Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And yet, if the shooters in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Aurora, Sen Bernardino, etc, had only been able to find and use 10rd magazines, nothing would been different.Oh FFS this is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You're just making up pretend facts and walking everything back from a pro-NRA policy position. Of course higher-capacity magazines provide a boost to a shooter in a criminal situation. Otherwise, why have them?
You know that in none of the places where 'high capacity' magazines are 'banned' is it a felony to possess them.I said if his guns are legal he couldn't be charged with anything so having an illegal, large capacity mag would allow the cops to send him to federal prison for 25 to life with no parole. Otherwise he'd just walk.It would if you caught the terrorist before he had a chance to commit his deeds. Otherwise what can you charge him with if his guns are all legal?That misdemeanor charge - if provable - on top of all those felony murder and attempted murder charges will certainly make a difference!Making large magazines illegal give law-enforcement a lever to use if a terrorist is caught with one.
If his guns are illegal you charge with illegal possession of firearms and send him to federal prison for 25 to life with no parole
How does a permit prevent anyone from doing something illegal?I have no problem with anyone owning a high capacity magazine. With the proper permits.
As noted before -- you do not seek compromise because you do not offer anything in exchange for the limits you want to impose..The truth is I don't even care about magazine capacity, it is a red herring. But it does show the intransigence of, not even most gun owners, but really the NRA. Most people in this country want stricter gun laws. If you don't, yelling "from my cold dead hands" is not a path to a compromise you will like.
That's how it works with murder, assault, rape, robbery, etc - laws are enforced after they are broken.So there is no way to protect people from gun violence except to punish the perp after the fact? That seems a stretch.The people who want stricter gun laws.....don't understand current gun laws and how they work...and don't understand how foolish the new gun laws proposed actually are.....and how useles they are....
Mindless response.so murder shouldn't be illegal because it only affects people who don't commit murder?
The guy in Nice could only get toy guns and a truck.The anti gunners keep pushing for limits on the number of bullets normal people can have in their pistols and rifles........the reason.....if they limit the number to 10, they can ban certain types of pistols and rifles without having to call it a ban and without having to pass gun control legislation banning all of those weapons......
What is the point......who is really effected by magazine bullet limits...
Mass Public shooters....? No. They can kill easily by exchanging magazines...and actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed...
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
Criminals....? No. They can get whatever they want...even in countries with complete bans and confiscation of guns....France bans all semi auto rifles and all fully auto rifles...and their criminals and their terrorists get those rifles and standard magazines easily.....
the people who are hurt....those who are law abiding...who are on their own in the face of criminal attack, who will have no help and will have to rely on their pistol to save their life........
Nevermind that France has a tiny fraction of the # of gun deaths we do.
Again.......their criminals have all the access to guns they want.....they prefer fully automatic AK-47s and those rifles have become status symbols among French criminals...........criminals and terrorists get guns easily in France....law abiding people can't get them...
You are wrong...again....
Link me to a comparison between UK's gun death rate in 1968 and UK's gun death rate now. Not murder rate, gun death rate. Please.Nevermind that France has a tiny fraction of the # of gun deaths we do.
Again.......their criminals have all the access to guns they want.....they prefer fully automatic AK-47s and those rifles have become status symbols among French criminals...........criminals and terrorists get guns easily in France....law abiding people can't get them...
You are wrong...again....
Okay. Prove it. What's the gun death rate in France as compared to the U.S.?
Their criminals don't commit murder as often as our criminals do...regardless of weapon......and yet they have easy access to guns..........our non gun murder rate is higher than their entire murder rate......
It is the criminal culture and their willingness to commit murder that is different...our criminals shoot and murder 9 year old boys in alleys to get revenge on the boys gang banger father......theirs don't do that......
You believe that the mere precense of guns creates gun murder....and that is where you are wrong.......
We had 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s......we now have 357,000,000 guns in private hands...and our gun murder rate went down........our gun crime rate went down....our violent crime rate went down......adding guns did not increase gun crime...you are wrong.
Britain confiscated guns from law abiding gun owners...and their gun crime rate stayed the same......
Guns do not create murder.....social factors that create the criminal sub culture and their attitude toward murder do.......
I don't see a French gun murder rate ANYWHERE in this tripe. Are you afraid to answer?
so a gun murder is somehow worse than a knife murder?
Murder is murder
Our murder rate is almost exactly what it was in 1950
The UK's murder rate is almost exactly what it was in 1950 and the UK passed extremely strict gun laws in 1968
So tell me why isn't the murder rate in the UK less that what it was in 1950 and why isn't ours astronomically higher than it was in 1950?
He had a 7.65mm handgun.The guy in Nice could only get toy guns and a truck.
So you can engage in a correlation = causation fallacy?[
Link me to a comparison between UK's gun death rate in 1968 and UK's gun death rate now. Not murder rate, gun death rate. Please.
The guy in Nice could only get toy guns and a truck.
It's not a "talking point." It is common sense.Laws are only broken by criminals. Why should law abiding citizens be burdened by law?
Do you guys all go to the same talking point book?
Laws don't stop criminals...they do stop law abiding people...so if you keep law abiding people from owning guns...it does not effect the gun crime rate.........
Law abiding people obey the law that says you can't murder people...criminals only obey when they want to.
What were YOU doing in the post I replied to?So you can engage in a correlation = causation fallacy?[
Link me to a comparison between UK's gun death rate in 1968 and UK's gun death rate now. Not murder rate, gun death rate. Please.
I don't understand how that indicates he COULD have gotten guns. True the guy was one of the many unstable who got sucked into the terrorists' koolaid party. Is that where you're going?The guy in Nice could only get toy guns and a truck.
That's a pretty solid indication that firearms availability was not a problem that hindered his plans. Probably a pretty solid endorsement that the perpetrator is more important than the method as well. If we keep discussing things, it is quite possible we may actually come up with a solution that addresses problem correctly.
You're F&B's sock, aren't you?He had a 7.65mm handgun.The guy in Nice could only get toy guns and a truck.
I don't understand how that indicates he COULD have gotten guns. True the guy was one of the many unstable who got sucked into the terrorists' koolaid party. Is that where you're going?
There's no sense, common or otherwise, in the idea that it is possible to enact a law hat will prevent people from breaking another law.It's not a "talking point." It is common sense.Laws are only broken by criminals. Why should law abiding citizens be burdened by law?
Do you guys all go to the same talking point book?
Laws don't stop criminals...they do stop law abiding people...so if you keep law abiding people from owning guns...it does not effect the gun crime rate.........
Law abiding people obey the law that says you can't murder people...criminals only obey when they want to.
I didn't see your answer.What were YOU doing in the post I replied to?So you can engage in a correlation = causation fallacy?[
Link me to a comparison between UK's gun death rate in 1968 and UK's gun death rate now. Not murder rate, gun death rate. Please.
Sorry that the truth does not jive with your misconceptions.You're F&B's sock, aren't you?He had a 7.65mm handgun.The guy in Nice could only get toy guns and a truck.
Excellent example of ideology trumping reality.Banks are free to do with their money as they wish. Don't you have the freedom to build your own vault? Put your money under a mattress? Do you really want to make it a law requiring all people to put their money in a bank?Banks tend to keep there money in vaults. Is that to limit my freedom to get to my money or is it to stop criminals from getting to it? Couldn't gun controls perform the same function as that vault?
