London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Of course you know that hunting rifles are more powerful than AR-15s. So what's to stop someone from using a hunting rifle to murder someone? Or what's to stop someone from using a five-shot shotgun? The thing is, people are worried about large capacity magazines. That's the issue.

 

I didn’t know that, actually.

This is true but it would stop a mentally unstable person from purchasing a new rifle with that type of power, at the very least. You make good points. I think increasing waiting periods and conducting deeper reference and background checks are where efforts also need to be put in.

 

Ah, the Glock. As I recall, that was the weapon involved in the texas shooting spree in 1991 that led to 20 deaths and the 1994 Assault Weapons Law limiting the pistol magazine capacity to 10 rounds. This law was in effect until 2004 when it expired. Of course, the gun lobby was able to carve out enough loopholes that it wasn't unduly inhibiting even when it was in effect. For a history of that, see Paul Barett's The Glock: The Rise of America's Gun. Maybe we should just go back to the 2004 law, and maybe take a look at those loopholes.

 

Ah, so you do want all guns that hold more than six rounds confiscated from all citizens! Is that right?

 

The catch is rapid fire capability and large magazines. Semi-automatics have characteristics that are not usually attractive to hunters, but are attractive to people wanting to shoot large numbers in a short time. In 2016, an Islamic State sympathizer was able to go into a gun store and buy both a pistol and an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle, which he used to kill 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Had he been armed only with the pistol, he still would have killed people — but not so many.

 

Yes, the Glock.

A list of mass shootings between April 1999 and January 2013 prepared for lawmakers in Connecticut showed that rifles were used in 10 incidents and shotguns in 10 others, while handguns were used in 42. Glock brand pistols turned up in nine of those cases.

Hysterical much?

 

Once again, I didn't say that.

What I said was that there is no justification for banning them.

I don't recall him talking about excess firepower.

Bans on flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and folding stocks do nothing whatsoever to limit firepower, so concerns over limiting firepower are no justification for such a ban.

In America at least, restrictions on rights are allowed only when those restrictions can be justified with a good reason.

That means the burden is on the supporters of a restriction to justify their desired restriction.

No, I've repeatedly discussed the fact that limits are allowed if they can be justified with a good reason.

All Constitutional rights are sacred cows.

Those would be the limits that can be justified with a good reason.

I think a limit of five rounds for detachable rifle magazines and ten rounds for all other weapons would pass Constitutional muster.

Such limits would only pass in certain states though. Large magazines are popular in some states.

 

I don't like my rights being violated.

Plus I might one day be attacked so it is good to be prepared.

They both seem like fairly rare occurrences.

Why does that difference matter?

Rifles are required for adequate self defense.

Handguns are portable, but they are very underpowered.

 

Rapid follow up shots are used in both hunting and self defense.

I suspect restrictions on magazine size, presuming they are not overly draconian, would pass constitutional muster so long as they are not tied to an assault weapons ban.

There are lots of places where large magazines are popular though. So magazine restrictions will probably only be passed in certain states.

That would be news to all the duck hunters who use semi-auto actions to soften the recoil on their shotguns, as well as all the people in Alaska who use them to soften the recoil on their bear defense guns.

 

Out of curiosity, how did the law get decided upon to allow for these higher powered rifles to begin with? I could google this, but for others too who might have the same question, thought I would post it here.

 

They aren't more powerful because of a law.

Long guns have a stock to rest against your shoulder, and your hands grip them in two different places. Plus they are heavier than a handgun.

That allows much greater control than a handgun that has no shoulder stock and is gripped in only one place. And that allows long guns to fire rounds with much greater energy and recoil while still remaining under control.

Longs guns have been more powerful than handguns for as long as there have been firearms.

 

We have a proposal from Toggle that "a limit of five rounds for detachable rifle magazines and ten rounds for all other weapons would pass Constitutional muster." Sounds good to me. All in favor? Opposed? As for certain states not going along because large magazines are popular, that could be taken care of by federal legislation--given a Congress and President who aren't in the hip pocket of the NRA. We have in the United States two pieces of legislation that have passed judicial muster that might serve as models: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), officially the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 and the Maryland firearms law upheld under heightened scrutiny by the Fourth Circuit, en banc, cert denied. since both laws survived court challenge, we have reason to think they will fly. The federal law included a ban on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms defined assault weapons and certain ammunition magazines that were defined as ""large capacity." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis The Maryland statute bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, defined as “assault weapons.” Because of the many loopholes to accommodate the gun manufacturers, the success of the federal law is debatable, but a comparison of mass shootings in the United States and Australia and found that the "1996 NFA (in Australia) coincided within the cessation of mass shooting events" in Australia, and that there were.reductions in America that were evident during the 1994–2004 US Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice. 1 (3): 131–142. The ten-round limit seems reasonable. Even Toggle seems to agree with it. I really think the emphasis should be on background checks, red flag laws, "hardening" of vulnerable targets, and yes, mental health, although we know support for that from Republicans is largely rhetorical. But I think any measures reducing the ready availability of semi-automatics to nuts, terrorists and criminals would be a step forward. I don't think confiscation of existing weapons would fly in the United States in the present political climate. Comparison with the experience of other countries shows it's possible to have a free society while limiting access to guns.

 

Congress will always be in the hip pocket of the NRA.

It won't fly. If the law includes an unjustifiable ban on cosmetic features, it is doomed to be struck down as unconstitutional.

The only way it can pass Constitutional muster is if the limits on ammo capacity stand alone with no accompanying bans on cosmetic features.

 

Earlier you said that you wanted all guns that accepted detachable magazines banned. And in the same post, you declared that you agree with the law that bans magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So if you feel that magazines that hold ten rounds should be legal, why would you want the guns that can accept those magazines banned?

Also, if an AR-15 is only capable of holding five rounds, then why would you want to see it banned? It's not an assault rifle; it's an assault "style" rifle, which means it's no different from other semiautomatic rifles.

 

And now we have the twenty-second American school shooting for the year--in Texas, one of the major centers of the gun cult. So the NRA fans can recycle their talking points once again and get ready for the next event.

 

I'm not an NRA fan. And actually, I believe it is you who are going to repeat your talking points. However, if you take a look at my last post, it is obvious that your thinking on this issue is so scattered that you didn't even know that you've been contradicting yourself. But now that circumstances have caused you to venture back into this thread, you may now explain your inconsistent reasoning highlighted by my last post to you.

Also, why don't you go ahead and make a point concerning this latest incident. What's on your mind? And please be specific.

And if you don't mind, why don't you bring me a list of those other 21 school shootings you're referring to. Then we can analyze them one by one to see if they qualify as what you believe they qualify as.

 

Back in 2012, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to perform a study on gun violence in America.

The study concluded that Americans use guns for self defense at least 500,000 times a year.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

 

By the way, gun control can have unintended consequences.

It used to be that the most potent handgun used by muggers was a five-shot .38 revolver. Handguns chambered in 9mm were all full-sized combat handguns.

But when the 1994 10 round limit meant that a full-sized 9mm suddenly had a bunch of wasted magazine space, Glock built a new compact 9mm centered around a 10 round magazine, and muggers suddenly had access to a 9mm that used 10 round detachable magazines and was the same size as a small .38 revolver.

It is likely that this greater firepower being used by muggers more than offset whatever was gained from limiting the firepower of spree shooters.

Back in the 1990s the leftists reacted to this development by trying to ban small handguns altogether. It went nowhere because by then the NRA had grown strong enough to stop them.

However before it failed, people were predicting that if the left succeeded in requiring both 10 round magazines and full-sized handguns, everybody would start buying .45 caliber pistols and no one would buy handguns in a smaller caliber. That would have increased the lethality of most handgun shootings.

 

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. No issue with self-defense. Congress prohibits the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Why Can't the U.S. Treat Gun Violence as a Public-Health Problem? This the day of the 22nd school shooting in the U.S. I rest my case.

 

Are you going to bring me a list of those other 21 school shootings you're referring to so that we can analyze them one by one to see if they qualify as what you believe they qualify as? Or, don't you want to do that?

And I have to assume that you are not going to explain the inconsistency inherent in your gun control proposals that I've pointed out to you.