Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

Here is what you said:

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Fine. We ban bump stocks but it changes nothing. Rubber bands will be used by people who want this effect.

How is that common sense or addressing issues when nothing changes except device used.

And while you "feel" no one needs it, emotions are not common sense. Please tell me how this change addresses the problem, not your emotions.

I never messed with bump stocks (and a majority of shooters never did either) but the mass murder that made them famous was also responsible for the killers guns jamming. They overheated because they were not manufactured for high speed shooting and over heated.

The bigger the mag the nastier it looks but it also becomes less effective much over 30 anyway. I had a 150 round drum n when full it was a ***** to pick up by itself.

And spray n pray is seldom effective. Hence 3 round bursts.

My 9mm has a 15 round magazine, and I'm pretty comfortable with it.

What people don't understand is that most people miss their targets repeatedly, and even more so when your heart is pounding and adrenaline flowing because you have somebody shooting at you. The longer the distance between the shooter and the target, the more likely misses.

A ten round magazine might be enough for one attacker depending on the situation, but not nearly large enough against multi attackers, especially those amped up on dope. It's also documented that just because you shoot somebody and it connects, doesn't mean you will disable them from further attack.

Esp a 9mm.

 

[2aguy]

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

OK so 30 round mags. The only factual thing you've said yet we can look at. Now will this apply to the lowly 22?. 223 only?

Rubber bands allow rapid fire simulation. Now what? And please don't tell me you mean semi automatic guns period.

And please, let's not mix and match discussions again.

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Also, I’m not an activist. I have guns, they are fun to shoot. I don’t feel like a need them for self defense but I live in a safe area. I’m fine with regulations that make sense. So I’m in these discussion for more thought provocation than to push a strong agenda

The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

This is not born out by any of the mass public shootings we have had....as the actual research shows, changing magazines takes 2-3 seconds......they are relaxed, not in a hurry, and easily change magazines in the face of unarmed victims.

The Sandy Hook shooter changed his magazines before they were empty, he used combat reloading which is changing after firing half the magazine then putting in a fresh one....the Gifford's shooter wasn't stopped because he was changing magazines....he was stopped because he allowed someone he thought he had killed to get behind him.

The best opportunity to take down a mass public shooter is to have someone shoot back at them as soon as possible.....limiting magazine capacity is simply a lie promoted by anti-gun activists working on the ignorance of uninformed Americans. And they don't want to ban 30 round magazines, they want to start with anything over 10 bullets...which means just about every regular size semi-auto pistol...made illegal due to their magazine capacity without ever having to actually ban them.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

 

[Markle]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

That’s a lame point

Why? Because you don't like it?

 

[iceberg]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

If he had 30 round mags he likely would have done more damage.pick up a full 100 round mag n put it in a gun and see how easy to shoot.

That said, I already said limiting at least is a factual point to consider. But 1 mass shooting in a fog of maybe isnt common sense to fix a problem. It's regulation for regulation.

In 30+ years in Corp life, the 2 most useless people are the oneswho shout SOMETHING MUST BE DONE and WE DID SOMETHING. if actions don't directly address problems they are just window dressing. When that fails invariably those who did it simply ratchet up regulation.

Top 5 cities of gun violence, how has tighter regulation worked?

Let's fix issues, not perception. To me THAT is common sense

What about a 10 round mag? What do you think would have happened then?

He'd likely still find a 100 round mag cause they are all over. Do you really think someone on a suicide run is going to do so legally?

Where did common sense go?

 

[2aguy]

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

So what does that have to do with anything that I’ve said?

You compared the regulations of automobiles to the regulations of guns.

No I didn’t. I was talking about machine guns

Then the AR-15, the civilian AK-47 are not machine guns by any definition......so you don't want those banned...right?

 

[iceberg]

The real question.

Do you want to control guns, or stop the shootings? If gun control has that effect then give me to cities with the strictest laws and let me know their gun violence.

If that isn't working let's look for answers elsewhere.

 

[2aguy]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

He could have done that with 2 pistols with 2 10 round magazines...what stopped him was people with guns shooting him.....

 

[2aguy]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

The Gilroy shooter had a rifle and 30 round magazines too.....he killed 3...

The guy in Russia had a 5 shot, tube fed, no magazine, pump action shotgun and killed 20 and injured 40

It isn't the gun, it isn't the magazine...it is the amount of time the killer is free before someone shoots back.

 

[iceberg]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

The Gilroy shooter had a rifle and 30 round magazines too.....he killed 3...

The guy in Russia had a 5 shot, tube fed, no magazine, pump action shotgun and killed 20 and injured 40

It isn't the gun, it isn't the magazine...it is the amount of time the killer is free before someone shoots back.

UT tower sniper had a bolt action.

 

[2aguy]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

Which is why I always ask people that are for magazine limitations: Would you be happy if only 22 people got killed in a mass murder instead of 23?

It simply doesn't solve anything.

The "we saved one life" sounds good but again is emotional and difficult to prove.

I want changes that work. Not make people feel safe.

Tell ya what. Get two paintball squads and arm one squad with rapid fire weapons and the other with less powerful weapons and less ammo capacity and then have both squads go shoot up a crowd and see who gets more hits. Do you really have a question about the outcome

Sorry.....false comparison..... any tightly packed victim group will take more casualties...... again, it is the time it takes to shoot back at the attacker that determines how many are killed.

 

[2aguy]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

That’s a lame point

How is it lame when I just provided video evidence that changing a magazine is as easy as flipping a coin? This video is proof positive limited magazine size will not solve anything.

And he knows that.......first, they establish they can ban magazines....and they take anything over 10, then, they come back for the ones that hold 10.

 

[Markle]

I have a close friend of many years who is retired military and spent many years as a mercenary. He is as mild-mannered and easy-going as anyone I know. He is also a gunsmith and has built several rifles and shotguns that are more works of art than any sort of weapon.

We were talking about the bump-stock issue when that murder occurred. He took me out into our National Forest and showed me what can be done with "ordinary" over the counter guns. Anyone who honestly believes that a limit on magazines or banning "assault" weapons will make one iota of a difference, have their heads up their behinds.

 

[2aguy]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Why is that lame? I’ve met several posters on this board that support such things and state that any kind of regulation on firearms is unconstitutional.

The hyperbole, Slade3200.
I do not believe anyone within the confines of our conversation have the belief anyone should be able to run down to the local 24/7/365 7-11 and be able to buy an uzi when they run in to get a Slurpee for their kid...
It cheapens the conversation. I know you're better than that.

The last conversation I had about this 3 posters in the thread all said that. They also said it should be fine for anybody to walk through a school with a gun. It blows my mind.

I use the 711 question to see if I’m talking to rational people who can admit that some
Regulation is needed or if I’m talking to a wingnut

Yes....any law abiding gun owner should be able to carry their legal gun into a school...they aren't the ones who are shooting people........the ones shooting people are carrying guns into gun free zones right now and shooting people...

Do you even see the illogic to your point?

And all of your panic is over 12 mass public shootings with a total of 93 people killed..... while knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year....do you even understand that concept?

 

[2aguy]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

If he had 30 round mags he likely would have done more damage.pick up a full 100 round mag n put it in a gun and see how easy to shoot.

That said, I already said limiting at least is a factual point to consider. But 1 mass shooting in a fog of maybe isnt common sense to fix a problem. It's regulation for regulation.

In 30+ years in Corp life, the 2 most useless people are the oneswho shout SOMETHING MUST BE DONE and WE DID SOMETHING. if actions don't directly address problems they are just window dressing. When that fails invariably those who did it simply ratchet up regulation.

Top 5 cities of gun violence, how has tighter regulation worked?

Let's fix issues, not perception. To me THAT is common sense

What about a 10 round mag? What do you think would have happened then?

He would have used more than one gun or simply changed magazines.

 

[2aguy]

I have a close friend of many years who is retired military and spent many years as a mercenary. He is as mild-mannered and easy-going as anyone I know. He is also a gunsmith and has built several rifles and shotguns that are more works of art than any sort of weapon.

We were talking about the bump-stock issue when that murder occurred. He took me out into our National Forest and showed me what can be done with "ordinary" over the counter guns. Anyone who honestly believes that a limit on magazines or banning "assault" weapons will make one iota of a difference, have their heads up their behinds.

No, they don't have their heads up their behinds...they Know it will make no difference, but they know they will come back and demand more confiscation the next mass shooting...

 

[iceberg]

I have a close friend of many years who is retired military and spent many years as a mercenary. He is as mild-mannered and easy-going as anyone I know. He is also a gunsmith and has built several rifles and shotguns that are more works of art than any sort of weapon.

We were talking about the bump-stock issue when that murder occurred. He took me out into our National Forest and showed me what can be done with "ordinary" over the counter guns. Anyone who honestly believes that a limit on magazines or banning "assault" weapons will make one iota of a difference, have their heads up their behinds.

No, they don't have their heads up their behinds...they Know it will make no difference, but they know they will come back and demand more confiscation the next mass shooting...

It's about control.

Period.

 

[Slade3200]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

If he had 30 round mags he likely would have done more damage.pick up a full 100 round mag n put it in a gun and see how easy to shoot.

That said, I already said limiting at least is a factual point to consider. But 1 mass shooting in a fog of maybe isnt common sense to fix a problem. It's regulation for regulation.

In 30+ years in Corp life, the 2 most useless people are the oneswho shout SOMETHING MUST BE DONE and WE DID SOMETHING. if actions don't directly address problems they are just window dressing. When that fails invariably those who did it simply ratchet up regulation.

Top 5 cities of gun violence, how has tighter regulation worked?

Let's fix issues, not perception. To me THAT is common sense

I believe the stats show that when assault weapons were banned the number of mass shootings was reduced.

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[iceberg]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

The argument is "slow them down" OF WHICH it doesn't enough to make a difference. Cite ANY mass shooting where large capacity mags caused more deaths. Usually they jam and weight makes carrying and aiming harder.

how about this most recent shooting in Dayton. The guy had a 100 round mag and shot about 20 people in just over a minute. Thank god the cops got there and took him
Down so quickly

If he had 30 round mags he likely would have done more damage.pick up a full 100 round mag n put it in a gun and see how easy to shoot.

That said, I already said limiting at least is a factual point to consider. But 1 mass shooting in a fog of maybe isnt common sense to fix a problem. It's regulation for regulation.

In 30+ years in Corp life, the 2 most useless people are the oneswho shout SOMETHING MUST BE DONE and WE DID SOMETHING. if actions don't directly address problems they are just window dressing. When that fails invariably those who did it simply ratchet up regulation.

Top 5 cities of gun violence, how has tighter regulation worked?

Let's fix issues, not perception. To me THAT is common sense

I believe the stats show that when assault weapons were banned the number of mass shootings was reduced.

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data. - PubMed - NCBI

I believe I can find others studies that say inconclusive over long term

Now top 5 cities in gun control and their results? That keeps getting ignored.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rubber bands? How about bump stocks? I thought that was a fair thing to ban. And yes, I don’t think we need a 30 round capacity in any weapon. The best opportunity to take down a shooter is when they reload.

Is that what you think? Tell that to this guy.

That’s a lame point

How is it lame when I just provided video evidence that changing a magazine is as easy as flipping a coin? This video is proof positive limited magazine size will not solve anything.

And he knows that.......first, they establish they can ban magazines....and they take anything over 10, then, they come back for the ones that hold 10.

That's kind of been my concern in these topics, and that is banning anything is just the first of many steps towards gun confiscation.

After the AR's, mass murderers will start using semi-automatic handguns. When there are several mass shootings using them only, their next step will be to get rid of everything but revolvers.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Right, and we'll have criminals in droves lining up to turn in their high capacity magazines.

Got it!

If they are found with one they get a harsher punishment. That’s a positive

So now I must turn mine in or I'm a criminal? The regulation and control for unproven results isn't going to go well.

It CERTAINLY is not common sense.

I think people who have them should get a license to have them and stores shouldn’t be allowed to sell them to people without that license. Same as automatics