Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA Swings and Misses (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no useful utility for high cap. magazines (8+ / 0-)

    It's about time the courts and legislatures stand up for people and reason.  How long are we supposed to put up with this NRA nonsense?

    “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

    by TheFern on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 06:55:00 PM PDT

    •  Rabbits, those sumbiches are hard to hit. (5+ / 0-)

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 08:09:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wayne agrees... (6+ / 0-)

        We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

        by Glen The Plumber on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 08:46:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you should spot fanged Easter bunnies (0+ / 0-)

          near Sunnyvale's (Hell Mouth) High School, you are still free (like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, et al) to carry all the sharpened wooden stakes, crosses and vials of holy water and oil that you can. And of course swords, daggers, etc. poisons optional. You'll probably want to stash a few go bags around for fast moving skirmishes in the field.  Seriously, how many apocalypses have to happen in Sunnyvale, including total obliteration before America wakes up?

          If using a firearm, bullets of course must be silver in magazines/clips carrying more than 10 bullets. Flame throwers are optional, but as long as you can make concealed carry work, feel free.  The herb Vervaine should be in wide usage as well. Wolf's bane as well.

          For goblin, demon , orc & general monster hunting try sturdy cross-bows shooting silver tipped bolts and blessed/soaked in holy oil (flammable is best.)  Then there is rolling for hit turns & damage points...get your heavy duty dice ready.

          When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

          by antirove on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 01:47:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please tell me (0+ / 0-)

      What is the difference between a sane, reasonable and useful ten-round magazine and an eleven round magazine with no useful utility?

      I'm sure you have a solid reason firmly in mind, and I'd love to hear it. I wouldn't want you to look like someone who is simply making up limits and arbitrarily defining "high-capacity" by some number you pulled out of your...hat.

      •  Purely a legal definition (3+ / 0-)

        Just like "assault weapon", there is no such thing as a universal definition of a large-capacity magazine. It depends entirely on the laws passed, most of which were passed in the 1990s.

        Regulation of large-capacity ammunition magazines has been around since the 1920s (in DC it was 12 rounds). 10 round limits have been upheld post-Heller in the DC Circuit, and in Federal District Courts in NY and CT.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:03:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's nice, but -why-? (0+ / 0-)

          Simple legal precedent does not mean "correct" or "useful". If it did, you and I would be in support of plenty of truly awful laws for the simple reason of that they were passed by legislatures and supported by judges who died before we were even born.

          To be completely non-snarky, have there been any studies of firearm crimes to say "based on the number of shots fired in the average firearm incident, we can reduce the average number of deaths and injuries by X if we reduce the maximum legal magazine size to Y"?

          Or, are gun control advocates simply pulling the number 10 (or in the case of New York, 7) out of thin air in the exact same way abortion opponents pull "8 weeks" or some other arbitrary number out of thin air?

          Gabrielle Giffords still shoots a Glock with a 17-round magazine. Despite being a victim of horrific firearm violence and having her own gun control organization, her definition of a "high-capacity" magazine is clearly at odds with someone who thinks 11 (CT), 8 (NY) or 16 (CO) is too much.

          •  Compelling question and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TRPChicago

            great topic for a diary series.

            1. Identify which studies have attempted to measure this?
            2. Which organizations/experts sponsored the research/paid for the analyses?
            3. Were the studies published in peer-reviewed journals?

            Seem like diaries with your passion and analytical skills would make compelling articles.

            Or is this hopeful homework younger assigning because some other diary topic has your whole attention right now?

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:42:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, just real life (0+ / 0-)

              I have not seen any such studies, nor been able to tease the data out of FBI and CDC figures. But that does not mean it isn't there or studies showing the breakdown of shots fired vs. casualties are unavailable.

              But I do have other pressing demands on my time, so unless I stumble across it while doing other research, I'll leave it to someone who wants the magazine limits to find data showing the best possible number for getting results. I'm not in favor of limits, but those who are should have a reason for it more substantial than either "because I said so" or "because that's the way Grandpa limited them".

              •  But you seem to have a lot of time to comment (3+ / 0-)

                at DKos - why not instead use that time to write a diary. You bring up good points about valid subjects. We all have demands on our time.

                The case for limiting magazine capacity is made at state capitols in NY, Conn., Colo., and other states passing those limits. Anyone with the time, can run a Google search and find articles and statements as to why limiting magazine capacity reduces the risk of a bullet doing harm. I encourage anyone with the time and the interest to do so.

                "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                by We Shall Overcome on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As do you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru

                  Many comments here are debunked soundly with nothing more sophisticated than the first page results of a Google search, which says a lot of sad, sad things about our so-called "reality-based community".

                  Arguing that the case for something is being made in state capitols as though that granted it some moral authority or legitimacy would also apply to the Missouri legislature currently pondering 32 separate abortion bills aimed at that state's one abortion clinic. A case is being made at a state capitol, so I guess all us liberals are on board with it? Nope. Something being debated at a state capitol means...that something is being debated at a state capitol. If their debates are merely ideological rather than substantive, they are useless in terms of decision-making, regardless of whether or not you or I agree with the ideology in question.

                  For instance, Connecticut debated "assault weapons" in their state capitol and came up with a law that made it illegal for their citizens to buy them, but perfectly legal to manufacture them and export them to your state. Way to take the moral high ground, Connecticut! I'm sure that the $1.3 billion that gun manufacturing pumps into the CT economy each year had nothing to do with their principled stand on the issue. And these are the exact same people whose principles are lauded because they are making a case for magazine limits? For their own citizens anyway. I can buy a CT-made 30-round magazine for an AR-15 with no problem at all. So color me skeptical about their righteousness and competence to be making any decisions on the issue.

                  Now, I can make a "statement" about magazine size and even write an "article" about it for Kos, and it will show up on a Google search posthaste. Whether that article and statement have any validity or are merely uninformed opinion is another matter. A bunch of people making a statement on an issue and then quoting each other as references to support their statements sounds more to me like a conservative echo chamber than a sound basis for public policy.

                  So, if you have some links to data or studies showing what would be the best option in magazine limits, then lay it on us. I'll take that over "statements" and "articles" and "debates at state capitols" any day of the week. And since you clearly have time for diaries and comments, don't let me steal your thunder on the issue.

                  •  Straw men are knocked down as easily as they (2+ / 0-)

                    are put up. I didn't say:

                    Arguing that the case for something is being made in state capitols as though that granted it some moral authority or legitimacy ...

                    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                    by We Shall Overcome on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:57:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay, enlighten me (0+ / 0-)
                      The case for limiting magazine capacity is made at state capitols in NY, Conn., Colo., and other states passing those limits.
                      Was this statement made because of the implausible but possible circumstance of you randomly banging on keys, or did you make that statement as part of an argument? If the latter, tell us why a case being made in a state capitol furthers the argument and I will respond accordingly.
          •  There are "no fire" rules for police - they (2+ / 0-)

            can't fire in certain circumstances, for example, a car fleeing. That's what they are supposed to do. So, the rule was created to protect against collateral damage.

            That's an example of limiting fire rate - to zero. No bullets = no collateral damage.

            Fewer bullets = less collateral damage.

            Based on that common sense concept, what looks to be an arbitrary number is actually the number legislators think they can reduce it to within their political confines - ie, in Colorado 15 because any lower and they'd fear a stronger political backlash. Sad, but true.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:50:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Until the early 1990's, Chicago street cops didn't (4+ / 0-)

              ... even have semi-automatic handguns. As you say, collateral damage was too great a risk.

              A group I belonged to, which had credibility with the PD and local government, challenged the PD's policy, noting that other big cities were allowing them. We were told the ready ability to spray bullets around was just too dangerous, even though the officers were confronting gang members who were very well armed. You can read about it here.

              The policy changed shortly thereafter, probably due to lobbying from the police union, though I don't know that for a fact. The current Chicago PD directive is here.

              Before people pile on, I see a world of difference between equipping street cops and empowering the bozos who are already beginning their St. Patricks Day celebrations in bars a block and a half away. These folks have little or no self-restraint and judgment ANYway. Souse 'em up and have 'em talk Big Ten tournament at each other - that's not a good ad for gun rights, no matter how big the magazine is.

              It's pretty early in our new public carry laws. I hope there's no gun action. But I know edgy cops when I see them. Their jobs just got more hazardous.

              2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:24:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  When did I ever define a number? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        People have defined their own number of bullets they allow people to carry in their weapons in their communities.  They do this for their own reasons and who are you to argue with them?  Where do you derive your number from?  If it were up to me, if I was persuaded to allow people to carry handguns at all, I'd put the number at 6 and ban cartridges altogether.  

        “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

        by TheFern on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:42:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Terminology matters (0+ / 0-)

          Cartridges are what lay people call bullets.

          The primer, propellant, bullet and shell, together comprise a cartidge.

          Did you mean to say you would limit magazines to 6 rounds, and ban civilian ownership of magazine fed handguns?

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:52:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't allow magazine fed handguns (2+ / 0-)

            For civilians.  I would be hard-pressed to allow handguns at all, but perhaps I could be convinced they have some useful purpose in civil society.

            “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

            by TheFern on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:57:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Most gun deaths in the US result from handguns, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheFern

              if I recall the stats, certainly handguns have the lion's share of growth in gun deaths, so I'm wondering what purpose you could see in civil society, and I mean you The Fern, not the others with whom this conversation has been had and had

              I'm asking because I have come to respect your comments

              And I'm asking from a societal level not individual

              No worries if you don't want to comment, I'm not here to prove anything, just wondering

              •  individual vs societal. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                i saw an old tree today

                There in lies  the problem for me as well.  One can certainly imagine scenarios where a handgun could serve a useful purpose for an individual.  The toll this particular weapon costs us outweighs any benefits in my opinion.  I could make my list of individuals I'm comfortable with owning handguns, but if empowering those people means everyone is empowered then I say no handguns for anyone.  I would have to be convinced that only responsible people with good cause get them for me to be on board, and that is an uphill climb.

                “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

                by TheFern on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 03:33:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree. That seems to be the nub of the problem. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheFern

                  So what else can be done but address the problem, or eliminate it altogether.

                  It seems like something may have changed here, that it's okay to discuss options and alternatives now.

                  Thanks for your response.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site