

[Statistical]

54. What is a high capacity magazine? Why is McCarthy banning 11 round magazines?

Why would we ban them again when neither the CDC nor the ATF found any evidence the last ban did anything to reduce violent crime or homicides?

[Kingofalldems]

65. K and R to counter the unreccers

[ProgressiveEconomist]

89. Thank You! It's great to hear from somebody who's not part of the SPECIAL INTERESTS

that target DU.

They've certainly been busy with the un-recs, aren't they? This thread's unrec history as I've monitored it has gone up to +2, down to 0, up to +4, down to 0, up to +7, and down to 0 to stay, given presumed double-digit stacks of un-recs.

[Codeine]

97. Yes, anybody who disagrees with you must be a "special interest."

:eyes:

[Edweird]

137. Um, there's 90 guns for every 100 people. Gun owners aren't the 'special interest' here.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

170. The basis of democracy is one person one vote, not "1 gun 1 vote". Colossal unevenness

in the distribution of guns would, for example, give five times as many votes to Wyomans as to New Jerseyans, if "one gun, one vote" were the standard. See the table in the next post:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

171. Among the 50 States, household gun ownership ranges from 12% in NJ to 60% in WY, and

is 32 percent among all the most recent survey respondents in
the 50 States, DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin
Islands.

From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
:

"Gun Ownership by State

In 2001 the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)
in North_Carolina surveyed 201,881 respondents nationwide,
asking them,

"Are any firearms now kept in or around your home? 
Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car,
truck, or other motor vehicle."

Here are the results.

-- State_or_District___ %Yes  #Respondents

-- All_Respondents_____ 31.7  201,881

01 District_of_Columbia 03.8  001,859
02 Puerto_Rico_________ 06.7  004,230
03 Virgin_Islands______ 08.3  002,233
04 Hawaii*_____________ 08.7  004,450
05 New_Jersey*_________ 12.3  005,901

06 Massachusetts*______ 12.6  008,474
07 Rhode_Island*_______ 12.8  004,024
08 Guam________________ 14.3  000,859
09 Connecticut*________ 16.7  007,449
10 New_York____________ 18.0  003,822

11 Illinois*___________ 20.2  002,103
12 California*_________ 21.3  003,897
13 Maryland*___________ 21.3  004,271
14 Florida*____________ 24.5  004,454
15 Delaware*___________ 25.5  003,421

16 New_Hampshire*______ 30.0  003,863
17 Arizona_____________ 31.1  003,066
18 Ohio________________ 32.4  003,288
19 Washington__________ 33.1  004,022
20 Nevada*_____________ 33.8  002,379

21 Colorado____________ 34.7  001,947
22 Pennsylvania________ 34.7  003,533
23 New_Mexico__________ 34.8  003,439
24 Virginia*___________ 35.1  002,831
25 Texas*______________ 35.9  005,667

26 Michigan____________ 38.4  003,653
27 Nebraska____________ 38.6  003,584
28 Indiana_____________ 39.1  003,851
29 Oregon______________ 39.8  002,433
30 Georgia_____________ 40.3  004,277

31 Maine_______________ 40.5  002,326
32 North_Carolina*_____ 41.3  005,906
33 Minnesota*__________ 41.7  003,837
34 Missouri____________ 41.7  003,981
35 Vermont_____________ 42.0  004,190

36 Kansas______________ 42.1  004,421
37 South_Carolina______ 42.3  003,038
38 Iowa*_______________ 42.8  003,508
39 Oklahoma____________ 42.9  004,243
40 Tennessee___________ 43.9  002,774

41 Utah________________ 43.9  003,439
42 Louisiana___________ 44.1  004,800
43 Wisconsin*__________ 44.4  003,290
44 Kentucky____________ 47.7  007,245
45 North_Dakota________ 50.7  002,422

46 Alabama_____________ 51.7  002,623
47 Arkansas____________ 55.3  002,780
48 Idaho_______________ 55.3  004,430
49 Mississippi_________ 55.3  002,841
50 West_Virginia_______ 55.4  002,945

51 South_Dakota________ 56.6  004,921
52 Montana_____________ 57.7  003,066
53 Alaska______________ 57.8  002,716
54 Wyoming_____________ 59.7  002,859

* These states have Child Access Prevention Laws.

SOURCE: BRFSS Survey Results 2001, Nationwide"

[Edweird]

174. Again, gun owners aren't the 'special interest' here. Not even on DU.

[svsuman23]

67. and only have a 10 ban? why not make it permanent?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

68. Let us ...

change the name of Amber Alert.

It does not mean a color, it is a girls name.

get it together.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. Your explanation of why I need only 10 shots is as much conjecture as my argument that I need 30...

With the added bonus that your argument is pretentious... dictating "need" to others. :eyes:

Explain to me why I only need TEN rounds.
I don't want to hear why you don't think I need THIRTY.
I want to know why, specifically, you think I need TEN (or fewer) rounds.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Doesn't matter. It won't pass.

Over 258 members of the House AGREE with the NRA and have "A" ratings. There are 435 members. Any new gun control legislation is dead in committee.

50 Senators have NRA "A" ratings.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

91. What if the NRA leadership recognizes the danger of going against public opinion

on a Christina's Law and does not oppose it?

IMO, NRA whipping of a quick vote in Congress on Carolyn McCarthy;s bill would be an even worse public relations nightmare for them than a showy NRA convention held shortly after Columbine occurred. Anti-NRA forces will get new iconographic images to replace Charlton Heston at that convention, holding up a huge long-gun with one hand and yelling, from the NRA conventon podium, "From my cold dead hands!"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. Public opinion is not supporting McCarthy. It won't even get out of committee

And that is a good thing

[woo me with science]

78. This child's death has been politicized enough. nt

[GSLevel9]

83. My vote is for "Democrats out of power for 10 years" bill. How's that? nt

[benEzra]

88. How do you know her parents support such a limit?

Have they expressed support for the proposed ban (which is considerably harsher than the expired 1994 non-ban, BTW)?

If not, then I can think of few things more utterly callous than to hijack their daughter's death to push an agenda they would not support. Do you have idea how it would make a parent feel for some arrogant ____ to politicize their child's death in that way?

So, I'd ask---what statements have you seen from her parents that suggest they support McCarthy's new ban proposal? Because if they haven't come out in favor of it, then IMO it would be a violation of simple human decency to endorse it with their daughter's name.

[RamboLiberal]

100. He doesn't

I got to find the quote but he said earlier in week not to abridge freedoms because of this shooting.

I still remember one poster here had the audacity to call him 'f'ing father of the year.' because of this before Christina's parents had really been shown to be what looked to be very thoughtful and very grieving parents.

Here's excerpt from YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_nAcyUU_Q&feature=related

Strangely it is now longer available on Today show videos.

[Codeine]

95. Yay! Let's emotionalize and infantalize everything!

The Constitution can once again take a back seat to PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

[cynatnite]

99. If there was going to be a law named like this...

I'd want it to be banning guns from political gatherings such as this. Since this child was interested in public service and went to learn about it here, that's what I'd call it.

Of course, I'll be accused of hating guns and being a gun grabber. People go crazy over this subject.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. As bad an idea as the war on drugs.

TO not buy into the crap of anything more than 10 is high capacity. The "standard" magazine for most of the newer pistols is 13-17.

[RamboLiberal]

106. And it might make the anti-gunners happy or unhappy

to learn that some of the hottest guns at the moment have less than 10 rounds.

I'm talking about the pocket pistols & revolvers like the Ruger LCP & LCR, S&W Bodyguard, new Ruger LC9, & other manufacturers who are jumping on the band wagon.

5-6 rounds is their capacity in most cases.

Of course I think none of them will be involved in mass shootings.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. Those are carry weapon, and good for that purpose

[Straw Man]

131. Well...

Of course I think none of them will be involved in mass shootings.

...that could change if the high-cap bans are enacted and enforced. Think of how many LCPs a maniac could conceal on his/her person. Easily a dozen. 12 x 7 = 84 rounds, without reloading. One hand shoots while the other hand reaches for the next gun. What will we ban then?

[PavePusher]

233. Sporks. Please...? n/t

[derby378]

105. 10 rounds good, 11 rounds bad

You can try using Christina's memory as a chess piece to get this stinker of a bill passed, but it won't counteract the logical absurdity of the bill.

[RamboLiberal]

107. No No No it's 12 rounds bad

McCarthy allows you that one in the chamber.

[badtoworse]

114. Giving crappy legislation a heartwarming name doesn't make it any better

Sorry, I consider restrictions on my rights objectively

[BoWanZi]

117. I am hopeful yet wary that none of these draconian gun bills ever go through.

Unrecced.

I wish I could unrec it twice for the fact that it would be named after someone. I hate that some laws are "personalized" by naming them after someone as well.

I don't like pure emotion based legislation which this law would end up being.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[right2bfree]

126. Looks like they all came over here. nt

[Straw Man]

127. I suggest the "Tackle-the-Shooter Law"...

...because that's how it will supposedly work to keep us all safe.

I'm a gun owner. I shoot recreationally, collect historical firearms, and have a concealed-carry permit. I have no use for a 31-round magazine and will in all likelihood never own one. In practical terms, a ban on them would have no effect on my life. But neither would it have any demonstrable effect on public safety.

The 31-round magazine is being used as a club in a culture/class war. Despite all the "if only" and "might have" being bandied about, the 31-round magazine controversy has very little to do with the actual incident and very much to do with moral grandstanding and emotional blackmail. "Who would DARE...?" Indeed.

Christina's death was tragic. So were the deaths of Gabriel, John, Dorwan, Dorothy, and Phyllis. Focusing on the child is the worst kind of politically motivated pandering.

That's my opinion.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

152. 'Christina's Law' wd have "no demonstrable effect on public safety"--what's your rreasoning?

Let me anticipate what you might say.

True, there already are tens of millions of HCMs in the hands of gun owners. But consider the impact on them of making it illegal to transfer their HCMs to other people. IMO such a law would chasten them severely from casual sales or trades to people they don't know.

Jared Loughner bought his HCM legally. Thus there is no one for the DA to prosecute or for the national media to stalk for selling it to Loughner.

IMO, if the law Rep Carolyn McCarthy plans to introduce on Tuesday had been in effect when Loughner bought his hardware, the sellers would face a NIGHTMARE of public notoriety and condemnation, with only the ultraright leadership of the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, et al to speak up for them.

IMO, nobody wants that, and, if McCarthy's bill passes and gets signed into law, HCM owners either won't ever risk sellling their hardware or will make sure they sell only to professional criminals, recreational marksmen, and others who pose no danger to the next Christina.

Or did you have some other reason for doubting the likely effectiveness of McCarthy's bill in protecting the next Christina from being mowed down in seconds by a madman?

[Straw Man]

159. It's like this...

First, HCM means what to you? 31 rounds? Fine. Let's say for the sake of argument that we ban those. McCarthy's bill specifies 10 rounds. Cho at Virginia Tech had two pistols, one with 10-round magazines and the other with 15-round magazines. He alternated between the two, shooting one while reloading the other. That could just as easily be done with two 10-round-capacity pistols. A madman could have multiple 10-round-magazine pistols, all loaded to the full, and accomplish the same carnage. There's no reason to expect that a crazed shooter will have only one pistol with one magazine, or to expect that someone will be positioned, motivated, and fit to intervene while the killer is reloading.

That's why I called it the "Tackle the Shooter" bill. You're making a huge, and in my opinion naive, assumption that this would be an effective and reliable way to end such a rampage. So much depends on such a wide range of variables that I simply can't see this as a realistic expectation. It worked this time, and the shooter had a 31-round magazine. It did not work at Virginia Tech, where the shooter had magazines of one-half and one-third of that capacity. The outcome of these rampages is a total wild card, and therefore your HCM ban can't be relied upon as a solution.

Let's say the law passes, the HCMs disappear from the scene, and then another horrific incident happens, only with 10-round magazines this time. Then what do you call for? A five-round limit? A ban on semi-auto handguns? I don't think I'm being paranoid when I predict that this is exactly what would happen. I will even go so far as to guess that you would not oppose an outright ban on private ownership of firearms, or something very close to it. But even if that were to come to pass, it would not put an end to tragedy. There would still be plenty of knives, pointy sticks, toxic chemicals, flammable substances, automobiles, and so on, with which humans could slay each other. Welcome to the human condition.

I still feel that your proposed ban is meaningless. It gives the illusion of control, but it is really only a Band-Aid on your feelings of helplessness in the face of horror.

I have to add that I am disturbed by your cavalier attitude toward providing weapons to professional criminals. They kill people too.

[X_Digger]

175. That would only work if you had to register them now..

Otherwise, the person who transferred them can simply deny it.

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a 10+ round magazine was transferred, when you can't even prove that anyone owned any of them to begin with?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

192. If the gunman survives, police/FBI interrogation likely would include "where did you get"

questions, and the suspect's answers could be leaked to the press.

Or third parties linked to the shooter might have witnessed the transaction, and divulge the information under police/FBI interrogation.

There are many such scenarios that do not involve registration records.

But you've stumbled onto something that could be part of future legislation: technology is available for low-cost unique laser inscription of identifying markers for every piece of firearm hardware, including every single bullet! IMO, it's only a matter of time before such technological inscription of markers for future murder weapon tracing is made MANDATORY for manufacturers of firearm hardware, by foreign governments controlling cheap imports into the US if not by NRA-bought-and-paid-for US legislators.

[X_Digger]

194. Dream on, culture warrior, dream on.

If that were the case, there'd be a whole lot more illicit drug dealers in jail (if all it took were one person to witness a transaction.) Why do cops use marked bills for sting operations?

Let me guess, are you one of these people who thinks that the war on (some) drugs has actually worked?

[crazyjoe]

128. Do you really belive the criminals will turn in their large capacity mags to comply with the ban ?

stupid.....

[ProgressiveEconomist]

148. Criminals don't frighten me--psychotics do. Let criminals MONOPOLIZE high-capacity

magazines--IMO that would not lead to the murder of the next Christina.

Loughnr bought his HCM legally. Thus there is no one to prosecute for supplying it to him.

If Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's law passes, current owners of HCMs will fear being singled out for notoriety and prosecution for contributing to the naxt psychotic mow-down episode. That will IMO chasten them from selling their HCM to a possible psycho. I'd love it if they just made sure their buyer was a professional criminal, or anybody but another Jared Loghner.

[Straw Man]

153. Criminals don't frighten you...

...because they don't shoot up your neighborhood. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Junkdrawer]

138. Good idea. And the gunner's howls are proof it's a good idea.

:thumbsup:

[Straw Man]

140. "gunner's howls"?

Thank you for your meaningful contribution to the discussion. Is that all you've got? Really?

While you're enjoying your "gotcha" culture war games, the Republicans are chuckling about how the Democrats are handing them back Congress and the Presidency. So you're willing to sacrifice healthcare reform, reproductive rights, GLBT rights, the labor movement, and environmental protection in order to piss off "the gunners"?

I hope the warm glow of spurious moral superiority that you're feeling right now is really worth it.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

158. Anyone that disagrees with the antis is a crybaby. Got it. N/T

[Straw Man]

160. Thanks.

Love you too.

[TheKentuckian]

145. Probably because you shouldn't use a murdered child as a political prop in an effort to

subvert the Constitution and the will of the people for a personal fetish.

I find it supremely odd that this is always the hill some are willing to die on. Our Social Security, our jobs, our civil liberties, the integrity of our justice system, trade law, ending stupid wars, or just about anything else crucial to every one of us are subject to any level of "compromise", are things we must be "pragmatic" about but this issue is "THE ONE"! The one where the polls go in the toilet and the politics are speed bumps rather than road blocks.

I find it curious that an authoritarian measure would have such zealous support when other goals with greater public support are "out of reach".
Y'all are shifty.

[BzaDem]

154. Actually, you have no constitutional right to own a high capacity magazine. None.

Nice try though.

[TheKentuckian]

178. How is that? Does the Constitution GIVE the government authority to prohibit them?

Also, what part of shall not be infringed don't you don't get?

[guitar man]

146. I just wonder

What is her parent's opinion on naming such a law after her? They are the first ones I'd ask....

[beevul]

150. Her father said he didn't want to see her death used to limit rights. N/T

[BzaDem]

155. Except there is no Constitutional right to own such a magazine.

[beevul]

157. Gun magazines don't constitute arms?

"Except there is no Constitutional right to own such a magazine."

Gun magazines don't constitute arms?

Well, that sure is a surprise.

I guess all magazines could be banned then. :eyes:


I guess I'd like to see you prove your assertion.




On edit: I'd say that until the gun control fanatics can bamboozle a majority of americans into buying that "ford pinto" of a law that a restriction on them would be, like the crooked smiled used car salesmen they are, that yes there is a constitutional right to own them.

[BzaDem]

162. Actually, according to the dictionary, they do not.

Now, that doesn't mean all magazines or bullets can be banned. Standard Constitutional interpretation does not allow one to nullify a right. (For example, Congress cannot stop all funding to courts that enforce the 4th amendment.)

However, high capacity magazines are not necessary to utilize your right to bear arms, as articulated by the Supreme Court in DC vs. Heller. Nor are fully automatic machine guns, etc. My guess is that the Supreme Court would uphold a law banning high capacity magazines 9-0 (which could be passed by Congress, a state, a locality, etc).

[beevul]

164. How exactly would one define "high capacity?

"However, high capacity magazines are not necessary to utilize your right to bear arms, as articulated by the Supreme Court in DC vs. Heller. Nor are fully automatic machine guns, etc. My guess is that the Supreme Court would uphold a law banning high capacity magazines 9-0 (which could be passed by Congress, a state, a locality, etc)."

Even fully automatic weapons and bombs and missiles and grenades are not banned. People own them. Legally. It could be argued, by the logic you use, that a single shot muzzle loader allows one to "bear arms" though they aren't considered firearms in the eyes of the law on a federal with the exception of in-line black powder rifles. Or even single shot cartridge based firearms. Add to that fact that depending how one defines it, say mags that hold over ten rounds, they're most certainly in common use at this time - even 15 round mags are in common use at this time. If we define it as over ten rounds, the great majority of magazines in existence would fit that definition.

And, its not simply handgun mags they'll go after, its rifle mags as well. In spite of rifles being used in les than 3% of ALL homicides.


The problem, with calling a ban on them constitutional, is that its entirely arbitrary where that line is drawn. I think someone would have to do better than that to make it stick, constitutionally. Remember this IS a civil right, and strict scrutiny would apply. The burden falls on government under strict scrutiny, to show a compelling governmental interest, and to show that the means in question are the least restrictive means possible.


Look, I have no interest in owning a 33 round mag. None what so ever. Thats my view on owning them for myself. I don't begrudge others that wish to own them though, because they do serve a purpose to target shooters, regardless of whether others can see it or not.

My opposition to a ban on them, is that it gives the usual suspects something to to amend and make tighter and tighter, and they have demonstrated a propensity and a desire to do just that, many a time. They've demonstrated to my satisfaction, that there will never be enough gun control to satisfy their appetites. Some are driven by an ideology that possession of guns by other than police and military is inherently wrong.

I can not and will not support that.

[BzaDem]

165. Actually, the Supreme Court specifically went out of its way to not declare strict scrutiny to be

the single standard. The standard for various limitations will be judged as the cases bubble up to the Supreme Court. What will likely be the case is that certain types of laws will be subject to strict scrutiny, other types of laws to intermediate scrutiny, and some laws to even less scrutiny (similar to the first amendment context, equal protection, etc). Courts draw such seemingly arbitrary lines all the time. In fact, according to U.S. vs. Miller (as analyzed and interpreted by the much more recent DC vs. Heller), certain types of weapons (such as sawed-off shotguns) are not subject to 2nd-amendment protection at all.

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

(DC. vs. Heller, written by Justice Scalia)

[beevul]

168. No, thats not actually what miller said.

"In fact, according to U.S. vs. Miller (as analyzed and interpreted by the much more recent DC vs. Heller), certain types of weapons (such as sawed-off shotguns) are not subject to 2nd-amendment protection at all."


First, what your referring to is dicta, and not legally binding.

Second, the original miller case, the following was the holding:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Do you understand what that says?

"we can not say that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". Thats quite a different thing than saying "The second amendment does not guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

The "In the absence of any evidence" comes from the fact that evidence showing "that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" because miller wasn't there to show any. He was dead. All it would have taken, is for him or his attourney to show up, and cite the example of trench guns in WW1, and that would have ended the nfa right there.

Under heller, the court found:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.<43><44>

"The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The court erred however, in this:

"But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

At the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, when the body of all citizens capable of military service were bringing the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home, people owned identical weapons to that of the military, and they were in common use at the time. Heller ignores that.

Regardless, its simply dicta. Not binding.

Theres also an argument to be made of taxing a civil right. The NFA doesn't ban machine guns, it taxes them. That brings an entirely different challenge before the court should it ever happen.

Its all rather dishonest, imo, though. Rather than talking about "second amendment rights", they should be discussing the second amendment restriction on government.

Talking about it in a rights context ignores what the second amendment is.

[BzaDem]

169. If you want to talk legally binding, US vs. Miller is actually legally binding.

Until it is expressly overruled, courts are bound to follow it. So while the Heller characterization of Miller may be dicta, the Miller decision itself is not. In any event, lower courts often interpret later characterizations of earlier decisions as binding precedent, whether or not it is formally dicta. The dicta/holding distinction is much less important when one knows the Supreme Court is going to decide the question (as I think they will), since the Supreme Court can overrule or interpret its precedents in (more or less) any way it wishes. To the extent you disagree with my interpretation of Miller, you are really disagreeing with the Supreme Court's interpretation, since I quoted them.

It is obviously legal to own such guns today. The state of the law as it pertains to machine guns/high capacity magazines will be determined once the first law banning them is challenged. Lower courts will make up their own minds, and the Supreme Court will ultimately decide. I'm just giving my prediction -- that the Supreme Court will uphold such specific restrictions, probably unanimously, and likely with the rationale that the second amendment doesn't even reach them in the first place.

As for your rights vs. restriction on government distinction, I don't really see the difference. A right is a restriction on government. If you want to substitute "right" for "restriction on government," nothing would change. The point is that the 2nd amendment actually doesn't restrict the government at all from enacting a variety of regulations on this topic, but does restrict the government from enacting many as well. The line will be drawn by the court, using various standards of scrutiny depending on the type of restriction (just like they do for first amendment and fourteenth amendment cases).

[beevul]

172. In part, it is.

"To the extent you disagree with my interpretation of Miller, you are really disagreeing with the Supreme Court's interpretation, since I quoted them."

You quoted them, but once again, I'm not sure you understand what they really said. (A)

Now, if I had said instead of that, "Absent X, I can not say you understand what they really said" (B), I would be saying something completely different. Had I said that, it would have indicated that you may or may not have have understood what what they really said, but I can not say that, absent X.

Compare the two. Two completely different things. Not a matter of interpretation.

The Miller court, said parallel to (B):

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.


You said, I think, that they said parallel to (A).

I agree with the parallel (B).

"The state of the law as it pertains to machine guns/high capacity magazines will be determined once the first law banning them is challenged."

With the mags, you may well be right. I think, as we sit here and converse, that in the works, is a challenge being crafted, to challenge the nfa as a tax on a protected right. On its face, the nfa was clearly and obviously created as a tax designed to restrict. 200 dollars was a fortune in 1934. Generally speaking thats a no-no where constitutionally protected rights are concerned. Generally speaking.

This is what the court said about machine guns:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

The argument could be made with the intent of attacking such restrictions, that at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification lawful weapons which were brought from home were military grade. They in fact were. And that at the time, that people owned cannons and artillery - which they did.

If such an argument were persuasive, I could see the nfa found unconstitutional, and replaced with some other sort of regulatory scheme. But thats a big if.

"As for your rights vs. restriction on government distinction, I don't really see the difference. A right is a restriction on government. If you want to substitute "right" for "restriction on government," nothing would change. The point is that the 2nd amendment actually doesn't restrict the government at all from enacting a variety of regulations on this topic, but does restrict the government from enacting many as well. The line will be drawn by the court, using various standards of scrutiny depending on the type of restriction (just like they do for first amendment and fourteenth amendment cases)."

Within the court, in a somewhat direct sense, you would be right. I think the difference resides outside the court. I think if people viewed constitutionally protected rights as byproducts of restrictions on government, they'd hold the governments feet to the fire a little closer. People have to follow rules in life, and there isn't much sympathy for someone that breaks a speed limit, or parks in a no parking zone. I think viewing protected rights as restrictions on the government would lead to people holding government much closer to that standard, where rules it has to follow are concerned. I don't think it should be absolutely to that standard, but I also don't think being held a lot closer than they are would be bad either. FWIW, I have no desire to own a machinegun or other nfa item.


I hope I didn't come off as gruff, sometimes what one might say verbally does not translate well or accurately into text. I've rather enjoyed this exchange in fact. People don't often talk this in depth about court cases here, at least that I have been able to find, and I find the particulars and the language of the courts - and the discussion of them -fascinating.

[BzaDem]

173. I'm not quoting the Miller court -- I'm quoting the Heller court's interpretation of Miller.

The Heller court said:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

That's what Scalia said in 2008, not what I said. You interpret Miller differently -- all I'm saying is your interpretation seems to differ with Scalia's interpretation that Miller does stand for the proposition that the Second Amendment right "extends only to certain types of weapons" -- period. (No "absent" anything.)

Now you are correct this was dicta. Therefore, a lower court can get around it if it wanted to, by saying it is not bound by it. Or, the lower court could agree with it, and cite it as justification. Either way, it wouldn't matter, since this issue is of such an import that the Supreme Court would likely ultimately decide it. And once it gets to the Supreme Court, they are free to fashion their previous dicta into a new holding, or reject it. I'm just using that dicta to make a prediction. I could very well be totally wrong in my prediction.

I also have enjoyed this exchange and wish there were more discussions about court opinions on DU. Another site for where there is lots of discussion of many Supreme Court opinions and their nuances is volokh.com (though that has a very libertarian-oriented user base and bloggers, especially on economic issues).

[beevul]

193. Its a shame...

"I'm just using that dicta to make a prediction. I could very well be totally wrong in my prediction."

I totally understand. I could as well.

"I also have enjoyed this exchange and wish there were more discussions about court opinions on DU. Another site for where there is lots of discussion of many Supreme Court opinions and their nuances is volokh.com (though that has a very libertarian-oriented user base and bloggers, especially on economic issues"


Its a shame it takes an issue to prompt discussion, isn't it? I mean...we learn about history mathematics and science when we go to school in our youth...and court cases are always happening and shaping our lives and the immediate and not so immediate world around us, and yet generally it takes elective schooling for the most part to learn much about our own legal systems real workings, and how it effects us.

Something to ponder.

Yeah volokh tends to be as you say, libertarian leaning, though some of the analysis on non economic issues is fairly logical and reasoned.


Anyhoo, thanks for the Exchange, Like I say, I really enjoyed it. :toast:

[X_Digger]

176. Rational basis was taken off the table in Heller, and McDonald's 'fundamental right' language..

.. does tend to point to strict scrutiny.

[BzaDem]

177. The 'fundamental right' language in McDonald refers to whether it is a 'fundamental right' for

incorporation purposes under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. It does not have any bearing on WHAT that right entails in the first place (machine guns? high capacity magazines?), or the different standards of scrutiny for various restrictions.

The right to free speech is a fundamental right (and fully incorporated). Yet some restrictions on speech get strict scrutiny, others get intermediate scrutiny, and some (like libel/slander) aren't even considered implicated by the first amendment at all, even though they are clearly speech.

Similarly, racial discrimination laws are usually looked at with strict scrutiny, gender discrimination laws are usually looked at with intermediate scrutiny, and discrimination based on other classes is usually looked at with rational basis.

As far as Heller goes, they specifically went out of their way to identify a number of longstanding restrictions that remained valid, almost none of which could survive strict scrutiny. They also had dicta that stated

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

indicating that they pretty clearly believe that restrictions on certain classes of weapons aren't even implicated by the second amendment in the first place.

[X_Digger]

179. If there were separate clauses of the second amendment, outlining different rights, yes..

I think you're making distinctions that are not analogous.

There are not separate 'establishment of religion' cases where in one case they apply strict scrutiny, and in another, intermediate.

[BzaDem]

180. The free speech clause is a single clause. Not multiple clauses. Yet they make distinctions in the

standard of scrutiny all the time. For example, certain types of content-neutral speech restrictions are only evaluated with intermediate scrutiny (even though they are by definition restrictions on speech and would clearly violate an absolutist reading of the amendment).

Likewise, in the equal protection context, there is one equal protection clause, yet multiple standards of scrutiny depending on the class distinction involved.

In fact, I'm not sure what "separate clauses" has to do with this. None of the examples I outlined has any more than one clause, yet they all use different standard of scrutiny for different regulations.

[PavePusher]

217. Actually, those restrictions still stand...

because they were not being challenged in the case before the Court. Therefore the court has no authority to examine their standing.

Watch you calander for future cases...

[BzaDem]

226. Courts often decide issues well beyond the narrow scope of the case (whether or not they should).

As for these particular restrictions they OK'ed, that language in the opinion has been used by numerous lower courts all across the country to uphold the very restrictions mentioned in the opinion. If one looks at opinions through a lens of absolute separation between holding and dicta, they will be surprised at how much their lens misses (as to the development of future case law).

[guitar man]

181. Well there you go then

I think it would be damn disrespectful to use her name against her father's wishes.

[Kaleva]

151. There never was an ban on the sale and ownership of high capacity magazines.

There only was a ban on the importation and domestic production of new such magazines for sale to civilians after the AWB went into effect. Since so many high capacity magazines had been produced prior to the enactment of the AWB, there never was a shortage of same and they remained easily available during the entire time the AWB was in effect.

Below is a pic of a gun that would have been legal to purchase and own during the life of the AWB as long as it was manufactured before the law went into effect. Note the high capacity magazine:

[Imajika]

182. Well, first off, it sounds like Christina's father would oppose such a thing...

...he has been pretty clear that he believes this was just a random act of violence committed by a crazy person. In interview after interview he has made it pretty clear he opposes gun control, any new government laws restricting freedom, travel restrictions, etc.

Christina Green's father appears to be firmly against new gun control measures, which would make using his daughters name for gun control legislation sort of disgusting and a PR nightmare.

The idea of calling it Christina's Law is just bad.

Also, no new federal gun control laws have any chance to pass anyway. Certainly not in a congress with a GOP controlled House of Representatives, but probably not even in last years overwhelmingly Democratic congress. The Democratic party has mostly divorced itself from the gun control agenda, and Loughner's killing spree is not going to change that.

[X_Digger]

183. Not to mention 72% of folks don't think stronger gun laws would have helped..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics

[brooklynite]

184. How much time should we spend on symbolic failures?

In the same way that the Democrats will never let HCR repeal pass the Senate, Republicans will never let Gun Control pass the House?

[X_Digger]

185. Symbolic failure or pyrrhic victory at best

"Yay, we got this law passed! Now why is this new repugnican in my office talking about changing the curtains and carpet color?"

[ProgressiveEconomist]

195. Are you a 'firepower addict'? Multiple weapon ownership seems to be the core of the gun industry's

Multiple weapon ownership seems to be the core of the gun industry's business plan, given the long-term decline of household gun ownership. "90 guns per 100 people" could have no other explanation, since state-level household gun ownership is as low as 12 percent (in NJ). And overall national household gun ownership apparently peaked at 54 percent in 1977 and has fallen almost 20 percentage points since then.

The snippets below (from a Violence Policy Center report) show how the gun industry addicts firearms fanatics to escalating firepower, spurring them to overspend to keep up with the latest and most lethal handgun models.

Incidents such as Jared Loghner's Glock 9 spree last week simply spike sales of the handgun model the latest mass murderer employed. Gun manufacturers' and sellers' profits spike sympathetically. To the gun industry, IMO, the Tucson massacre was free advertising.

And, if you are a 'firepower addict', you must oppose ANY restriction on weapons, even something as mild as 'Christina's Law', or eventually face 'withdrawal symptoms', as your firearm habit no longer would be satisfied by the latest models in an effectively regulated weapons market.

From http://www.vpc.org/studies/bigboomers.pdf :

"BIG BOOMERS: Rifle Power Designed into Handguns
December 2008, Violence Policy Center

... The American firearms industry has been sagging for decades. Although the industry enjoys brief periods of resurgence, the long-term trend for civilian gun manufacturers continues to be one of steady decline. In order to expand its customer base, the gun industry has tried to lure women and children into the 'shooting sports'.... it has mounted a national campaign to get more children interested in hunting, for the most part by watering down hunter safety laws and regulations so that younger children can hunt.

However, the principal means gun manufacturers use to rejuvenate their stagnant markets is design and marketing innovation aimed at introducing greater lethality into the civilian market. Within the last several years, the industry has introduced 'big boomers'--handguns that fire ammunition that can penetrate the body armor that has saved the lives of thousands of law enforcement officers over the last three decades. This big boomer market trend is now established as a profit-maker that is 'good for business'. These new guns generate the incentive for the consumer to be the first among his buddies to own the 'biggest and the baddest' handgun on the market, which computes into sales.... 'The consumer who buys the big boomers will continue to purchase the new big calibers as long as manufacturers keep building them. This is good for business!' --Jim Reed, owner of Reed's Sporting Goods, San Jose, California. ...

The U.S. firearms industry has enjoyed a few peak years but is stagnant overall. Despite a few boom years, production in 2006 was about the same as it was in 1984. ... handgun production has driven overall American firearms production over the last 20 years. The gun industry's cumulative loss of market ground is reflected in a 2006 study, 'Public Attitudes Towards the Regulation of Firearms', released by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago analyzing the prevalence of household firearms. The NORC survey data shows that during the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006. ...

Given these implacable realities, the firearms industry's persistent challenge over the last several decades has been figuring out how to deal with the chronic problem of moribund markets in which 'more and more guns being purchased by fewer and fewer consumers'.(14) ... For the gun industry, innovation has translated into introducing increasingly deadly firearms into the civilian market. The gun industry uses firepower, or lethality, the way the tobacco industry uses nicotine. Firearm lethality is a means to 'hook' gun buyers into coming back into the market again and again as more deadly innovations are rolled out. ... The title of an article in 'Shooting Industry'--the gun industry's premier trade publication--aptly sums up the continuing trend and the industry's view of the profitability of its vest busters: 'Big Boomers: Profit From The Muscle Cars Of Handguns'.(26)"

[beevul]

197. The VPC? Please...

The vpc is a gun ban organization.

They are, on thier side of the issue, far more extreme than the nra, goa, or various state groups on the other side. I'm not going to argue with anyone that says different, it is what it is, and anyone that has been around the issue knows it, even they themselves know it.


Besides, even if someone could make the case that theyre less extreme than I said - good luck with that - nobody in thier right mind would argue that they're unbiased or reliable.



"The snippets below (from a Violence Policy Center report) show how the gun industry addicts firearms fanatics to escalating firepower, spurring them to overspend to keep up with the latest and most lethal handgun models."


On a personal note: I'm going through some really really bad DTs because I haven't bought a gun in almost ten years. :rofl:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

201. 'haven't bought a gun in almost 10 yrs.' Thnx 4 sharing, but why that PARTICULAR personal detail?

'haven't bought a gun in almost 10 yrs.' Thnx 4 sharing, but why that PARTICULAR personal detail?

[beevul]

206. Because of the implication of "gun addiction" by the vpc...

Because of the implication of "gun addiction" by the vpc, and by extension you.


And because of the oft repeated implication that people that disagree with what you call "reasonable" regulation are gun nuts.


I think its important for readers to see that even people like me disagree with suggestions like that of the OP.

[Junkdrawer]

198. +1000

Great Post

[ProgressiveEconomist]

199. Thanks for your support. That post just sat there for 20 minutes with no repoly.

I was just about to post, "Kick!--your firepower habit"

[PavePusher]

221. So, you endorse a "report"...

designed to meet a specific conclusion, purely on speculations and what-ifs, that advocates a ban on a subset of firearms that are essentially unused in crime, and a ban on essentially all ammunition.

I think I see where you're going with this.

And we won't let you.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

234. "purely ... speculation and what-ifs' NO--the report is based on trends in CDC dta

and on direct quotes from the premier gun-industry trade publication.

Declining household-level gun ownership in the face of flat sales means more guns are being sold to fewer and fewer individuals, and gun marketing emphasizes dramatic leaps in firepower with every new model handgun.

Unless the firearms industry continues to be protected from effective regulation, the poor saps who are "hooked" on buying higher and higher firepower must realize that, sooner or later, they'ff face "The Panic in Needle Park".

[X_Digger]

235. psst.. look up the gallup gun ownership figures.. it's dropped 10%-- since 1960

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

I'm doing my part, I've introduced three friends to handguns in the past 18 months or so, and all three of them now own their own, two of which are first time handgun owners, and one of which is a first time firearm owner.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

237. CDC samples are hundreds of times the size of Gallup samples, and much better-designed

I'll take CDC figures over Gallup's anytime.

See http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/index.htm

[X_Digger]

241. Would your average gun owner tell the guv'mint that they own guns?

I mean, if you're going to call them paranoid, shouldn't you assume they're, well.. paranoid?

[beevul]

236. I would sooner...

"Declining household-level gun ownership in the face of flat sales means more guns are being sold to fewer and fewer individuals, and gun marketing emphasizes dramatic leaps in firepower with every new model handgun."


LOL. Gun sales stayed static at around 4 million a year, and last year 14 million sold. Flat sales indeed.

"Dramatic leaps in firepower"? The VPC ought to be selling new and more likely used cars.

No new calibers have been introduced that are in any way able to be characterized as a "dramatic leap in firepower".

Handguns are still generally semi-automatic, and the rate of fire hasn't changed.

Those are the two things which most define "firepower" in the real world, where things matter.

While gun marketing may or may not emphasize "dramatic leaps in firepower with every new model handgun", no dramatic leaps have been made.

They didn't say otherwise, in the paragraph I quoted, but they do here:

"the poor saps who are "hooked" on buying higher and higher firepower"

Even poor saps can not be "hooked" on something which never came into existance - which is the "higher and higher firepower" which at this point the VPC is stuck owning the claim of.

I would sooner ask jeffrey dahmer about serving humanity than I would the vpc about guns.

And I'd get a more honest answer from dahmer, were he still alive.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

244. 'No new calibers have been introduced ...' Did you READ the snippets I posted

from the VPC report, let alone browse the full link?

The report mentions the trend to semi-automatics that fueled repeat sales in the 90s, and recent trends toward two new calibers of rifle ammo fired by new handguns that can pierce first responders' body armor. It quotes a San Jose gun dealer--from the pages of gun trade publication 'Shooting industry'--on the "muscle car" appeal of "big boomers". Those new calibers are the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum and the very high-velocity 5.7mm round for the FN Herstal Five-Seven.

Haven't you bought yours yet? Did you miss that issue of 'Shooting Industry'?

[friendly_iconoclast]

246. Your much-touted report calls handgun ammunition "rifle ammo".

You seem to have a problem finding primary sources, for some reason.

[friendly_iconoclast]

248. They're horseshit. The 5.7 round for civilians is *not* armor piercing, per the Feds:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2005/01/012005-openletter-tech-fabrique-nationale-pistol.html

FTB has also examined a 5.7 X 28 mm projectile that FR Herstal has designated the “SS196.” The SS196 is loaded with a Hornady 40 grain, jacketed lead bullet. FTB classified SS196 ammunition as not armor piercing ammunition under Federal firearms statutes.

According to FNH USA, FR Herstal tested the SS192 ammunition. SS192 ammunition did not penetrate the Level IIIA vests that were tested. FNH USA states that SS196, Hornady V-Max 40 gr. bullets fired from a 4-3/4 inch barrel did not penetrate the Level II vests that were used in testing.

FNH USA has informed FTB that SS192 is no longer imported for commercial sale to the United States and that commercial sales of 5.7 X 28mm ammunition are restricted to the SS196 (not armor piercing).

And the only victim they could even come up with for the S&W was a ceiling. Not a person. No cops. No cops

or first responders wearing body armor. NONE.

And yet, these are the 'big boomer' calibers that are such a deadly threat, according to the "experts" at the VPC.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

250. So you're admitting that some models of both caliber ammo DO penetrate SOME

body armor worn by first responders? But you'r arguing that no first responders have been hurt--yet--so false alarm?

Very scientific--NOT.

[Straw Man]

252. Read his data again.

It refers only to the 5.7 and yes, some do penetrate some body armor. They're already restricted. Unless SWAT cops are using them to shoot each other and you want them banned for law-enforcement use as well, then yes, false alarm.

[Straw Man]

253. New calibers.

S&W 500 Magnum ammunition was introduced in 2003. The 5.7x28 first appeared in 1990. And yet the sky has not fallen.

Nope, the VPC wants to whittle away private ownership of firearms, one caliber at a time. Look me in the virtual eye and deny it, and then we can talk about "reasonable" restrictions.

[beevul]

259. Not only did I read them, I refuted them.

Not only did I read them, I refuted them. Just like I and many others did the last time someone dragged this dishonesty from under the rock under which it belongs.

Did you read what I posted?

"The report mentions the trend to semi-automatics that fueled repeat sales in the 90s, and recent trends toward two new calibers of rifle ammo fired by new handguns that can pierce first responders' body armor."

Ther trend to semi-automatic weapons...happened long before the 90's. Theres one point in which your cherished VPC is wrong.

I also said "No new calibers have been introduced that are in any way (accurately or honestly)able to be characterized as a "dramatic leap in firepower"..

Heres the problem, with groups like the VPC and people that swallow and regurgitate thier BS wholesale, like you:

Oh sure, they can make the claims they do, and you can regurgitate them as you do, but that doesn't make them true or factual. Neither they nor you have the knowledge, or even a half assed grasp, of the subject matter on which you and they pontificate. And it leads them and you, into saying foolish and provably false things, much like like mccarthy and the "shoulder thing that goes up". Your "fn 5.7 and S&W .500" examples, for example. You and the VPC aren't aware that ballistically similar calibers are and have been available for some time.

In fact, you may not even know (or care) what ballistically similar even means.

What it means, is that theres simply no truth to "dramatic leap in firepower". Theres another point in which your cherished VPC is wrong.

"Haven't you bought yours yet?"

As I said before, I haven't bought a gun in what approaches ten years.


As far as piercing body armor...

Handgun rounds which by design pierce body armor are FEDERALLY illegal. So th vpc, and you by extension, are misrepresenting the truth in that claim.

Its a solution in search of a problem.

Don't let that stop you from regurgitating VPC codswallop though.

Every chance to address one of thier "sky is falling ban them now" reports, is a chance to discredit them, and the people that reproduce their dishonesty, such as yourself.

[benEzra]

275. Ummm, a .22 caliber pistol is a "big boomer"? We have a conflation of memes here.

You are conflating two opposite VPC talking points. 5.7x28mm is at the exact opposite end of the power spectrum from the .500 S&W; 5.7 is a fricking .22. Think of it as a small-capacity 9mm case necked down to .22 caliber and run at somewhat higher pressure. It's a comparative peashooter, not a "big boomer."

[Straw Man]

242. Howling.

That article is hysterical in every sense of the word. Vest busters? The S&W 500 and similar handguns are designed for hunting and for self-protection in wilderness areas that are frequented by grizzly bears. Try a little Google experiment.

http://www.google.com/search?q=handgun+bear

Stop the presses: the fact that the gun is designed for hunting "does not preclude bad use by criminals." Apparently Smith & Wesson hopes to boost sales by enabling the murder of police officers. Who knew?

The picture of the man "concealing" a large-caliber handgun is another howler. "Look--he's got a gigantic holster on his hip with a handle sticking out of it. Do you think he might have a handgun?" He'd need a trenchcoat to hide that thing.

And two examples of criminal use. Two.

The VPC are ham-handed progagandists and extremist prohibitionists. Their goal is the complete elimination of private ownership of handguns. Anyone who cites the VPC and then asks gun owners to accept "reasonable" restrictions is either in extremely bad faith or absolutely clueless.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

245. Rifles are for bear hunters. Armor-piercing handguns are for Smokey-Bear-hunting criminals--

and for firepower addicts who generally don't harm a soul themselves but create demand for large stocks of horrific weapons that criminals and madmen can acquire and put to use.

[friendly_iconoclast]

247. So give us some examples of cops killed or wounded with a S&W 500.

It's been on the market for close to seven years now. If it's the criminal magnet you and the VPC say it is, there should be plenty

of them for you to cite.

[Straw Man]

251. Rifles are for bear hunters...

...and large-caliber handguns are for backpackers and fishermen who might encounter a bear. And also for some bear hunters. Did you look at the Google link? Or are we just posturing now?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

258. Why not just search for "bear"? You can get Google hits from any pair of unrelated

words, but they're likely to uncover scams of one sort or another.

[Straw Man]

261. Scams?

From the top 12 results, 11 of them are about using large-caliber handguns for bear hunting or self-defense against bears, and the one that isn't uses the word bear as a verb. Your claim was that "rifles are for bear hunters. Armor-piercing handguns are for Smokey-Bear-hunting criminals..." Apparently many people, sampled at random, disagree with your characterization of the use of large-caliber handguns. Are you implying that they are in conspiracy to hide the true criminal purpose of these handguns?

Why omit "handgun" from the search terms? Handguns are what we are discussing. The question is whether there is a correlation between handguns and bear hunting. Apparently there is. Again, did you look at the results? Do you still deny that large-caliber handguns have a legitimate use as a weapon against large predators, either in defense or in sport hunting?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

265. Scams.

[Straw Man]

268. Would you care to elaborate...

...on the nature of said scams?

[beevul]

260. Yet another example...

I said in a previous post that:

Neither they nor you have the knowledge, or even a half assed grasp, of the subject matter on which you and they pontificate. And it leads them and you, into saying foolish and provably false things, much like like mccarthy and the "shoulder thing that goes up".


And you litter this subthread with examples. Thanks.

"Rifles are for bear hunters."

I would say its up to hunters to decide what they wish to hunt with, not you or the vpc.


"Armor-piercing handguns"

Bwahahahahaha.

Piercing body armor is a function of the ammunition, not the gun. If you or the vpc could be bothered to know anything about the subject matter, you'd know this , rather than confirming ignorance, confirming that your beating the prohibition drum based on ignorance, to everyone with so much as a shred of honesty that DOES have the knowledge of the subject matter.


In case you hadn't noticed, WE (the pro-gun) are winning the gun issue and YOU (the anti-gun) are losing it, and what I wrote above is a big reason, if not the primary reason, why.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

267. 'Piercing body armor is a function of the ammo, not the gun'. But the gun must

be of the appropriate caliber to fire the armor-piercing ammo. Can you fire .500 Smith & Wesson ammo out of a 38 handgun?

IMO new ammo is the cynical gun industry's lure to get firepower addicts to buy new handguns for hundreds or thousands of dollars.

[beevul]

269. Example after example you provide...

Example after example you provide the pro gun side with further "ammunition".

"IMO new ammo is the cynical gun industry's lure to get firepower addicts to buy new handguns for hundreds or thousands of dollars."

Your're certainly entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

And when your opinion runs contrary to the facts, its going to be shown to be exactly that.

Every time.


"Piercing body armor is a function of the ammo, not the gun'.

Thats what I said. When it comes to handguns, thats the absolute truth.

Do you know what makes ammunition capable of penetrating body armor?

Do you know what actually causes one round to penetrate body armor, and one not?


When we talk about what "penetrates body armor" were talking about body armor designed to stop handgun rounds. That particular body armor is designed to stop handgun rounds only. Rifle rounds will penetrate it like its not there. ALL centerfire rifle rounds will. Regardless from what rifle they're fired from. And some rimfire rounds as well. Theres a common rimfire rifle, that will in some cases, penetrate body armor. Its .17 caliber. Any idea why it can in some cases penetrate body armor, while civilian legal 9 MM handgun ammunition won't in spite of being driven by a larger powder explosion?

Velocity. Penetration is for the most part an act of velocity.

Handguns generally do not, due to barrel length and due to not being designed to contain the exploding force that produces rifle type velocities, expel a round at the velocities required to penetrate that style body armor.

The exception, is "Solid core ammunition", which for handguns, is the definition of "armor piercing" - and is federally illegal to possess.

So your argument that .500 Smith & Wesson ammo is armor piercing, is a false one.


How many times must we disprove the VPC sites you link to before you'll see that theyre untruths, half truths, and misrepresentations of the truth at best?



I eagerly await you making the case now, to ban all centerfire rifles, because they're "armor piercing". :eyes:

[benEzra]

276. You can shoot .38 armor piercing ammunition out of a .38 handgun.

You can shoot 9mm armor piercing ammunition out of a 9mm handgun. You can shoot 5.7x28mm armor piercing ammunition out of a 5.7x28mm handgun. You can shoot .357 armor piercing ammunition out of a .357 handgun. Yes, there is a pattern here.

Armor-piercing ammunition is manufactured for pretty much any handgun caliber that has ever been used by police or military, but that ammunition is restricted to police/military only. Here is police/military-only armor-piercing THV ammunition in a variety of calibers:


http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/THV.htm

Armor piercing ammunition generally uses a hard, pointed bullet (often made of steel or hardened bronze, but sometimes copper) to penetrate armor. Bullets constructed to meet AP criteria were banned in all handgun calibers by Federal law in 1986, and that law was extended to the rifle calibers that matter in 1994. It is still manufactured, but it is restricted to police/military only.

To reiterate, The irony of the VPC's hysteria is that the .500 S&W is one of the calibers that ammunition using armor-piercing bullets is not available for, because police and the military don't use the caliber.

[Paka]

200. No one, sane or otherwise, needs a 31 bullet magazine...

I've heard the argument, "It saves a lot of time when I go to target practice." My response to that...if you are so feeble that reloading your gun tires you out, you need to be exercising at the gym instead of at the target range.

[beevul]

238. Spoken like someone that knows nothing about that which he speaks.

And someone more than ready to decide the needs of others.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Paka]

272. Au Contraire, mon ami...

I still object to seat belt laws for adults and over reaching personal restrictions in general. I just personally think that guns are too obsessed over in the US, and that’s from one who has a brother who hunts. By the way, he too agrees that 30+ bullets in a magazine amount to overkill (pun intended). Even good things in excess can be bad! In the same sense that one bomb can destroy planet earth, why does the US need its huge nuclear armament reserve.

[beevul]

274. You said...

You said this:

"I've heard the argument, "It saves a lot of time when I go to target practice." My response to that...if you are so feeble that reloading your gun tires you out, you need to be exercising at the gym instead of at the target range."

You turned someone elses comment about them saving time, into them being tired. Then argumed against the argument of them being tired.

Thats a strawman argument.



By the very argument you make, its clear that you don't know a thing about reloading magazines. How do I know that?

Because its not a matter of being tired out.

Its a matter of what it takes to repeatedly load bullets into a magazine. A person shooting say 500 rounds or a thousand , on a practice trip to the range, spends far more time reloading mags than actually shooting. Plus theres the picking up of ones own brass, which is time consuming, for those that are responsible and do it - as well as those that reload. I know its terrible in the view of many people to actually want to spend more time shooting between reloads.

Shooting with bad intent is already illegal. Making the magazine illegal, will stop a shooter with bad intent from using them how? If someone is willing to break the law where murder is concerned, who on earth could possibly think that a law on mags would be any different?

If by some quirk of fate they're banned, were talking somewhere between half a billion and a billion mags in private hands.

The Monetary cost alone (forget political cost for now) of confiscating and destroying that many mags would be? At 1 dollar per? At 5 dollars per? Ten dollars per?



"and that’s from one who has a brother who hunts. By the way, he too agrees that 30+ bullets in a magazine amount to overkill"

Anyone is supposed to care what a fudd thinks why exactly? Thats slang for hunter btw. 1 in 5 gun owners hunt. Hunters are in the clear minority. When they start trying to go after "scoped sniper rifles", or shotguns with an open cylinder, your brother might change his tune.


"I just personally think that guns are too obsessed over in the US"

Well, if the usual suspects would leave gun owners the hell alone, it wouldn't be a problem, but there are some that simply can't do that. Scream "ban" or even imply it, and people rush to buy them. And get all kinds of defensive. And vote the bastards proposing the bans out of office. I've already called emailed and mailed my congress critters. I guarantee a few million others already have too.

"Even good things in excess can be bad! In the same sense that one bomb can destroy planet earth, why does the US need its huge nuclear armament reserve."

I'm envoking McFeebs law. If you have to result to making any kind of comparison in the gun issue discussion, to nukes, you lose the argument.

[cbc5g]

202. That doesn't stop high capacity clips

You can still easily rig one up. There are tutorials online for free on how to easily do it.


What it will do is take them out of the hands of good people while criminals will still have them.

[ProudDad]

203. My opinion is that this thread needs another KICK!!! (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

204. Disappointed the families aren't moving for gun control -- but it's Arizona!

[Statistical]

210. super majority of entire country believed more gun control wouldn't have prevented this tragedy.

Better mental health system might have though.

[defendandprotect]

225. The majority of the nation wants gun control, however, looks like we're going to

have to relearn this gun lesson the hard way --

especially re concealed weapons.

Like so many other right wing concepts, this will also end in more violence.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

207. Because it would be better described as "The Helen Lovejoy Gun Control Act"

[Iggo]

216. Who would dare vote against The Patriot Act?

Pffft.

[Statistical]

219. "non-patriots" of course.

If I were in Congress I would propose a truth in advertising bill which requires bills to be accurately named.

[PavePusher]

222. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Green's opinion on your idea...

before using it to dance in the blood of his daughter.

Your idea is outweighed by a statement paid for in a far dearer coin than your faux moral pronouncements.

[Iggo]

223. Yee-ouch!

:fistbump:

[beevul]

239. Thats gonna leave a mark.

Well said.

I wish I could rec your post.

Spot on. :toast:

[-..__...]

240. I'm more partial to calling it "Loughner's Law".

C'mon... admit it.

It rolls off the the tongue better and is more attention grabbing.

I mean... that's what you want... isn't it?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

263. 'I blame the individual for the 1st 10 bullets; I blame the LAW for the next 21'--

Lawrence O'Donnell was ON FIRE in his interview with Trent Franks (R-AZ) tonight on MSNBC. Franks would not answer O'Donnell's main question, "Do you wish that Jared Loghner had had a 10-round magazine in his handgun rather than the 31-rounder he in fact used?"

O'Donnell also reported that Rep Carolyn McCarthy's bill to curb HCMs, introduced today, had 42 co-sponsors--not one of them a Republican.

[Straw Man]

264. Blame

'I blame the individual for the 1st 10 bullets; I blame the LAW for the next 21'

I guess that's where we differ: I blame the individual for every single one.

[X_Digger]

266. +1!! n/t

[beevul]

270. I blame the individual for every single one, as well. N/T

[beevul]

271. If hi caps were illegal...

If hi caps were illegal, and hed ignored the law and used them anyay, would you blame the law?

Do you blame the law in spite of murder being illegal?

Now don't go being like the republican in the interview, just answer the question.


"Do you wish that Jared Loghner had had a 10-round magazine in his handgun rather than the 31-rounder he in fact used?"

We know that the magazine spring broke, causing a weapon jam.

We know that this is common in those mags.

We also know that such is uncommon in standard capacity mags.

Its no stretch that if he were using standard capacity mags, he would have swapped a new mag in, without the weapon jam, and kept shooting. We know he carried extra mags.

So thats not really a question one can know the answer to, now, is it?

"'I blame the individual for the 1st 10 bullets; I blame the LAW for the next 21'"

Interesting, however standard capacity mags for that gun hold 17 rounds. Not 10.

It seems reasonable to take from your posts, that you don't want just to outlaw hi-cap mags, you want to outlaw standard capacity mags as well.


You won't be content with anything less than outlawing all but reduced capacity mags.


Sorry, we're not having any of that.

[Richard Steele]

273. Moran.

[minavasht]

277. Yep, it will have great effect on the crime.

You do realize that magazines are meant to be detached from the gun? That is the whole point of having a magazine - to throw it away and stick a full one in the gun and keep shooting.
Now, another news flash - you can actually carry magazines in your pockets! You can have as many as you want! So, in a hypothetical world where criminals obey the laws and don't carry illegal 30 round magazines in their illegal guns, they just have to carry extra magazines!
Now, for some people it may sound complicated, but switching magazines is EASY.

This idea is right there with the idea of banning all cars that can drive faster than 70 miles - after all, who needs more than that?

It is for the children, you know.