Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

A corrrection- "extraordinary burden"

It has been vociferously pointed out to me that the quote from my post today about the statement from the NRA was in reference to Rep. Peter King's proposal to make it illegal for someone with a gun to be within 1000 feet of a federal elected official. The NRA made it clear that this would impose an "extraordinary burden" on those with loaded guns since they might not, according to my readers, know if and when they might accidentally be within this zone when they are packing. So in reference to that quote and the implications of Rep. King's proposal, I have printed some of my readers' comments below:

  • I have yet to see any provision exempting liability on a firearms possessor should the 'roving' GFZ come to them. As an example...a motorcade passes by while Joe "Lawfull Sidearm Carrier" Innocent is standing at a bus stop. Bingo!....Violation." Or this one: "The 'extraordinary burden' referred to would be requiring that lawful gun owners know at every moment of their day exactly where all affected government officials are in relation to themselves, and alter their travels accordingly to avoid the 1000' firearms exclusion zone surrounding said government officials as they moved about their daily activities. "  
  • " If I happen to be walking over the Broadway Bridge legally carrying a firearm in strict accordance to state and county laws and Rep. Blumenauer happens to be jogging over the bridge at that same time unannounced, then I would instantly be violating this new law. If I happen to be transporting my firearms from my home to my truck in my driveway before heading to the range for practice, and Rep. Dembrow happens to be riding his bicycle past my home unannounced, then I would instantly be violating this new law. I can immediately imagine hundreds of scenarios where otherwise law-abiding citizens would suddenly become criminals under this new law. The NRA-ILA is correct in its assessment.
  • Then there was this one which did go to my point about the extraordinary burden for people to live with ammunition clips with fewer than 30 rounds: " The proposal doesn’t allow 11 round magazines, not just 30. If you substitute “not allowing their guns to have 11 round ammunition magazines”, it doesn’t sound quite the same. It would absolutely be an extraordinary burden to run out of ammo after expelling 10 rounds while your life in still in danger. " 



My main point, of course, was that the NRA is against virtually anything that has so far been proposed by anyone, even from supposed friends of the organization. So to give you the quote about the high capacity magazines that came from the NRA, here is an article about it. The more accurate quote for my post is this: " But the NRA argues that such high-capacity clips are "standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans." "Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations," the NRA said. The NRA's statement did not include an example of an situation where an individual acting in self defense would need to get off 30 rounds without reloading."


So I apologize for any confusion. But my main point rests. There is a breeze blowing for dealing with the recent shooting spree in Tucson. The NRA is testing the wind direction and will be against proposals coming from any direction. The gun lobby believes, as do many of the "gun guys" that any restriction on their rights to their guns impose extraordinary burdens on them. Shall we talk about the extraordinary burdens imposed on the families of the victims of the Tucson shooting or for shooting victims all over our country? Or should we conveniently forget about them? Common sense tells us that, in any discussion moving forward, empathy for victims must be a part of the discussion. This video keeps the victims in mind as we move forward.  




54 comments:

  1. "My main point, of course, was that the NRA is against virtually anything that has so far been proposed by anyone, even from supposed friends of the organization."

    That's because none of the proposals would have done anything to stop the Arizona shooting and/or they are intended to make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners.

    Really, do you expect the NRA to agree to something even if it's blatantly ridiculous like the 1,000' bubble?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The vociferous objections are due to the fact that none (not a single one) would have prevented the tragedy in Tucson...and none of them will stop crime.

    All three bills (magazine capacity, "assault weapons", 1000' rule) are all emotionally-driven security theater and do nothing at all...nothing to stop crime or criminals!

    Why are you not calling for increasing involuntary mental evaluations? Mandatory drug screens? These would have STOPPED this event.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Japete: “Given that, it looks like you all think it would be an extraordinary burden to be limited to fewer than 30 round magazines.”

    I don’t think you should say “you all”. I am the one who said that, and anyone can have their own opinion on that matter. As I said before, I haven’t felt the desire to own a 30rd magazine (though ironically, that could change if they are to be banned- a perfect example of policies that increase the market demand). I do however have a strong desire for my firearms to not be arbitrarily limited to less than their designed capacity. In my case that is 17 rounds, any less than that is not utilizing empty space- and I’d rather use that space than be faced with a situation where it is gravely needed. As unlikely as that maybe, lives are on the line and anyone (or any cop) would gladly carry the extra weight of the ammo that doesn’t get used. A magazine that extends beyond its normal design adds bulk, increases the silhouette, and offers a grab point for an attacker in close range, so there are tradeoffs to extended magazines. Again, the only tradeoff to normal magazines (vs. 10rd magazines) is the slight increase in weight, but I doubt anyone wouldn’t load to full capacity to save a few ounces.

    Back to the original point, I am talking about bans on 11 round magazines, and you keep bringing it back to 30 round magazines. Would you consider limiting it to 20? I know that sounds like I am asking for a compromise, so I guess you don’t have to answer that- but my point being this is about a whole lot more than just the extended magazine that Loughner used because it covers common use normal capacity magazines. For the record, I don’t support any legislation that takes something currently legal (that means anything, not everything) away from civilian use, but I am amiable to some laws that try to keep weapons out of the wrong hands.

    Japete: “ANY provision suggested by absolutely anyone is turned away by the NRA.”

    This is close to being true, but we can point to examples such as the mental illness reporting reform that came out after Virginia Tech. But I would like to ask that question back to you in turn: Do you think King’s proposal is an undue burden?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joan,
    I suppose we could talk about restrictions if you can say which ones you feel would actually have made a difference in this case. We resist "restrictions" not merely to be difficult. We resist because there is no evidence, at all, that any of these proposals would have made the slightest difference.

    I can see the logic in proposing more mental health information be fed into NCIS and on the surface it sounds like a good idea. That said, I can also see how it could easily be abused. We are talking about stripping fundamental rights from a person with little to no due process. That's scary in and of itself.

    Then how do we prevent these kinds of attacks from ever happening again?

    You don't.

    All you can do is react when it happens.

    There is no law you can pass, no rule you can enact, no process you can create that will absolutely prevent the insane from doing insane things. The insane, like criminals, have a nasty tendency to ignore laws and such.

    I feel for the victims. I really do. Not just for these victims but for all of them. However, to believe that the best way to serve them is to pass more ineffectual laws makes no sense. It seems to me far better to look for the core causes of these things and not just attack symptoms and methods. You cannot ever win that battle not because you don't care enough, but because it is not winnable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'll agree to limit myself to ten rounds when the police agree to it as well. Every argument against magazines that hold more than ten rounds can be used as a case against the police having them too. But the police want them. Why? Same reason we do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joan, you keep talking about 30 round magazines but Rep. McCarthy's bill bans anything over 10 rounds, which includes almost every firearm used for competition and sport. Anyone can easily verify this by visiting the firearm manufacturer's websites. She went too far with her proposal and that's the kind of extremism that quells agreements. By comparison, the NRA quote "...standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans..." is actually factual.

    I'm all for common sense restrictions but McCarthy's hatred of guns taints the common sense of her legislation proposals. Her bill won't stop the criminal who can easily make their own extended magazines by spot welding smaller 10 round magazines together or purchase them on the black market from someone who can. Remember these mass killers plan months in advance for their crimes.

    A common sense response to the Tucson tragedy would be to work towards a way for school officials, mental health professionals, and law enforcement to report individuals to NICS with safeguards to prevent abuse. This isn't as easy as it sounds, but it makes more sense than the knee jerk reactions of politicians like McCarthy.

    Incidentally, 3 students were shot in Los Angeles today and California already has a 10 round magazine limit on all firearms, exactly like McCarthy's proposed legislation. How would her new law have helped these kids?

    ReplyDelete
  7. No one is saying that limiting the number of bullets in a magazine will solve all the problems. This is just one way to limit the damage. I suppose you could say that anyone that gets shot with a gun loaded with more than an 11 round magazine is collateral damage? Why would we not want to at the least, limit the number of people shot in these situations. Preferably, no one would be shot but we have to at least try. I heard about the CA shooting but have not seen details yet as to what type of gun was used. As I said, a limit on the number of rounds will not stop all shootings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why don't the supporters of this simply ban carrying more than 10 rounds? People are blaming manufacturers and inanimate objects. Just restrict how much ammo a person can carry - that is assuming that no one has any legitimate need for more than 10 rounds.

    That would solve a few problems for McCarthy and like minded folks:

    1) prevent carrying of multiple weapons where the combined ammunition capacity exceeds 10 rounds
    2) prevent carrying several 10 round magazines
    3) remove the constant confusion several media outlets have between "magazines" and "clips"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sean- I'm not sure what the difference would be. You guys are saying that if we ban the manufacture of said magazines or clips ( and really, the public does not the nitty gritty of this like you guys do so I wouldn't get too hung up on that one) bad guys would still get them. Under your proposal, I need to understand why the bad guys wouldn't still get their hands on all of those 30 round magazines still out there and carry them anyway. How many weapons do people usually carry around by the way? And again, since so many guns like this can be bought anywhere, how will this prevent the bad guys from carrying whatever they want? Can you explain this more, please?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Even if the BATFE attempts door to door confiscations, (that's a whole other can of worms), pre-ban magazines will continue to end up in criminal hands.

    1) In anticipation of the "ban", you can bet many "gun nuts" will be stocking up on soon to be banned magazine and/or weapons.

    As you have mentioned before, there are straw buyers supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels. I'm not sure how often this happens, but don't doubt it does happen. The same amoral straw buyers would likely be willing to conduct black market "hi cap" magazine sales to criminals.

    2) gun makers will devise faster reloading mechanisms - engineering minds will find a loophole to the restriction, as there is profit to be made. Look how fast semi-auto rifles can fire today. They aren't full auto, but with practice a shooter can operate very fast.

    3) bad guys might simply pack extra weapons if/when the "hi cap" magazines they hoarded wear out or get lost.

    In the "wild west", gun fighters packed multiple single action revolvers. This is inconvenient, but at the time it was the only way to quickly fire more than 6 shots.

    In my opinion, banning the legal purchase of large magazines would have altered the procurement process of the Tucson shooter, but probably would not have affected the victims. Rather than shopping at the sporting goods store for a 33 round mag, he would have either bought multiple smaller magazines, or sought illicit underground means.

    As a novice criminal, perhaps he wouldn't have had the resources or connections to acquire a large magazine. Maybe one or two victims would have been spared in the time taken to change magazines. Personally I find that point slightly insensitive, as it suggests "some" victims up to a threshold were not worth legislating for. One innocent death is too many, but this becomes a glass half empty vs. half full argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I keep seeing people ask why anyone "needs" a 30-round magazine for their Glock pistols. Setting aside the "need" question for a bit, why are there 30-round magazines that fit Glock pistols? Particularly when they are so cumbersome and unwieldy?

    The answer is that they weren't designed or intended for Glock pistols, and that they fit into the pistols is almost a historical accident.

    We have to start with some definitions. A pistol is a semi-automatic handgun with a detachable magazine. A carbine is a light, handy rifle that fires a pistol cartridge. A submachine gun is a small, fully-automatic rifle that fires a pistol cartridge. All submachine guns and many carbines use detachable magazines.

    The most commonly-used submachineguns, over the last 100 years, have used the .45ACP and the .9mm Parabellum cartridges - which are also the most widely used pistol cartridges. And that's not an accident. The world's militaries intentionally choose their pistols and their submachineguns to use the same round.

    And, of course, the civilian, semi-auto carbines, that were modeled on those submachineguns, also used the same rounds.

    The military pistols and submachineguns generally did not share common magazines, even when they did share the round. The carbines and the submachineguns generally did. Pistol magazines normally held 7-8 rounds, if they were single-stack, or as many as 15-17, if they were double-stack. Submachinegun and carbine mags were all double-stack, and held 30-33 rounds.

    What has happened with the Glock is that a number of new manufacturers of submachineguns and carbines decided that they'd make their firearms accept normal Glock magazines. This would allow their owners some flexibility, since Glock magazines are cheap and widely available. And they made 30- and 33-round magazines for their carbines and submachineguns, which is the usual capacity for these weapons.

    Which had the side-effect of making 30- and 33-round magazines that would fit in a Glock pistol, even though the result was cumbersome and unreliable. (The shooter in Tuscon was stopped because he couldn't get the second magazine to work - if he'd used magazines that were actually designed to work in a Glock pistol, he may well have been able to reload and continue shooting, until the CCW-holder showed up.)

    Rep. McCarthy's bill doesn't ban 11-round pistol magazines, it bans all magazines of 11-rounds or more, regardless of whether they are for pistols, rifles, carbines, shotguns, etc., and regardless of whether the magazine is or is not detachable. (With the single exception of .22 caliber tubular magazines.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The big problem with this issue is that you have to pick some arbitrary, and likely ridiculous limit on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. I have target pistols that have twelve round magazines. Why were they designed with 12? Because they could fit. Same with the 15 round magazine that comes with the Glock 19. It's 15 rounds because that's how many fits in the design.

    That's why the police would scream loudly if you tried to limit them to ten rounds. Most of the guns they carry can hold 13-18 rounds of ammunition (depending on the pistol). The chances they will need beyond more than a few rounds? Pretty rare, even in more dangerous police work. But most cops don't want to risk their lives with a weapon that's been neutered because of political correctness.

    Considering the gun I carry is, actually, the Glock 19, I don't particularly want to carry a gun with a capacity artificially limited to 10 rounds. If I ever, god forbid, have to use a firearm, I'm not concerned about how many rounds the other guy has. I am concerned about how many rounds I have. Normally, the answer to that is sixteen rounds (15 in the magazine, and 1 in the chamber). Chances I will need 16 rounds? Meteor strike territory. But since the gun was designed to take it, I don't want someone deciding for me how much is too much. That's not your decision to make, it's mine.

    Would I carry a 30 round magazine? No. The Glock 19 was not designed to take those, it was designed to take the 15 rounder, but it takes the 30 rounder for the Glock 18 because Glock makes all their magazines interchangeable among similar calibers in case, as in another rare situation, a duty cop can hand a spare 17 round magazine for his Glock 17 to a detective who just ran his 15 round Glock 19 mag dry, and it'll still function.

    And yes, all meant for rare situations. But mass shootings are rare too. It's not a reason to insert bureaucrats and politicians into that decision making process, and threaten honest people with jail time if they don't comply.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jdege reminded me that I neglected the most important drawback of extended magazines- that they are notoriously bad feeders. I would guess that has something to do with the extra leverage that can skew the next round so that it doesn’t feed properly(?) This is the second time I heard that there is new information about the gun jamming, as opposed to the heroes only having the reload time to react. Do you have a link to this Jdege?

    Japete, there are some unintended consequences to capacity bans that you might want to think about. The 9mm is a relatively small cartridge. One advantage of a small cartridge over a larger one is increased capacity. If you take that advantage away, the market will gravitate towards larger caliber, and larger cartridges that are more powerful. 40S&W, 10mm, and even .50 will gain in popularity. You’d have fewer survivors in a shooting like this one had he used 10mm instead of 9mm, and the miracle we had with Giffords would be next to impossible. The other direction the market will head is to smaller, more concealable guns that still hold 10rds of 9mm, or .380 but don’t have to use a modified single stack magazine. Maybe this is preferred to unreliable 33 rounders, but I thought it is worth considering given that small handguns and “increasingly powerful” handguns have been railed against by gun control groups (I haven’t heard you do that, though).

    ReplyDelete
  14. "No one is saying that limiting the number of bullets in a magazine will solve all the problems. This is just one way to limit the damage."

    But it won't. It won't change anything. The VA Tech shooter didn't use 30-round mags and he killed more people. In fact, I believe some of his mags were 10-round mags.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Heather, I've gone over that one before. The VT shooter went from room to room reloading and terrorizing people in different rooms. They were not all in one place as were the victims at Tucson. It took him more time to kill those people, maybe because he had fewer rounds. He walked into on classroom and took everyone by surprise, shoot a few people and then walked to another classroom and shot some more there and then came back to the first one and shot yet some more. It's not too difficult to understand for the common person that these situations were different. Nor is it difficult for people to understand the obvious- guns with high capacity ammunition magazines can and do kill more people at one time. To see you all get yourselves twisted into pretzels trying to justify 30 round magazines is just ridiculous. The public is just not with you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The primary unintended consequence of the prior ban was to create an entirely new class of small 9mm pistols. The full-sized 9mms held 15+ rounds. When magazine capacity was restricted, the designers responded by designing smaller guns - and found that there was a real market out there for small, easily-concealed handguns in calibers more potent than the .25s and .32s that had dominated up to then.

    So now we have a wide selection of high-quality, small, light, and easily concealable pistols in adequate self-defense calibers like 9mm, .40, and .45.

    These pistols exist as a direct consequence of the magazine limitations in the 1994 AWB.

    I suppose we should say thank you...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've got a great reason to buy 30 round mags. If you work for a place that uses AR-15 or M-16 style rifles, you're likely issued shitty mags from the department or agency armory. Those mags have been used and abused for years. They're almost never new and they're often purchased from the lowest bidder (with quality control to match). Just being part of an organizational armory seems to cause the best ones to get picked over and the crappy worn out ones to get passed out to those last to draw their equipment. The same goes for handgun mags. I regularly send new, high quality, standard capacity mags to friends who are in harm's way.

    Standard capacity mags also help defenders who aren't expecting trouble. You say that you support armed defense in the home. If the average gun owner hears the "bump in the night," grabs the handgun in their nightstand (which may be secured in a small quick-access safe -- ours is...) and then prepares for action, they only have the rounds in their handgun. They don't have a belt on to carry two extra mags. Similar limitations apply to lawful concealed carriers out of the home (especially women -- my wife has found some ways to carry, but extra mags can be hard with some outfits!!). Meanwhile, the aggressor has as many mags, guns, or other weapons as they want. The invader is planning on getting into a fight and can come prepared. As has been demonstrated, someone with minimal training can swap mags in around 2 seconds -- if they're carrying enough, of course.

    \\

    Besides, the burden isn't on US to justify our need. Your side needs to justify the need for the restriction of a constitutionally enumerated right, just like one needs to justify proposed restrictions on freedom of speech. Supporters of her law need to show how the law furthers a substantial government interest and is related to that interest.

    In this case, the substantial government interest is "improving public safety by reducing violent crime." The interest is not, "making some citizens feel safer regardless of the impact on crime." Please, show me one peer-reviewed study that makes the argument that bans on magazines and guns with 11 or more rounds would actually improve public safety by reducing violent crime.

    If you could demonstrate such evidence, then I think support for the law might increase. As it is there doesn't seem to be much stomach among Congressmen or the American public for banning civil-war era guns and technology.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joan,

    Yes, the situations were different, particularly in the reactions of those present. I think that had more of an effect on the outcome than mag size.

    My biggest problem is that you(general you) have made it between 30 round and 10 round mags, as if there were none in the middle. That's not the case - most normal capacity magazines fall in the middle somewhere. 30 is an extended mag, 10 is a reduced mag. Additionally, the legislation put forward to address the mag issue has the side effect of actually banning certain guns, since it makes no distinction between fixed and detached mags.

    30 round mags have their place. As I'm sure you are aware, the mag in question was designed for the glock 18, which was made for the Austrian military and is an automatic weapon. That is one reason they have mags with so many rounds.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Japete, I, too, am entertaining the wild justifications I see on these comments for why any reasonable civilian would need extended clips or assault weapons. A report just released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns of from a national survey of 1003 registered voters of both parties, including gun owners and non-gun owners, clearly shows support for a ban of high capacity ammunition magazines and stricter gun laws:
    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_poll_presentation_1_18_11.pdf

    My blog post on the McCarthy Bill:
    http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/support-mccarthy-bill.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Joan:

    Heather, I've gone over that one before. The VT shooter went from room to room reloading and terrorizing people in different rooms. They were not all in one place as were the victims at Tucson. It took him more time to kill those people, maybe because he had fewer rounds. He walked into on classroom and took everyone by surprise, shoot a few people and then walked to another classroom and shot some more there and then came back to the first one and shot yet some more. It's not too difficult to understand for the common person that these situations were different. Nor is it difficult for people to understand the obvious- guns with high capacity ammunition magazines can and do kill more people at one time. To see you all get yourselves twisted into pretzels trying to justify 30 round magazines is just ridiculous. The public is just not with you on this one.

    Had just one of those students been armed in either classroom it likely would have resulted in a drastically lower number of gun deaths -exactly what you are advocating for.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks, Baldr. I intend to blog about that poll. It clearly shows what I , you, and many others have been saying- the majority supports our views in poll after poll after poll. This new poll, however, is very revealing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No Chris- " Your side needs to justify the need for the restriction of a constitutionally enumerated right, just like one needs to justify proposed restrictions on freedom of speech. Supporters of her law need to show how the law furthers a substantial government interest and is related to that interest." You are wrong. My side does not need to show this. The public is weighing in on this one and they want laws to stop this sort of carnage on the streets of our country. Isn't the one of the things the government does is public safety? This is in the interest of public safety and public health. It will not stop you from having your guns and ammunition- just maybe not everything you want just as you can't say anything you want in public.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You all have tried to justify your need for 30 round magazines. I have not yet heard a compelling case fot that NEED vs. that WANT.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mark- that is what you would love to believe. If you have a conversation with Colin Goddard, as I have on many occasions, you will find out why that would not have worked.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I have not yet heard a compelling case fot that NEED vs. that WANT."

    What we need or don't need is none of your business.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, jedge- it's the public business when people are mowed down by someone with a Glock and a 30 round magazine at a public official's event.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Joan:

    Mark- that is what you would love to believe. If you have a conversation with Colin Goddard, as I have on many occasions, you will find out why that would not have worked.

    I would love to hear what Colin has to say on the subject - he was there and I was not.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We should stay on track here. While I don't support any part of McCarthy's legislation, the worst parts (to me) are:

    1) it bans any magazine greater than "10" rounds

    2) it indirectly bans some guns where the magazine is permanently attached. Most notably are 100+ year old "cowboy" lever guns that have integral tubular magazines.

    3) There is no exception in the bill for passing the "banned" items within a family, as gifts or bequests. Upon your death, your 11+ round magazines and/or gun, will become contraband. Any subsequent possessor could be charged with a felony.

    There's so much other junk, aside from 30 round magazines, that simply makes this bad legislation.

    It's deceiving to use public opinions on "30" round magazines to validate support for legislation that would ban "11" round magazines.

    ReplyDelete
  29. By a criminal with an illegally purchased handgun.

    He illegally purchased the weapon by committing a felony on the NICS check.

    He was already illegal, and further, he committed an obviously illegal act. Where is the call for further enforcement?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Yes, jedge- it's the public business when people are mowed down by someone with a Glock and a 30 round magazine at a public official's event."

    That, of course, is your opinion. It is also your opinion that the majority of the people want this. It is also your opinion that cops side with you on this.

    Everything I am seeing says the opposite. Not one person at work, not one person in my neighborhood, not one friend I have talked to, believes anything you said here. Polls are bogus. Ask a question a certain way, you get one answer. Asked a different way, you get another. MSM is biased to your side, so you can't get a straight answer from any media stories.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "This is in the interest of public safety and public health."

    Not if you cannot show compelling evidence that it would do anything to actually improve public safety and health.

    All you have shown so far is that you think it would make some people less scared. That's not enough when dealing with a constitutional right.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yes- Mark. I have discussed this before. That is the problem with you all making the judgement call that if only someone had had a gun when you would have no idea how you or anyone else would react in a situation where a mad gunman is going room to room shooting people. Your first response is shock and then fight or flight. What do you do? Stand up to a crazed gunman with guns and ammunition enough to shoot many many people? Or save yourself and maybe others by locking and blocking a door to keep him out. Of course he got in anyway and shot people anyway. But he surely would have been able to shoot anyone in the room who had pulled out their own gun because he had the advantage of surprise on his side. So Colin was on the floor with everyone else in the room trying to keep themselves from being shot. Once the shooting began, it was actually Colin's 911 call that saved more lives from being lost since then officials knew exactly where the gunman was where shortly thereafter, they confronted Cho and he shot himself. Colin is quite convinced that had he brought out a gun, if he had one, Cho would have killed him. As it was, he was randomly shooting anyone in sight. Given his state of mind, seeing someone with a gun would have provoked him to aim directly at the potential shooter. Colin describes the scene and his state of mind and the very short time to react to what was going on. By the time he was injured, many in the room with him had already been killed and he would have had a hard time weilding a gun given his injuries.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well anon- not one person I hang out with or have talked to supports your views actually and many of them own guns. Polls are used by you guys when you want to use them. This poll is not different from other polling data which has consistently over many years shown the same results. And you guys don't believe any of them even though the polls show clear public trends and clear public support for reasonable restrictions. This latest poll, in fact, shows even stronger support for some measures than others have.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, I don't believe in using polls either way. Polls are statistical lies. Depends on the bias in the question.. Depends on who you ask. Since they don't ask everyone, saying that x believes in something is BS.

    It may help you in deciding which way the wind is blowing but it doesn't tell you the temperature. Besides, we don't vote on things that way, so it means bumpkis.

    ReplyDelete
  35. We will see where the pro-gun-control "silent majroity" is when these bills come up for a vote in Congress. If they even make it out of committee, that is...

    ReplyDelete
  36. I just saw the text of the bill and it exempts
    Allows for the following exemptions to the ban (identical to the original law):
    o Active law enforcement
    o Protection of nuclear materials
    o Retired law enforcement for devices transferred to them at retirement
    o Authorized testing or experimentation

    This pic is the first ting I though of
    http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/unconstitutional-weapons-ban-500x400.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  37. The first pic I think of is the victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Nickel Mines, Omaha shopping mall, Red Lake, Northern Illinois University, the 3 Pittsburg police officers mowed down by Richard Poplowski in an ambush with his assault rifles.

    ReplyDelete
  38. really I would think that all but one of those would make you think of this sign

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L47AtDjky5M/SZbwZJcoeYI/AAAAAAAAAbY/KZjeqNVlIHk/S660/(XLI+Blog)+Gun-Free+Zone.GIF

    ReplyDelete
  39. From Anthony's post:
    exemption for:
    "Active Law Enforcement"

    Hmm, I am a reserve police officer. So I cannot carry 15 round magazines for my Glock on duty? Even if you consider that I have full LE powers on duty the rules of my department are very clear, I am not a LEO in any way off duty.
    So I could carry 15 rounders on duty but could not even have my duty gear at home? I can have my 3 magazines issued to me but I cant buy additional mags for backup in my active shooter response bag?

    ReplyDelete
  40. You, Anthony- I did not get what you meant by your last comment.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Columbine School that Banned Guns
    Virginia Tech School that Banned Guns
    Nickel Mines School that Banned Guns
    Omaha shopping mall Not sure but I would assume that they banned guns
    Red Lake School that Banned Guns in addition to the sign they had a metal detector to stop guns.
    Northern Illinois University School that Banned Guns
    The 3 Pittsburg police officers mowed down by Richard Poplowski in an ambush This is the only one where guns were not banned

    I would think that the sign that I posted would be one of the first thing you thought of as it it what you seem to want to expand. You recently made a comment on bars for example.

    And as a FYI you spelled Richard Poplawski wrong

    ReplyDelete
  42. You know, Anthony- you don't seem like a very nice person to me. What is your point? I still don't get it. Do you think high school kids should now carry guns to defend themselves? Is that what you are getting at? Why don't you just say it instead of being so sarcastic. By the way, thanks for telling me I misspelled a word.. I do it on purpose just to see if you guys are checking out every single word I write!

    ReplyDelete
  43. In my original post I was trying to point out that the bill lets cops have dangerous "extended" magazines. I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You then brought up a bunch of shootings. I then pointed out that all but one of these shootings were in a "gun free zone" This is what the Brady Campaign has said would make things safer.

    No I do not think Kids should carry guns to school.
    I did not bring up the spelling as an attack Just when I used Google it corrected his name.

    ReplyDelete
  44. In addition we obviously do not see eye to eye. I however do not think you are not a nice person. In fact I am sure you get along fine in in your group of like mined friends as do I.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think the 1000-foot bubble law is completely stupid.

    I think the magazine capacity restrictions are good but won't help much.

    I think background checks on all transfers of guns is the number one most important legislation we need. Along with that better screening for former violent offenders and mental defectives. Of course this would lead to registration and licensing, which when combined with the background checks would virtually eliminate straw purchasing and severely cut down on the gun flow into the criminal world.

    These ideas are where the real benefits can be had. I find it surprising that so many people are wasting so much time on the magazine size and the 1000-ft. rule.

    ReplyDelete
  46. For ten years we had a ten round limit on magazines. Some states still do, guess what. The bans did nothing to reduce crime. NOTHING!! Yet naive people still think we need them.

    Japete. What is the definition of a criminal? Well of course, it's a person who breaks the laws. So when we pass these laws it does not stop them, it only gives the State a legal right to punish the person who commits the crime. This is good. However when the State in it's zeal passes a law which harms or hinders law abiding Citizens above and beyond any benefit the law might provide, it's a bad law and is usually retracted.

    Yet despite compelling evidence that this new law would not work to stop crime nor give the State a new tool with which to punish criminals, yet it is your "feelings" that this is a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  47. P says, in his omniscience, "For ten years we had a ten round limit on magazines. Some states still do, guess what. The bans did nothing to reduce crime. NOTHING!! Yet naive people still think we need them."

    Please tell us how you know what didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Please tell us how you know what didn't happen. "

    Just hazarding a guess, but probably by looking at the overall crime rate statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  49. mikeb,
    Interesting that we agree on the magazine limits and the unbelievably stupid 1000' bubble idea. Sadly though, I'm sure you know we don't agree on registration and licensing as I don't believe that would eliminate the black market in the slightest. It may possibly reduce straw purchases but it would say nothing for other methods of acquiring arms. I continue to believe that the proper course of action would be to eliminate the core causes of crime and violence and not worry about the tools.
    As to why some people are concentrating their efforts on magazine limits and other silliness, maybe they believe it is low hanging fruit?

    ReplyDelete
  50. On the subject of polls... Some polls say that "the people" agree with me.. some say they agree with Joan and kin.. I believe we've proven the usefulness of polls by themselves, no?

    If the public is really clamoring for these laws, where are the protests in the streets? Why is the Brady Campaign and their friends running out of money? Where is their true grassroots? There is this persistent, I'll be kind and say untruth, that the NRA and related groups get their money from the evil evil gun companies. However, that is not the case. They get it from us. From their millions of members. Where are the gun control group's millions of members? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Dozens?

    The fact is that there is no such thing as true grassroots support for gun control outside of a core set of believers. There is no pro-gun control group which is the equivalent of the NRA. The Brady Campaign is arguably the largest and they don't even have close to the level of membership.

    So when one wants to speak of public support, do you want to believe biased polls or membership data? Hell, just look at this very blog. There are like four pro-gun control commenters here, counting Joan herself, and how many against it? Where is that magic support?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Heather, aren't you pro-gun folks the ones who so often trot out that old correlation / causation argument? Now, you're saying what exactly, that looking at the overall crime rate statistics, you can tell something?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mikeb, as someone as intelligent as you surely knows, causation is quite difficult to prove. Correlation can be easier.

    In this particular case, the hypothesis P put forward is that standard capacity magazine bans do not affect crime.

    Now, I haven't looked at any of the data, but Mike you replied wanting to know how one could assert that the bans did not affect crime. I put forth my suggestion: if one compares the overall crime rates both before and after the ban and they are statistically equivalent, that would support the hypothesis.

    Note, I have not looked at any of the data or anything. I was just answering your question, mike, as to one way one could use available information to make the original assertion.

    ReplyDelete