Neither of the weapons would have had a 30 round magazine if it was against the law to sell a gun with that round capacity. How many lives could have been spared, maybe 20 or maybe 0. I don't know but I think it's worth an effort to at least try. I was watching ABC nightly news last night and they had a law enforcement expert on talking about high capacity magazines and reload time. He could switch magazines in 2 seconds, it took the reporter almost 5. The law enforcement expert stated that in one recent school shooting (sorry I can't remember where) the shooter was tackled by teachers and stopped while reloading. That is all the convincing I need.

It takes very little practice to be proficient at quickly swapping magazines. It also doesn't address the fact that clips can be altered or obtained illegally. In other words, the shooter would still be able to have 30 round magazines post ban.

Again, it isn't the gun, it isn't the magazines. The ban won't stop the next incident.

As to the mental health issue here and in many, many situations in our society, there is one big starting point - fix the family.

 

If we really want to get to the base issue here, IMO it is all about the disintegration of family structure. We are getting to the point (maybe we are already there) where the traditional family - husband, wife, married for life, kids - is in the minority. In addition [please consider this an observation and not a chauvinistic belief] the two income family is a factor as well. I wonder how many of these perpetrators are from "broken" homes.

 

I could go on a complete rant on this topic as it relates to so many issues in our society. The loss of the traditional family is a major factor in many of our societal issues, including violent acts like Sandy Hook. Yes the Sandy Hook perpetrator (I will not use his name and don't think anyone should) had some mental issues. He also is a child in a broken family. His brother and father apparently had not talked with him since 2010. I have no doubt that this dysfunction is involved in this tragedy. Fix the family.

Couldn't agree more!

It takes very little practice to be proficient at quickly swapping magazines. It also doesn't address the fact that clips can be altered or obtained illegally. In other words, the shooter would still be able to have 30 round magazines post ban.

Again, it isn't the gun, it isn't the magazines. The ban won't stop the next incident.

 

So if there is little difference to someone who is proficient with a gun then why are those folks not willing to limit magazine capacity? Because in my view there is a difference and that difference can afford a well meaning individual(s) the opportunity to tackle a shooter and save lives. Which turns us back to is there a legitimate need for 30 round magazines and I still haven't heard of one realistic scenario that says there is.

I've been thinking about your list and the fact that mass killings aren't your focus. With that in mind tell me how any of the above changes the gun deaths?

 

Let's look at suicide. I have some chemical issues going on upstairs causing depression and what to kill myself. I go to buy a gun and I have to wait 3 days. In that time will I suddenly become happy and not want to kill myself? To stay on that, I can only buy a gun that holds 5 bullets. That's still 4 more then I need. There are no gun shows in my area for months so the loopholes don't affect me.

 

Let's look at heat of the moment killings. Husband and wife get into a fight, husband goes and buys a gun, comes back and shoots wife. I will give you this one. How many of the 11,400 killings in 2009 were a result of this type of situation?

Same scenario...except now husband can't run to local gun show and buy a gun. Doesn't matter because there isn't a gun show in town for months. As far as the capacity issue, no change, husband just shoots wife 5 times instead of 10-15. She is still dead. He reloads for good measure and shoots a few more.

 

Let's look at shootings by criminals/gang members/ect...None of the above changes anything because their guns are all illegal anyway.

 

I do think the odds of suicide decrease with waiting. I base that on nothing other than it seems logical.

 

Capacity issue is aimed more at the general feeling of "why do we need so much capacity" and you're right about it not having an impact on most spur-of-the-moment shootings. I just fall into the "why" camp on that one.

 

I just see no downside to making someone wait a week to purchase a gun AND I see it causing some people to reevaluate their desire to own one.

Clyde, Google home invasion followed by shootout and then Google BAC of .02 causes fatality and let me know which one is realistic.

 

It's not an extreme example, and it doesn't have to be three assailants for you to empty five rounds missing without hitting the target. Again, simple question, whose shoes would you rather be in?

 

Your example of 3 is what I was responding to. I can't think of any cases of 3 invading and there being a shootout. Therefore,it seems like you're using an extreme example ie .02 BAC.

 

We can all think of scenarios where it would be great to have an army at our disposal. They're just not likely to occur. So, do we not set a law because of an extreme case?

Sandy Hook is the extreme

 

It is. Is there a law we can create to stop the extreme?

Oh it's not hard to follow. It just doesn't have any substance to compare to the topic. You're still reaching, and it's not there.

 

The only way it can be a "reach" is if you think a 3-man invasion resulting in a shootout is not unusual. If you agree that it IS unusual then my analogy makes perfect sense.

 

Again, pretty straight forward analogy.

So if there is little difference to someone who is proficient with a gun then why are those folks not willing to limit magazine capacity? Because in my view there is a difference and that difference can afford a well meaning individual(s) the opportunity to tackle a shooter and save lives. Which turns us back to is there a legitimate need for 30 round magazines and I still haven't heard of one realistic scenario that says there is.

The 30 round argument has been done here before, it went nowhere. It wouldn't matter what reason anyone would give you, you've made your mind up already. I also just explained to you that it wouldn't stop people from having 30 round magazines. How many is enough in your mind?

The 30 round argument has been done here before, it went nowhere. It wouldn't matter what reason anyone would give you, you've made your mind up already. I also just explained to you that it wouldn't stop people from having 30 round magazines. How many is enough in your mind?

 

I already stated 6 which allows for hunting, target shooting, and home defense without restricting any type or class of weapons currently considered legal. Is that so bad? The 30 round argument gets nowhere because if there were a case for it to be made it would be obvious and logical, in my opinion of course.

Your example of 3 is what I was responding to. I can't think of any cases of 3 invading and there being a shootout. Therefore,it seems like you're using an extreme example ie .02 BAC.

 

We can all think of scenarios where it would be great to have an army at our disposal. They're just not likely to occur. So, do we not set a law because of an extreme case?

A law that would help? No. That's my argument. The proposed ban won't stop anything.

 

What we need is to address the actual problem, mental illness being the leading factor. From there, parenting, video games (possibly), glorification (in the minds of the sick individuals that commit these crimes) of the 24/7 news. These are things that take precedence for me. Like I said again and again, something has changed since I was a kid and it sin't the guns.

 

You can easily empty five or six rounds in any scenario with 1 assailant missing the target and that isn't an extreme example. Home invasions happen and shots get fired in some of them.

I already stated 6 which allows for hunting, target shooting, and home defense without restricting any type or class of weapons currently considered legal. Is that so bad? The 30 round argument gets nowhere because if there were a case for it to be made it would be obvious and logical, in my opinion of course.

Yes, 6 is too little. I gave a simple scenario why.

I already stated 6 which allows for hunting, target shooting, and home defense without restricting any type or class of weapons currently considered legal.

Also, what sense would there be to have anything other than a revolver if all that was allowed were 6 shots in handguns?

Yes, 6 is too little. I gave a simple scenario why.

 

I responded which you never replied that most home invasions, shootings occur to people who are involved in other criminal activities. I argue that crimes are very rarely random in the cases that they are random and occur to law abiding citizens that 6 rounds should be enough. I could be swayed by a solid argument that 6 is to low and I've asked if 9 is more appropriate with no answer. I know that 30 round magazines aren't designed for home defense or hunting.

Also, what sense would there be to have anything other than a revolver if all that was allowed were 6 shots in handguns?

 

Probably none, what amount of rounds do you feel is adequate for a law abiding citizen's home defense needs? I can be swayed for higher but how much is the question.

Probably none, what amount of rounds do you feel is adequate for a law abiding citizen's home defense needs? I can be swayed for higher but how much is the question.

This is a never ending argument. How many is too many versus how few is enough? You say 6, why? Don't give me the it gives someone time to tackle a shooter. In a situation like the CO theater shooting no one is looking to tackle that guy. Everyone is running for the door or hiding behind seats. In a school shooting you will never get close enough to a shooter to tackle them. If someone breaks into my house and has 15 shots I would like to at least have the same. Do I need 30, don't know. But I sure don't want to be dead because I ran out of bullets before the bad guy did.