Skip to main content

As she approached the podium in a small conference room festooned with intermingled tripods and television cameras, Nelba Márquez-Greene described her appearance at a Trenton press conference as "an unfortunate honor."

Márquez-Greene is the mother of Ana - a child brutally murdered with an assault weapon at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut last December.

The event, sponsored by the New Jersey General Assembly leadership, was to call attention to one particular issue in the gun safety debate - the size of ammunition magazines.

Currently, New Jersey law limits magazine capacity to 15 rounds. Several Assembly members and Senators are pushing to lower that to 10 rounds - the same parameter that was in effect until the Federal assault weapon bill expired.

Would such a change make a difference? Ask the Newtown parents or the parents of 9 year old Christina Green who was killed in the Gabby Giffords Tucson massacre. In both cases, the shooters had high-capacity magazines. Had they had to reload, perhaps the lull in the shooting would have been enough to bring them down and prevent further deaths. Indeed, in the Newtown shootings, several children were able to escape when Adam Lanza had to change his 30-round clip. If he had had 10 round clips, no doubt more kids would be alive today.

The press conference lasted 30 minutes. Blue Jersey is bringing it to you in its entirety, but if you have limited time, I suggest that in addition to the remarks from the Newtown parents, you hear the promise issued by Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and the passion exhibited by Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald.

Senate President Sweeney has not posted the bill to limit magazine size. Why?

Cross-posted from BlueJersey.com

Originally posted to deciminyan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:22 PM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You probably don't have the answer... (0+ / 0-)
    Currently, New Jersey law limits magazine capacity to 15 rounds. Several Assembly members and Senators are pushing to lower that to 10 rounds - the same parameter that was in effect until the Federal assault weapon bill expired.

    Had they had to reload, perhaps the lull in the shooting would have been enough to bring them down and prevent further deaths.

    But has there ever been any science put behind the 10 round magazine assumption, they've had it in California for quite awhile....I've always wondered if there was any science behind the number 10....
    •  How about 1, like the muskets that were around (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo

      when the 2nd Amendment was written. One is a good number (if there has to be a number).

      •  Actually.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, HappyinNM

        You can put anything in a musket, multiple lead balls, broken glass, etc etc.... you get the picture...which could do a lot of damge to an individual and those around the target

        And if you shot it close range...as illustrated by this picture with a standard musket ball...you might be able to take out 2-3 people with one shot....

        http://forhonourssake.blogspot.com/...

        But that wasn't the point of my question, I was just wondering if anyone had seen any science as to why politicians landed on a 10 round magazine....as a good idea

        •  Then I probably shouldn't have answered, (0+ / 0-)

          as I happily know absolutely nothing about guns or ammo. I can suggest that the thingy that holds the bullets might have been built for 10, and why ruin a good thing? Seriously, I think the bill that was passed in 1994 said 10.

        •  Nine would be better than ten (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ciganka

          and eight would be better than nine, in my opinion.

          You're asking for science. I will ask you, is there any science saying that having 500 rounds or 1000 or a million would be a good thing?

          I'd guess that politicians settled on ten because people have ten fingers. It's a round number. A common number. And 13 is unlucky.

          Here's an idea. If you have good eyesight and you're young and you've spent a few hours a month at the shooting range, you're probably pretty good at shooting. So you get two rounds per clip.  If you're an old guy with bad eyesight and you're getting senile, you can qualify for 20 rounds because you'll need to shoot at random. The details would have to be worked out.

          "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

          by Dbug on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 11:59:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  One is best (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo

      There is probably no science behind the 10. But it's better than 15 rounds. While banning magazine clips altogether is the best solution (and IMHO not counter to the Second Amendment), that would be impractical given the vehemence by which the gun and ammunition manufacturers exhibit in the halls of Congress.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site