Skip to main content

View Diary: You just elected Paul Ryan POTUS in 2016 (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not a policy expert here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, ancblu

    so I guess I'm not sure where you would say tighter regulation would stop and an outright ban would start.  Obviously, a ban of hi-cap magazines would be harder to whittle away at and it would also provide a disincentive to manufacture these things in the first place that regulation--if too loose--might not.  The only reason to regulate them rather than ban them would be if there really was a legit use for them that needed to be protected.  I honestly can't think of a legit use that is infringed upon by banning hi-cap magazines--and whenever I have commented to this effect in the past, I rarely get any convincing replies to the contrary from the absolute gun rights crowd.

    Here's my take on your other question.  There is a certain tiny percentage of people in our country who may be moved to kill a bunch of strangers for whatever reason.  Firearms don't cause that, but they give them the ability to do that effectively.  What types of firearms do they choose and what types of firearms make for the most damage?  

    Firearms that are: fast, hold many rounds, and ammunition designed to do additional damage.

    I'd rather we talked about firearms in those terms than getting bogged down in specific designs or models.  If a gun can be repeatedly fired quickly and can hold more rounds than are reasonable (or often, legal) for hunting game, there really isn't a legit need for those designs and we should seriously question a need to manufacture and sell these things as they enable these mass shootings.  The same goes for ammunition designed to cause additional damage on impact.  In most cases, hunters avoid many of these precisely because they don't want damaged animals and lead fragments in their meat.

    Of course, all of this is complicated by past efforts of the gun lobby which has made sure that these guns had a market, so there are lots of them out there already.  So, at least initial efforts--such as restricting availability of certain ammunition and fees around licensing specific firearms--need to be MORE restrictive than ultimately desirable to create a disincentive for current owners of guns like this to maintaining them.

    It's a shame that so many of these ridiculous weapons that are far more lethal than any hunter would ever need have flooded the market for years and that we will have to pay for that for a long time.  Every one we can take out of circulation is a step in the right know, the theory of holes.  

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:47:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site