A Common Sense Proposal re: gun violence and control

[NightWatcher]

:mods: can we please keep this in GD for a little while because of the events of yesterday at Virginia Tech?

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 expired on September 13, 2004. Aside from the bans that were placed on “assault rifles” a ban was also placed on “high capacity” magazines for handguns. Under this ban, handguns were limited to no more than 10 rounds. Since this has expired, the only restriction is limited by the size and shape of the magazine. There has also been an increase in magazines that extend several inches from the base of the handgun that allow for 30+ rounds of ammunition.

The shooter at VT is purported to have had in his possession a Glock 9mm (G17). The G17 comes standard with two magazines that have a capacity of 17 rounds. Magazines of 19 and 33 rounds are also available for $25- $40 each. A box of 50 rounds can be bought for as little as $10 at any Walmart.

Why cant we get the "high capacity" portion of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 reinstated? This is not a debate about hunting or right to maintain a militia. I am not calling for a ban on rifles because of the debates of the merit of the use and abuse of those guns, but I do believe that handguns need to be limited to 10 rounds each.

For the record: I am a former special investigator and currently a licensed private investigator and when the need exists I carry a .45 cal 1911 handgun with a magazine capacity of 7. I have a Georgia Concealed Weapon Permit. I am certified twice a year on every gun that I own or carry. I have been shot at and I have shot at offenders, so I understand both sides of this debate.

[wtmusic]

1. Sounds good to me nt

[davepc]

2. the 1994 AWB did not eliminate high-cap magazines

it only made them more expensive. There was no provision to ban re-sales of existing magazines, nor any provision to remove the existing magazines from circulation.

[NightWatcher]

3. it did not remove, but it prohibited the manufacture

during the ban, the magazines were sold often at a high price. So too were "pre-ban" rifles.
As the expiration of the ban approached, the supply of pre-ban rifles and mags were begining to wane. I believe that had the ban continued, the presence of the high capacity magazines would not be as prevalent.

[davepc]

7. The supply was steady, the only thing that increased was the price

It reached a level where people didn't feel like spending triple or quadruple the price of the magazine pre ban.

If one had the money and the desire, pre-ban high cap magazines were readily available.

Basically, the high-cap mag provision in the AWB priced high cap magazines out of the range of poor people and made them an exclusive item of the well to do gun owner.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Because we will lose congress and the presidency if we try, Then the Repos

will just roll it back further than it is now.

Common sense has nothing to do with it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. I don't think we CAN lose the presidency

Bush has broken the army, certainly, but I think he's also broken the Republican party. The only way a Repub can get elected to Prez in '08 is to have the troops home or on their way (I know the logistics are huge, but gotta start).

As long as Bush "stays the course" in Iraz, it helps Democrats win elections.

(Do not take my optimism as gospel. I have been wrong before :) )

[John Q. Citizen]

13. They say a week is a year in politics. And there is a reason they say that.

[Bandit]

12. What lottery numbers should I chose in New York lottery?

You seem to claim to know the future, let's capitalize on it.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. The best indication of future behavior is past behavior. Look at

1994.

Dem congress Dem president passed the assault weapons ban. We lost big.

Hey if you believe it's smart politics to bring gun politics into this next cycle, go for it. If you are wrong, it will cost us plenty.

Would blue state urban Dems and swing voters desert the party if nothing was done about gun control? Not likely.

Would moderate Dems and swing voters in purple and red states turn out in mass against Dems if they try to strengthen gun laws, which will lose anyway cause thy can't override a veto?

Very likely.

So you can argue about lottery numbers or you can argue about political reality. I know a little about political reality. Here in Montana in 2004 we elected the first Dem governor and Dem house and Senate in 12 years. None of the Dems ran on gun control, they ran away from it. Same for Sen. Tester in 2006.

Playing the lottery is a losing game, by the way.

I don't own a gun nor have I ever owned a gun.

[panader0]

5. People that do these heinous crimes can get guns almost anywhere

Your proposal is indeed common sense, but just as illegal drugs are available everywhere, so can guns be bought illegally. If someone wants to do a crime, they will be able to get a gun with little effort, even with laws against it. Your proposal is a start.

[NightWatcher]

6. plus, I heard that each fatality victim had three wounds

33 dead X 3 rounds= 99 rounds, plus 20+ injured. These are only the bullets that hit a target. He easily could have had 200 rounds. That could have been done with as little as 6 33rnd mags. It would have been harder for him to pack in 20 10-rnd mags, plus the time between reloads might have given others the chance to get away or subdue the shooter.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

9. There have been several interviews

were people have said they watched him do a mag changes.

dont see how having more magazines would have changed anything.

Plus the guy brought a backpack with chains in it, so extra weight from a few more magazines would probably not have made a difference.

[mitchleary]

10. 30 round mags on a handgun?

I know quite a few gun owners and no one I know uses 30 round magazines. They are cumbersome, stick way out of the mag well, and are pain in the arse to handle a gun with one. Looks good in the movies though. If this was the best way, police officers would use them. Could you imagine drawing or holstering a .45(even double stack) with a 30 round mag? You have been on both sides, does it really matter that much if someone has more rounds in a mag, a person can buy another mag and have the same aount of rounds? How long does it take to cycle a mag? Again, why punish responsible citizens that shoot for target practice, etc. It is just a great way to tick people off and loose congressional seats. Oh and older mags that fit 12 rounds instead 10(for the 45s anyway) just go up in cost, I forgot about that added benefit.

[porphyrian]

11. I'm more in favor of the Chris Rock proposal...

"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."

[Bandit]

14. They have a lot of trouble justifying massive fire power.

I think a lot of these gun nuts just don't know how to shoot. Why should it take any person more than even four shots to hit their target? What possible explanation for wanting a thirty round magazine, without it being a combat situation? Common Sense is not allowed on these boards though after all America worships it's implements of death.

[trof]

15. How would you feel about an 'operator's license'?

I've floated this before and it's not original with me.

There are many people who don't own a car but do have a driver's license for the times they rent or borrow one. They must pass a written test and meet some standard of proficiency in hands-on operation of a motor vehicle.

What if we didn't license the 'hardware', but the user?
Would that help at all?

[renie408]

20. Because then the hardware is still readily available to the non-licensed operator.

We need to limit and eliminate weapons capable of shooting 60 people in a few minutes. Why does anybody need that kind of firepower?

[TnDem]

17. Finally...

At least someone with a dribble of knowledge about firearms.

First off, it has been released that the shooter had a Glock, but I have not seen which particular model. Are you sure it wasn't an earlier model or are you assuming that it was G17? All I saw was that it was a Glock and it was purchased in March 2007.

Secondly, (as I responded to your other post), hi capacity mags mean nothing when you have over a dozen loaded magazines in your possession...As you know, I can change a magazine out on a Glock in about 1 second and keep shooting. What if the shooter had 20 mags or 30? The capacity of the mag is nearly irrelevant.

Add to this that the shooter had ANOTHER weapon, that makes magazine capacity totally irrelevant. He could easily provide cover for that one second of magazine change and never miss a beat.

Magazine capacity is another one of those feel good proposals for people that get all breathless from "bunches of bullets in a gun". When you have dozens of loaded mags for your weapon and a backup/cover weapon, then what you are proposing is feel good legislation.

By the way, I was an LEO for four years back in the 1990's...BTDT.

[whoneedstickets]

18. Forget Magazine limits, ban weapons with removable mags...

...even a 7 shot mag, like the one in your 1911 .45 could be changed out in a second with some practice. It would be easy to acquire and carry enough pre-loaded magazines to unload 50 rounds in under a minute.

Removable Magazine loaded weapons should be banned for civilian uses. Fixed magazines, like the under-barrel tubular mags in shotguns and lever-action rifles would be OK, because each round has to be loaded into the mag by hand (this takes some time as anyone who has loaded up a shotgun knows). Large center fire cartridges with sharply pointed bullets can't be held in tubular magazines, but fixed breach-loaded magazines for semi-auto and bolt-action rifles would fulfill the same role. Most, like the Lee-Enfield or SKS hold only 5 or 6 rounds and even with strip-clips take some time to reload.

[renie408]

19. This makes total sense to me. We have the right to bear arms.

We don't have the right to carry whatever weapon of mass destruction we want. WHY would somebody need to fire more than seven bullets at one time unless they were a REALLY shitty shot or going to try to kill a bunch of people?