A gun control law that would actually work?

[Direckshun]

I'd say so.

A rundown of the idea:

• A ban on firearms -- rifle or pistol -- that can hold more than six bullets.
• A ban on firearms with detachable magazines.

Aggressive measures, sure. But one that would considerably slow down future rampages.

I don't know if that'd include buybacks on those kinds of firearms already out in the market, but to piss off the absolute maximum of the anti-gun control folks among us, let's go with that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...y-work/266342/

A Gun Control Law That Would Actually Work
By Robert Wright
Dec 17 2012, 10:03 AM ET Comment

The AR-15 is getting its fifteen minutes of fame. Whole articles in major newspapers are devoted to the rifle that Adam Lanza used in the Newtown shooting, as the nation begins to debate restoring the ban on "assault weapons."

But the assault weapons issue is a red herring.

First of all, there's no clear and simple definition of an assault weapon, and this fact has in the past led to incoherent regulation. The defunct 1994 assault weapons ban, according to the Wall Street Journal, outlawed "semiautomatic rifles that accepted detachable magazines and possessed at least two other characteristics, including a protruding pistol grip, flash suppressor or threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock." Um, how important was it whether the gun Lanza used had a "flash suppressor"? And, by sacrificing that and a few other such features ("protruding pistol grip," etc.), a mass killer gets to keep his detachable magazine, for rapid reloading?

Second, focusing on assault weapons--or even rifles in general--distracts from the important issue of magazine capacity in pistols. It's true that if you had taken away Lanza's AR-15, he wouldn't have had a rifle that could fire 30 rounds without reloading. However, he was also carrying two pistols--a Glock 20 and a Sig Sauer P226--each of which can fire 15 rounds without reloading. And, actually, since two pistols are less conspicuous than a rifle, they're a more effective way to get 30 rounds of continuous fire into lots of public settings.

Imagine the following world, which it's within our power to create: It's illegal to sell or possess a firearm--rifle or pistol--that can hold more than six bullets. And it's illegal to sell or possess a firearm with a detachable magazine. In other words, once a shooter exhausted the six rounds, he couldn't just snap in another six-round magazine; he'd have to put six more bullets in the gun one by one.

In this world, a significant number of those 20 Newtown first graders would almost certainly be alive. Lanza reportedly fired six bullets from his AR-15 just to get inside the locked school. So, in the alternative universe I just described, he would then have to more or less exhaust one of his two pistols to kill the principal and school psychologist he encountered after entering. At that point, as he headed for the classrooms, he'd have six more rapid-fire bullets left, after which he'd have to reload his guns bullet by bullet.

Is there a single legitimate use of firearms that requires more than six rounds of continuous fire? Certainly not hunting. And not any sort of self-defense that's realistically imaginable, unless you've recently antagonized a Mexican drug cartel.

As the gun lobby gears up to battle proposals such as this one, you'll hear a lot about the fact that mass killings are actually a drop in the bucket of total homicides. True. But mass killings take a disproportionate toll on the nation psychologically and spiritually. Thirty individual people dying in isolated assaults in various cities is a horrible thing, but it doesn't terrify our children, and it doesn't turn our schools into bunkers.

The sort of law I'm describing would make lots of current guns illegal. (I actually own one.) So you'd have to phase the law in over a couple of years, and, to overcome political resistance, you might have to compensate gun owners for surrendering newly illegal guns--or for having them altered to comply with the law. And, even then, the resistance would be very, very strong. It might even turn out to be insurmountable. But if the question is "What could we do that would greatly reduce the scale of mass killings while preserving the right of Americans to use firearms for legitimate purposes," this, it seems to me, is a real answer.

Update, 12/17 4:25 p.m.: More than one commenter has noted that most handguns currently manufactured would be illegal under my proposal. True. (As I noted in the final paragraph, I own such a gun.) And on Twitter, @drgitlin has noted something I didn't realize: A revolver, which would be clearly legal under my proposal, can be loaded fairly quickly with a "speedloader." Well, if speedloaders are indeed so speedy that they're the functional equivalent of detachable magazines, they could be banned. And as for the fact that most or all non-revolver pistols would be illegal under my proposal: You'd be surprised how fast gun manufacturers would fill this void by designing semi-automatics that could hold a maximum of six bullets and could only be loaded one bullet at a time. I'm not saying this makes my proposal politically feasible; the number of existing owners of conventional semi-automatic pistols (i.e. semi-automatics with detachable magazines) might create insurmountable resistance to it, as I noted in the final paragraph. Still, governments do have the power to ban things that exist, and in this case creating substitutes that complied with the new law would be very doable. And, even if banning detachable magazines in pistols does prove politically infeasible, that doesn't mean we can't make real progress by doing the politically easier thing of banning all magazines, for both rifles and handguns, that hold more than six bullets. And it's a trivial matter for manufacturers to create magazines that would fit existing guns and comply with that law. In any event, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that another ban on "assault weapons" is by itself significant progress.

[BucEyedPea]

More from the "School Shooter" by the FBI

The issue facing educators, law enforcement agencies, and the wider public is not how to
predict school violence. Reliably predicting any type of violence is extremely difficult. Predicting
that an individual who has never acted out violently in the past will do so in the future is still more
difficult. Seeking to predict acts that occur as rarely as school shootings is almost impossible.

Misinformation About School Shootings

Though school shootings are extensively covered in the news media, the information
available in news reports is not necessarily complete, accurate, or balanced. News coverage is
inherently hasty and often relies on sources who themselves have incomplete or inaccurate
information. And journalists ordinarily do not have access to police and other investigative
reports that may contain highly significant but confidential information about a school shooting
incident or about the background, previous activities, and traits of the student or students who
carried out the shooting.

To the extent that academics, researchers, and other specialists writing in professional
publications base their articles on news accounts or other public sources, these too should be
viewed with some reservations since they will also lack critical information available only in
confidential school or law enforcement files.

News coverage magnifies a number of widespread but wrong or unverified impressions of
school shooters. Among them are:

• School violence is an epidemic.
• All school shooters are alike.
• The school shooter is always a loner.
• School shootings are exclusively revenge motivated.
• Easy access to weapons is THE most significant risk factor.

Unusual or aberrant behaviors, interests, hobbies, etc., are hallmarks of the student
destined to become violent.

[BucEyedPea]

The Copycat Effect

School shootings and other violent incidents that receive intense media attention can
generate threats or copycat violence elsewhere. Copycat behavior is very common, in fact.
Anecdotal evidence strongly indicates that threats increase in schools nationwide after a shooting
has occurred anywhere in the United States. Students, teachers, school administrators and law
enforcement officials should be more vigilant in noting disturbing student behavior in the days and
weeks or even several months following a heavily publicized incident elsewhere in the country.

How about banning the media or media control. LOL! The outrage we'd hear over that!

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by frazod

Wow.

And people think I'm crazy for pointing stuff like this out.

Hinckley clearly shot the wrong Brady.

If you think those are legit quotes, you're a bigger retard than BEP.

[Detoxing]

People need to accept the fact that this has always been a violent country, and it always will be a violent country. We are not safe, no matter how safe you think you are. There will never be peace no matter how hard you try to make it.

Humans are violent, emotional, unpredictable creatures.

You can't predict it. There is no exact science to profile a killer.

You can't predict random acts of violence.

The world isn't a safe place and it never has been.

We are born to die.

Gun bans won't change that.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

People need to accept the fact that this has always been a violent country, and it always will be a violent country. We are not safe, no matter how safe you think you are. There will never be peace no matter how hard you try to make it.

Humans are violent, emotional, unpredictable creatures.

You can't predict it. There is no exact science to profile a killer.

You can't predict random acts of violence.

The world isn't a safe place and it never has been.

We are born to die.

Gun bans won't change that.

With all the turmoil overseas , we are bound to be inline for another hit from those one day. Hope not, but hey let's be real here

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Bwana

Buybacks on guns, riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Good luck with that one.

No shit~

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

People need to accept the fact that this has always been a violent country, and it always will be a violent country. We are not safe, no matter how safe you think you are. There will never be peace no matter how hard you try to make it.

Humans are violent, emotional, unpredictable creatures.

You can't predict it. There is no exact science to profile a killer.

You can't predict random acts of violence.

The world isn't a safe place and it never has been.

We are born to die.

Gun bans won't change that.

Those of us that are armed and mean no harm on anyone unless forced are safer~

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

If you think those are legit quotes, you're a bigger retard than BEP.

By all means, I am open to some evidence as to why they are false. But not if it's Snopes since they have been unable to prove the Norman Thomas quote earlier although it's been claimed they did.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by notorious

My fellow gun lovers are going to hate me when I say this, but here it is:


What is wrong with background checks on private transactions?

(Dives to the floor and goes into full fetal position)

Connecticut had a background check and this shooter didn't want to wait for that to be done.
In this case, it wouldn't have worked. It would be more that we need a way to make access to another's guns more difficult. Saw an article on how smart technology could do this.

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Connecticut had a background check and this shooter didn't want to wait for that to be done.
In this case, it wouldn't have worked. It would be more that we need a way to make access to another's guns more difficult. Saw an article on how smart technology could do this.

I thought i heard something about some sort of finger print reading device that you could attach to the trigger.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

If you think those are legit quotes, you're a bigger retard than BEP.

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

Sorry part of the quote was omitted. Doesn't change the meaning or intent. Look up the document and get back to me.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

If you think those are legit quotes, you're a bigger retard than BEP.

I guess you're the ****ing retard, hmm?

[BucEyedPea]

Gun Haters Speak Out
http://ourldsfamily.com/~karlp/gunhaters.shtml

Liberty Tree Quotes
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_...eno.Quote.DE05

Both links have the Janet Reno quote with the first dating it as December 1993


Oh...and there are more juicy ones in the first link:

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." - Janet Reno, addressing a 1991 B'nai B'rith gathering in Ft. Lauderdale


"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

- Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del/ Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"If I could have gotten another 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done that. But I could not do that; the votes were not there."
-

Senator Dianne Feinstein, February 5, 1995, CBS's 60 Minutes

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."

- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by the Associated Press, November 18, 1993

"I believe all handguns should be abolished"

- Senator John Chafee in The Associated Press, January 9, 1997

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"

- Rep. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, December 8, 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, November 30, 1993

Even Nixon. For shame. Then again, he was one of our most socialist Republican presidents.

No wonder the left is in glee over this recent shooting. Shame on those opportunists of tragedy!

[HonestChieffan]

Stupid idea since a ton of hunting rifles have detachable magazines and nearly every 22 rifle has one. Proof people who propose ideas to fix things need even the most elementary understanding of the subject matter.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Gun Haters Speak Out
http://ourldsfamily.com/~karlp/gunhaters.shtml

Liberty Tree Quotes
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_...eno.Quote.DE05

Both links have the Janet Reno quote with the first dating it as December 1993


Oh...and there are more juicy ones in the first link:

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." - Janet Reno, addressing a 1991 B'nai B'rith gathering in Ft. Lauderdale


"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

- Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del/ Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"If I could have gotten another 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done that. But I could not do that; the votes were not there."
-

Senator Dianne Feinstein, February 5, 1995, CBS's 60 Minutes

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."

- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by the Associated Press, November 18, 1993

"I believe all handguns should be abolished"

- Senator John Chafee in The Associated Press, January 9, 1997

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"

- Rep. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, December 8, 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, November 30, 1993

Even Nixon. For shame. Then again, he was one of our most socialist Republican presidents.

No wonder the left is in glee over this recent shooting. Shame on those opportunists of tragedy!

All of those quotes are horrible but that one from Clinton made my skin crawl.