Would banning just high capacity gun magazines be enough?

[Nasty Jack]

Let’s consider this scenario. If you limit the magazine size of a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle to 10 rounds (perhaps even 7 like the latest New York law requires) have you basically reduced the firearm to what many typical rifles are capable of shooting? In checking an Outdoor Life recommendation of the best 2012 hunting rifles, I found the Ruger American Rifle with a 5-round capacity including a magazine. I don’t know how typical or popular this rifle is with hunters but it seems to have received the recommendation of a major hunting magazine.

But assault rifles aren’t the biggest problem in gun violence, handguns are. According to the FBI, in 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, 323 by rifles. However, it was the sheer horror of the brutal killing of 20 children ages 6 and 7 by a shooter using his mother’s assault rifle with a 30-round magazine that has brought the gun control issue to the forefront. The question is, would that Bushmaster AR-15 revert to the same capability as the Ruger if reduced to a 10-round or less capacity?

President Obama has asked for the banning of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in his gun control legislation. Odds are that he would settle for the banning of the magazines.

[Bay Boy]

1. I don't think he'll get a magazine ban

but I do think there will be a private background check passed.

[Pullo]

65. I agree, mag ban ain't happening n/t

[Remmah2]

2. More people are killed with handguns and hammers than AR's.

Just about as many people are killed each year by drunk drivers.

So the answer is NO.

They need to address mental health, criminal detention/rehabilitation, poverty, and how witnesses are treated.

[Jenoch]

3. Be enough for what?

The 'ban' on high capacity magazines included in the 1994 AWB did not ban them, It just banned the sale of newly manufactured so-called high capacity magazines. (I have a handgun with a 15 round magazine. It is standard to the gun, not 'high capacity'.) These magazines were never particularly rare, however their price did rise considerably.

If a new ban on 'high capacity' magazines does not include provisions for confiscation and severe penalties for possession, it will be an inconsequential law. There are millions and millions of these magazines in circulation.

[kudzu22]

4. Enough to cost the Democrats the Senate in 2014?

Possibly.

[av8r1998]

7. At Least the Senate

[nonoyes]

10. How many large-capacity owners vote Dem anyway?

Do we have some statistics on that? Compared to, say, women who have kids in elementary schools, people who go to theaters, people who are police and fire/emergency workers, who are mostly opposed to ALL semi-auto's and high capacity weapons in the hands of civilians?

Do we KNOW we would lose the election of Congress-people if this provision passes, largely by Dem votes in Congress?

[kudzu22]

13. It's not just party-switchers

It's switching non-voters to R voters, and switching D voters to non-voters. Obviously nobody knows for sure, but Bill Clinton blamed the 1994 GOP landslide on the first AWB. Are you willing to risk losing Congress over such a pointless bill? I'm not.

[nonoyes]

21. I know what you are saying, but sadly we need DATA!

Bill Clinton could blame the 1994 Republican slide in Congress on anything. I was around and politically as informed THEN as I am now.
True: opinion polls didn't poll for the AWB issue, and TRUE: a FEW candidates brought this up in their campaigns. But notice one thing, please, except for the 9/11 War on Terror of 2002, each and every mid-term election has had a President lose seats in the House and Senate.

If people have their jobs, lifestyle, food, tax status, safety of their children, or health care threatened, they turn out to vote. The ones that turn out on the single issue of large capacity weapons: I doubt there's many of those, I really really do.

[frylock]

25. Gun Control Laws Weren't Primary Reason Dems Lost in 1994

Since President Barack Obama called on Congress to reinstate a new assault weapons ban Wednesday, pundits have been quick to point out how that type of legislation is a losing proposition for Democrats, pointing to the Republican tidal wave after the 1994 midterm election after the ban had become law.

While the '94 election proved Americans wanted Democrats out of congressional power (more than 50 Democratic seats were lost), it's less clear if the weapons ban, or any one issue, was the primary reason for their loss.

"This is a mythology that has developed," says Philip Klinkner, who edited a book about the '94 elections. "That narrative stretches things way too far."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/17/gun-control-laws-werent-primary-reason-dems-lost-in-1994

[Straw Man]

18. Really?

Compared to, say, women who have kids in elementary schools, people who go to theaters, people who are police and fire/emergency workers, who are mostly opposed to ALL semi-auto's and high capacity weapons in the hands of civilians?

In my experience, that is absolutely not true, especially in re the police/fire/emergency demographic.

[nonoyes]

22. What is "your experience", anecdotal or broad-based survey?

Police and Fire and emergency workers have been polled on this: here's the news: they are IN FAVOR of reasonable limits and background checks!!!

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

[Straw Man]

42. So "opposed to all semi-autos and high capacity weapons" ...

... has become "IN FAVOR of reasonable limits and background checks." Apparently the boundaries of the discussion are somewhat fuzzy here.

The study you cite has 51% of respondents against "a law that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles." 62% responded favorably to a 10-round magazine limit -- a majority, but less than 2/3.

It seems that you have overstated your case. The reality is closer to my anecdotal observations than it is to your claims.

[mwrguy]

5. It's a start

but as long as we have guns on the street we will have senseless killing.

We need them all gone, and we'll get there one little step at a time.

[nonoyes]

11. I am opposed to large-capacity, but not opposed to rights to own guns

I respect your opinion. If we had a perfect world, but we have millions of square miles of hunting areas, (as does Canada). We have a need for some people to carry weapons to protect themselves in their professions and in their living situation. They sure don't need high-cap weapons, a simple six-shooter will quell about any situation, and a 10-12 round rifle will enable the legitimate hunters and target-shooters to do their thing legally

Not one single Congress-person in America is where you are. Let's agree to START with limiting or eliminating high-cap weapons in the hands of civilians. There's no need to have them available outside of military and law enforcement.

[spin]

58. I will agree but will point out ...

that your plan will take at least 20 years to accomplish at the best. It may well prove to be a futile quest that resembles Don Quixote's attacks on windmills.

99.9% of gun owners are responsible people who also wish to see gun violence decrease in our nation. Most will correctly point out that we have plenty of gun laws in our nation that would be far more effective if they were properly enforced. Many support improvements to these laws and even new laws as long as they would have a reasonable chance of being effective.

When you approach the problem of gun violence in our nation by stating "We need them all gone, and we'll get there one little step at a time" you eliminate any support you can get from gun owners. While you may consider gun owners unimportant there are still 80,000,000 of them. They compose a significant voting block especially when you add the voting age members of their families who also often support gun ownership. While it might be possible to push for draconian gun control at state level with your approach, you will find it extremely difficult at the national level as many members of Congress come from "Red" states with a strong gun culture.

I will politely suggest that if only the gun control movement would ban the use of the word "ban" we might make far more progress on this important issue. Unfortunately the water in the well has been poisoned and gun owners have LONG memories. By overreaching, the gun control movement may have well shot themselves in the foot.

But I may be wrong. Time will tell.

[Eleanors38]

95. Your's is the prohibitionist incrementalism that the GOP successfully sells.

and makes any meaningful proposals virtually impossible to pass.

Prohibitionists are needful things.

[av8r1998]

6. What is "High Capacity"?????

And why?
The Glock 26 comes with 3 10 round mags out of the box.
The Glock 19 comes with 15 round mags out of the box
the Glock 17 comes with 17 round mags out of the box, and the Springfield XDM 9mm comes with 19 round mags... out of the box.
Most 1911's hold 8.

What is that magic threshold where you will "feel safer" and why???

And... what is an "Assault Weapon"?

Yes, I WILL continue to challenge these assertions until I get a factual, logical answer.

[nonoyes]

12. You won't get one! Let's just make it simpler for you.

What do YOU want to legally own and why? Let's get down to basic reality, not some semantic-based discussion.

Do you want to own anything and everything gun? Or do you have some more reasonable wishes?

[kudzu22]

15. The bottom line is, if I don't trust you with 30 rounds

I don't trust you with 10 rounds, or 5 or even 1. Magazine capacity is a pointless thing to focus on. Show me any person who has been killed by the 11th or higher round in a magazine who would be alive today if the killer only had 10 round magazines?

[nonoyes]

17. Are you forgetting Sandy Hook?

I don't think we know which round killed which kid.

If that shooter had only had a six-shooter, (which was what "made the West&quot , would we be having these discussions now?

[av8r1998]

19. Sandy Hook Scumbag

Did retention reloads.
His mag capacity was irrelevant.
So would the outcome have changed if he had a six gun?
Nope.
He had a bunch of unarmed victims cornered.

[nonoyes]

30. I see you did you understand nor answer the question.

Typical.

[av8r1998]

34. Nor did you

Typical

[nonoyes]

35. I read the facts of the even and I think. You failed to answer my question and to think about it.

Because you honestly don't care about kids shot with weapons, as long as you can own yours.

To you, it's all necessary collateral damage, for which nothing can be done. How creative a response you made.

I ask you a question, you fail to answer and blame me for asking it.

[av8r1998]

39. IIRC

I asked a question.
You told me I wouldn't get an answer.

[nonoyes]

46. I answered your question, saying it was a silly one.

It was foolishly academic, rhetorical, and hypothetical.

Have you ever shot and killed someone outside of a war?

Do you know under what circumstances you need anything more than a hunting rifle, or six-shooter, other than war?

That is why your question will get no answer, because it was rhetorical, and silly.

[av8r1998]

72. Why is my question silly?

And what exactly is a "Hunting Rifle" anyway?
And why do you think the 2nd amendment is about Hunting?

[oneshooter]

88. Yes, several times.

[Straw Man]

51. So ...

... anyone who doesn't agree with your proposals is therefore indifferent to the deaths of children?

Doesn't that strike as just the slightest bit narcissistic?

[Jarhead1775]

85. Bravo

Great response.

[Straw Man]

27. No.

No one's forgetting Sandy Hook. Against a roomful of helpless victims, there's no difference between two 30-round magazines and six 10-round magazines. Lanza had the time to make all the magazine changes he wanted. With a 10-minute police response time, he could have done it with a six-shooter and a pocketful of speed-loaders.

Everything that reduces offensive capability reduces defensive capability as well. Case in point: NY's new law. A law-abiding handgun owner cannot own a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 and cannot legally load more than 7 rounds in that magazine. An armed robber or murderer will abide by no such restriction. Advantage: criminal.

[nonoyes]

31. No one's forgetting Sandy Hook. Except your wishes...

For anyone to have any capacity weapon.

Next year the gun-manufacturers will introduce 200 round weapons. I'm sure you'll want us all to buy one.

[gejohnston]

38. you mean magizine

such magazines are usually made by companies that specialize in after market items. Given their high cost and weight and low reliability, I doubt there would be market for them. I doubt the market for the 100 round drums are that great.

[Straw Man]

45. Do not presume ...

... to tell me what I wish. It just makes you look foolish.

No one's forgetting Sandy Hook. Except your wishes...

For anyone to have any capacity weapon.

Next year the gun-manufacturers will introduce 200 round weapons. I'm sure you'll want us all to buy one.

Hyperbole is not your friend.

[nonoyes]

49. Your latent wishes to "eliminate" your opposition

in the debate on reasonable controls of weaponry in the USA is duly noted.

Just hoping you won't be killed in the cross-fire from rights to high capacity weapons you stand-up for, as you dismiss each and every death as "collateral damage" and "foolish" gun-fights.

We live in the most deadly "peaceful" democratic republic on this planet. And you have absolutely nothing positive to contribute other than insults to those who know how much you love your rights to have your guns. Just tell people who oppose your uninhibited nation-wide rights to unlimited gun-ownership that they look like fools, that, and your deadly weapons, that's all you have in this debate.

[Straw Man]

52. Where did "eliminate" come from?

Your latent wishes to "eliminate" your opposition

in the debate on reasonable controls of weaponry in the USA is duly noted.

You're casting some seriously unfounded aspersions now. I merely disagreed with you.

Please consider the advice on hyperbole -- it's for your own good. References to "uninhibited nation-wide rights to unlimited gun-ownership" don't do much for your credibility.

You do go negative in a hurry, don't you.

[nonoyes]

55. Where did you get your rights to unlimited privileges to

own weapons? You have stated nothing opposing such position, the obvious conclusion is that you have none.

Except that tiny phrase you keep ignoring "a well-regulated militia" WELL REGULATED!

Get a grip, your posts are the signature of Republican - Libertarian irresponsible citizens.

Going "negative" is the only option you offer me. Nothing close to constructive and problem-solving, you left me no option but to be going "negative" on your senselessness and irrational invitations to have 50 or 100 more Sandy Hooks this year.

What, on Earth, can you contribute to this debate, other than your unyeilding desire for you and any others to own and control any weapon on the market? Which "limitations" can you agree with?

[Straw Man]

57. Nice rant.

My rights are anything but "unlimited." There are already many legal limitations on them. Apparently not enough for your liking, but then you're not the arbiter of anyone's rights, fortunately.

My exercise of my rights is not what caused Sandy Hook, nor would your proposed restrictions on them prevent any further such incidents.

There are already more than enough limitations, most of them arbitrary and useless. I will neither invite nor abet any more. You cannot blame me for the actions of criminals and lunatics, nor can you hold me responsible for society's failures to protect the innocent from same.

[kudzu22]

47. So when you picture this scenario

do you imagine the spree killer getting to the end of his 10 round magazine and saying, "oh darn I'm out of bullets -- better stop killing people now?" Because I imagine if they plan their assault for months, they plan to bring enough reloads to carry it out.

Claiming that small magazines prevent mass shootings is like claiming nobody can get fat on White Castle hamburgers.

[av8r1998]

73. Actually,

You're one of those people who porbably SHOULDN'T own a gun.
I vote for universal background checks...
Aslong as that check includes people who post ignorant statements on the internet.

[oneshooter]

89. I already own a weapon with a 250 rd belt.

[Politicalboi]

61. But would Lanza have done it with a 6 shooter or speed loader

Lanza may have felt he had more power because he had an assault weapon. Maybe he had a fear of having to reload. A lot of these men are cowards, so the fear of having your ass whipped to reload can come into play. Or maybe he would have really seen what he did, and stopped at 9 children, but the gun made it possible to continue.

[gejohnston]

67. he reloaded several times

even when the magazines half full, so there was no fear of reloading
I don't think he grasped the concept of more power from a gun that looked ugly
If the kids were bunched together and cowering, how many kids were killed by the same bullet?
According to a friend of his mother Adam was an ethical vegan. I find it odd he continued after one round.

[kudzu22]

43. Um, no.

Lanza had 20 minutes before the cops arrived. Every kid would still be dead, he's just have to have reloaded a couple extra times. Magazine ban fail.

[dookers]

50. He also had two handguns and a shotgun

One of the ways to get around slow reloads is to carry multiple guns with you. You keep one gun loaded as you reload the other.

[av8r1998]

23. Right...

"You won't get one!"
Because YOU don't have one.
Go to a range one day, and watch some of the better shooters run reloads.
THEN tell me mag capacity makes a difference.
It doesnt for the bad guy... only for the good guy.
And what I own is none of your damn business.

[nonoyes]

36. And what I own is none of your damn business.

Actually, under current law in most states: it IS our "damn" business.

We need to know how you purchased it, we need to know if you legally obtained it, we need to know if you are fit to own it.

Otherwise, in most states, you might be a criminal, or a terrorist.

[DonP]

53. Wow, you have a really active fantasy life, don't you?

It seems that gun grabber types don't know jack shit about firearms, but fantasize about all kinds of evil being out there, hiding in the closets and safes of gun owners that they can and will stop.

"We need to know how you purchased it, we need to know if you legally obtained it, we need to know if you are fit to own it. "

Holy crap! You're as nosy as as the GOP keeping track of what women do with their own bodies or what some choose to put in their bodies. Are you auditioning for the GOP presidential run in 2016? You have a great head start.

My or anyone's private property is truly none of your fucking business, or do you favor those house to house searches, like many of your fellow gun control supporters?

"Otherwise, in most states, you might be a criminal, or a terrorist. " Most states? Now that's just an immense pile of horse doo doo right there.

You're not going to get a magazine ban of any kind, you're not going to get even close to a so called "assault weapons ban" and you might not get the "Universal Background Checks" either.

"Get used to disappointment".

[nonoyes]

54. "You're as nosy as as the GOP keeping track of what women do with their own bodies"

Has no threat to America as much as your secretive ownership of weapons does.

Try to be relevant, realistic, and stop with the red herrings. We all have a right to know what guns you own and how you obtained them.

Get over your wishes for your own personal sovereignty. Move to Somalia if you don't like responsible gun ownership.

[DonP]

81. The laws you so desperately yearn for don't exist and won't exist thankfully

"We all have a right to know what guns you own and how you obtained them. "

Sure you do ... and as soon as you figure out how to enforce your "unique" view of "police state" America, you just clue us all in.

But don't worry, the people that keep my 4473s on file know what I own and how I obtained them. I've had background checks done with the FBI for every firearm I own ... and you most likely haven't had any done.

So ... as far as legality goes for the actual authorities, (as opposed to the ones that just think they are), we gun owners are a hell of a lot more secure and safe of a citizen than someone that has never been checked out, like you.

You are just hysterically funny. Let's see how long you last here, we need a good laugh now and then.

[av8r1998]

93. Wow ...

You really do sound like a GOP'er...
and people think I am a troll?

Where on earth do YOU (an individual) derive the RIGHT to know ANYTHING about ANYONE?
Even in states where pistol permit info is published, that info being provided to you is a PRIVELEGE that is afforded you by the STATE.

Get over your hoplophobic rants and go get some facts...

[Jenoch]

56. Most states do not have the gun laws you suggest in this post.

I believe there are just a few states that have 'foid' cards and registration of firearms. When you post such obvious false information your credibility is diminished substantially.

[av8r1998]

92. Ummm no ...

in SOME (not MOST) states the STATE needs to know.... YOU do not.
Fortunately, in CT, they DON'T need to know

Another FAIL by an anti...

[guardian]

24. "high capacity"

is anything deemed scary by an antigunner.

[frylock]

28. 30 rds is high cap..

Sincerely,
A Gun Owner in Favor of Magazine Capacity Limits.

[av8r1998]

32. Why?

Please explain what makes 30 a magic number.
Would you be OK with SCOTUS overturning any ban below 30?
Repealing the NY SAFE act to permit 30 round mags instead of 7?
Overturning the gun laws in the 7 states that limit mag capacity to 15, 10 or 7?
Please educate me.

[frylock]

40. okay. you win. 7 rounds is high capacity..

let's limit it to 3 rounds, because gun fuckers will never be happy, and they will continue to trot out the same bullshit "magic" talking points.

now you tell me, why do YOU need a 30 rd magazine? are you really that lousy of a shot?

[av8r1998]

44. Why?

Give me a rationale for the magic upper limit.
Well... if I have 3 rounds vs. 4 attackers I'm kinda hosed aren't I?

[frylock]

48. because it may save a few lives ffs..

that's why. now you answer MY question. why do YOU need a 30 rd magazine? I mean, if you're attacked by 31 people, then you're shit outta luck, right?

[guardian]

64. Typical antigunner alternate reality

It often takes 2,3,4,5 hits of 5.56 to stop a determined threat. Just ask anyone who's been on a working vacation in Iraq or Afghanistan in the last 10 years. On top of that you have to figure only 2 or 3 of every 10 shots will hit their target. That's about the hit ratio of law enforcement officers in shootings.

For some reason the bad guys don't stop and remain motionless like a paper target when you shoot at them. Plus most shooting instances happen at night in low light conditions. Plus a shooter's accuracy in real life incident tends to be 1/3 to 1/2 that of your accuracy when you are calm and target shooting. Most likely you are moving too. Maybe avoiding incoming fire. Plus you have a massive adrenaline jolt coursing through your bloodstream that drives fine motor skills to shit.

So go ahead and base your positions on completely false movie fantasy. You quite simply have no clue about reality.

[av8r1998]

70. Sorry ... fell asleep at the switch, but this question was answered

Do you really believe in a 1 shot stop?
Anyway ... you wouldn't ask a blogger why he NEEDS the internet would you?
Would you ask an accused murderer why he NEEDS a Lawyer? Or even the BEST lawyer if he can afford it?
You need to get a clue, my friend.

[Jarhead1775]

86. Agree

Why have high speed Internet? Just have a 28.8 modem!

[guardian]

59. Quite simply

I don't respect anybody that has the hubris to demand that anybody justify their need for anything. What makes you qualified to run other people's lives?

[frylock]

62. i'm the king of the fucking world, that's who i am.

and, quite simply, nobody asked you.

[guardian]

69. With that attitude

you'd make a good Republican. I can hear it now

Why do you NEED to marry the one you love?
WHy do you NEED that abortion?
Why do you NEED to go to school?
Why do you NEED good healthcare?
Why do you NEED to eat uncontaminated food?
etc.

[av8r1998]

29. ROFL

Ok... you're right,
But not helpful.

My goal is to make them think about they effectiveness of these laws...
i.e. TOTAL FAIL.
Look at the next response to my post.

[spin]

8. It's irresponsible people who misuse firearms that are the problem, not the weapons. ...

It makes far more sense to me to better enforce current laws and pass legislation that will make it more difficult for criminals and those with severe mental issues from obtaining firearms than it does to ban weapons because of appearance or limit magazine capacity.

[nonoyes]

14. So how do you do that when Republicans just cut funding for enforcment?

Cut funding for virtually each and every effort to "enforce the laws".

Please try not to be so simplistic, and deal with the realities of a Republican-led House.

[av8r1998]

26. Blaming Repubs

Far oversimplifies the issue.
Repubs dont have a monopoly on the 2nd Amendment (thank god)
Read some of the othder threads here.
Gun control fails because gun control doesnt work.

[nonoyes]

33. So you accept the situation as it is, "collateral damage"

Nothing can and should be done. I true Republican position.

[av8r1998]

37. What on Earth are you talking about

Ask Peter King, Rudy Giuliani, Guy Molinari, and 1000 other NY Repubs about guns.
They're on your side.

Meanwhile Harry Reid is A rated by the NRA and was NRA endorsed until the Repukes hijacked the NRA Membership roles... thanks to the Anti Gun Dem platform.
Please get it right...

[nonoyes]

41. Making less and less sense with every post you put here.

None of the posters here are those men you mention.

Please address the "collateral damage" of the current gun laws in the USA, and what you intend to do about it yourself.

Nothing, I presume, just blame others, like each and every Republican does.

[av8r1998]

74. Well the reality is

You blame repubs for a lack of gun control.
I just pointed at 3 repubs wh suport gun control, and 1 Dem that does not.
What "collateral damage" of gun laws.
Of which gun laws do you speak?
The ineffective ones that punnish good guys, not bad guys?
The pie in the sky ones that say "If we ban guns we'll eliminate gun crime?"
Are you that naieve to think all guns can be eradicated? That violent crime will cease to exist if we get rid of guns?
Prohibition worked real well for alcohol and drugs didn't it.
Why don't we ban guns and create yet another market opportunity for organized crime.

[nonoyes]

75. Of course NOT!.... "Are you that naieve to think all guns can be eradicated?"

You really make up your straw men, when you refuse to answer the question, don't you?

Try to be a bit more logical. State where you stand about controls and regulations on guns. and leave the foolish politicians out of the debate, they are all useless fools.

[av8r1998]

77. So are you

Who refused to answer the question?
"Stating where I stand on controls" is not logical.
YOU, not I brought up politicians. I merely pointed out some Repubs who are anti- gun and some Dems who are pro-rights.
Where do I stand on controls? Have you been paying attention?
Ok... ok.. for those unable to read...
I am against magazine bans, "Assault" weapons bans, purchase limit restrictions, ammo restrictions,exceptions for LE, and any other illogical anti gun proposals I have seen.
I can be somewhat OK with background checks as long as they do not lead to registration or even Pseudo-registration.
Long story short, I'm against gun control.
Period.
Now please explain why limiting magazines makes anyone safer.

[spin]

87. No. A hell of a lot can be done to reduce gun violence. ...

And there are ways and means that do not require banning any firearms.

Unfortunately it will be almost impossible to get anywhere on this issue unless both sides of the debate stop insulting each other and develop a level of trust. Then perhaps they will sit down at a table and work out a compromise.

It will probably take a decade before gun owners begin to feel that the gun control advocates do not wish to ban and confiscate all firearms and that might be a generous estimate. Currently there is a tremendous amount of animosity displayed by both sides of the issue. Both camps feel the other is unreasonable but sadly both sides are all too irrational.

[nonoyes]

76. I'm not "blaming Repubs" I am blaming simplistic thinking

Which so MANY Republican voters and unlimited gun rights advocates exemplify!

Which are u?

[av8r1998]

78. Unlimited Gun Rights Advocate

And proud of it.
What I find illogical are all of the anti-gun proposals that will NOT help ANYONE, nor save a single life.

[spin]

60. First I am a Democrat and not a Republican. ...

I favor spending money on better law enforcement as I feel that will save money in the future.

Our government wastes an enormous amount of money that could be better used in many ways. Even the Obama administration agrees.

Jobs & The Economy: Putting America Back To Work

Cutting Waste

Instead of accepting the status quo, President Obama has worked from day one to change how business is done in Washington. Under his direction, the Administration has moved to eliminate wasteful spending, streamline what works, and modernize how government operates to save money and improve performance.

From scaling back on no-bid contracts and stopping improper payments to getting rid of unneeded Federal real estate and ending out-of-control information technology (IT) projects, the Administration has worked to reform how Washington spends taxpayer dollars. We’ve focused on cutting spending that is wasteful, duplicative, and outdated and improving the way services are delivered to the American people.

The President has asked the Vice President to lead the “Campaign to Cut Waste,” an initiative to hunt down misspent tax dollars throughout the government, and to build on the accomplishments detailed below:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/reform/cutting-waste

I also feel we could reduce violent crime considerably by simply admitting that we lost the War on Drugs decades ago and by reconsidering our drug policy.

While it is rarely mentioned by both sides of the gun control debate, violent crime in our nation has fallen to levels last seen in the late 1960s. One of the main factors for this decrease has been better, more proactive law enforcement.

We could make a lot of headway in better spending our tax dollars if both Democrats and Republicans would sit down at a table and work together to address this issue. Unfortunately the Tea Party Republicans have made this impossible.

[nonoyes]

63. Sorry, fellow Dem, but you have to be responsible in context

Sorry, fellow Dem, but you have to be responsible in context of the current world and nation we live in.

Here's the rules of the world we live in: (Your idealism has no place here, you have to be realistic)

There are bad guys with guns, and there are good guys with guns, and the good guys with guns want their rights protected, even if bad guys get more guns. Republicans don't allow controls of this to go through Congress these days.

Try to be realistic when you make silly statements like "if only the gun laws would be enforced", they won't be! As long as there are Republicans who refuse to pay for that!

Get a grip.

[spin]

68. You state:

There are bad guys with guns, and there are good guys with guns, and the good guys with guns want their rights protected, even if bad guys get more guns. Republicans don't allow controls of this to go through Congress these days.

Yet recent polling shows that the majority of gun owners wish to see improvements in our gun laws coupled with better enforcement of existing laws. Unfortunately most gun owners are Republicans and many support the Tea Party because some Democrats are fixated on banning certain firearms. By overreaching, these Democrats have poisoned the well for any chances of finding solutions to our nation's gun violence problem and I feel have hurt our party's chances in upcoming close elections at the local, state and national level.

If the control movement would have simply banned the use of the word "ban" we might have actually seen some very effective gun legislation passed at the national level.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) launched a very successful campaign to reduce the number of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers. However they didn't start their campaign by insisting that whiskey be banned. Many people in our nation responsibly use alcohol but dislike irresponsible people who get drunk and drive, endangering all other motorists they encounter. MADD was able to get such people to support legislation against drunk driving.

If the leadership of the gun control movement were to use the same tactics as MADD, I feel we could make headway in addressing gun violence. A side benefit is that gun owners might consider voting for good Democrats who would then win more close elections.

I might be wrong but I feel I understand reality far more than you do and it is a bitch.

[nonoyes]

71. IF.. Woulda Coulda Shoulda

I might be wrong but I feel I understand reality far more than you do and it is a bitch.

No, friend, you only understand how bitchy it is, not the $ reasons behind such.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) launched a very successful campaign to reduce the number of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers. However they didn't start their campaign by insisting that whiskey be banned. Many people in our nation responsibly use alcohol but dislike irresponsible people who get drunk and drive, endangering all other motorists they encounter. MADD was able to get such people to support legislation against drunk driving.

No, that analogy goes no further than the next Friday night at your local bar or restaurant that serves liquor. Gun sellers don't have bars open to everyone, gun sellers are often invisible to the public. MADD has little experience against silent killers, MADD KNOWS who kills drunk teens, often other drunk teens. Drunk teens are very visible, apprehenable, punishable by law. Gun owners insist upon their stealth, insist upon their "rights" to silence, to due process, and to challenge any laws which we accuse them of violating. Putting a drunk teenage killer or drunk adult killer away for years and year is so much easier in America than putting away a gun owner who threatens all of us at any hour on any day, not just on the weekends, not just in Anerican high school and college areas. Drunken teens kill far fewer people than gun owners do. But gun owners have their elected defenders at each and every level of government, town, city, county, state, federal..EVERY elected official defends the rights of gun owners, not a single one of them defends the rights of drunk drivers.........see the difference?

[spin]

79. The reason why gun owners have "elected defenders at each and every level of government" ...

is largely because some in the gun control movement wish to impose draconian gun laws such as exist in the UK. There are a number of improvements we can make to our gun control laws that would be possible if some who support strong gun control simply stopped pushing for bans.

I obviously will never convince you of this logic and you will never be able to convince gun owners to vote for Democrats who they fear have the ultimate goal of banning the civilian ownership of firearms. Consequently much progress we could make to reduce gun violence will be impossible to achieve. Many lives that might have been saved will be lost because some in the gun control movement and most gun owners can not sit down at a table and compromise.

I find this sad.

[av8r1998]

82. "Unfortunately the Tea Party Republicans have made this impossible. "

So have anti-gunners.

[tularetom]

9. Banning anything is a big mistake

You want to increase the demand for any item or commodity? Ban it and you'll create an instant peak in demand and a black market that will be impossible to control. Eventually you'll have to face reality and do away with the ban.

[nonoyes]

16. Actually, there's ample history and data on this, and you're

half right.

Eliminate ALL alcohol: you create a black market, corruption, etc. Eliminate sales of hard liquor in certain towns, you increase sales of beer and wine.

And there's other analogies. We are NOT talking about elimination of all weaponry, we are talking about CERTAIN KINDS of deadly weapons. We ALREADY HAVE SOME: you cannot buy a bazooka, surface to air missile, etc. So the sales are limited to other weapons.
Limitations on more military-grade weaponry will increase sales of revolvers, rifles, etc.

[guardian]

20. A limitation on magazine capacity

won't make a bit of difference in the number of gun deaths, or mass murder rampages. All it does it inconvenience a high percentage of the citizenry and needlessly cost people money.

For those that think it will make a difference, they should add wording to all gun control legislation that specifies the RESULTS of the implemented legislation. So if proponents of limiting 7+/10+ magazine capacities think it will save lives then they should have the moral integrity to put language in the bill that XXXX lives or XX% reduction in gun crimes will be evidenced within Y years or else the law automatically sunsets.

I won't hold my breath. The antigun movement is built upon nonsensical emotional feel good pablum, and not rational measures that will acheive the stated end goal.

[rvt1000rr]

66. What a firearm looks like,

or how many rounds it's magazine is capable of holding are, to me, emotional, secondary considerations.

The question of who should be allowed to possess that particular firearm is the primary concern. The only way to accomplish this is with comprehensive background checks on all firearm transfers.

Understand that it is perfectly legal to own a belt-fed machinegun in the United States. Really, it is. But to do this, the owner has to comply with an extensive background check and pay the accordingly hefty fees. Believe it or not, many people do this. When was the last time you heard of anyone being machine-gunned to death by a legally permitted private owner across town? I don't believe that I ever have. Why? Because they were determined to be sane and responsible machinegun owners before they ever got the gun.

The same basic regulatory concept should apply to all firearms. Know that the applicant is not criminal and that they are not insane. Then allow them to purchase or inherit whatever they wish.

[derby378]

84. Technically, it's illegal unless you have the NFA tax stamp (re: permit)

"Perfectly legal" would imply that no permit or license is required, and that it's legal in all 50 states. Some states such as California and New York won't honor the NFA tax stamp.

[rvt1000rr]

91. Granted..

"Perfectly legal" was not an accurate description...

[Buzz Clik]

80. I'm curious: does asking the same question several times a week change the odds...

of getting a different answer?

[rrneck]

83. Not around here.

[ileus]

94. Hopefully we won't have to give up 30 round mags.

The ruger American isn't designed as a self defense firearm. It would suck at that role....It would make a pretty good deer/varmint rifle if you like bolt actions.

[krispos42]

96. Enough for what?

To prevent mass shootings like at Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook Elementary?


No.


Effectively, you can't do it, assuming the shooter shows a little bit of common sense is picking a location. The Newtown shooter picked a closed location full of victims that would be unable to physically stop him, and he had 11 minutes to shoot before the cops got close enough for him to decide death before capture. The Virginia Tech shooter did likewise, using a pair of pistols with 10-round magazines after he had chained the doors shut so nobody could escape him.

Your proposal also does nothing to deal with the tens of millions of 11+ magazines already in existance.



Hunting regulations generally limit the total number of rounds in the gun to 6. That's why bolt-action rifles generally hold 3 or 4 in the magazines plus one in the chamber; it's usually as many as can be held without having the magazine protrude from the bottom of the stock.

The Ruger American has a detachable 4-shot magazine. There's nothing stopping Ruger from making a 20 or 30 round magazines for it, except market demand. If people want a self-defense gun with a 20 or 30 round magazine, though, they're unlikely to want a bolt-action when a semi-automatic or pump-action rifle is available.