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.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

When 20 children get massacred, its a problem. We need to have a conversation about how to do better by our citizens. we dont need guns taken away, but we need to talk about what we can do to better protect ourselves while protecting the 2nde ammendment as well.

And theres another problem, we cant even discuss this in a civil manner. We arent going to get anywhere if we cant discuss this issue in an adult manner as opposed to hurling insults and demeaning the other side like petulant children who dont want all their toys taken away, even though no one wants to take all their toys away.

It's a problem for their families and people directly affected by it. The only reason it's a problem for you is because you won't stop watching the friggin news. The leaders who are talking about gun control for public safety probably high-fived each other when they heard about this incident. They don't give a **** about these kids, or you, or me. Do you really think Barack Obama was CRYING over this? Real tears? Are you truly that gullable? This is just part of the gun grab, and use every isolated incident like this as one more brick in the wall.

You want to talk about it? How's this - if somebody at the school had been armed, all those kids would still be alive. You want to protect kids - give the people charged with do so the means to do it properly.

There. We talked about it. Happy now?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Ok, youre missing the point: First of all the guy with all the guns is a co-worker, who has ties with the police dept. Why should it be me quitting my job and going on unemployment instead of him not being able to purchase a zillion rounds of ammo for his semi automatics with his mental illness history??? Havent we established that people killing people in massacres are usually a little nutty and everyone around knew?? So why are we talking about me losing my ablitiy to earn a living instead of this guy losing his guns with his crazy ****ing past???

Secondly, I would like the oppurtunity to puirchase a gun if I need to if I ever get a stalker that scares me enough to do it. I am all for the 2 nd ammendment. I am all for the right to bear arms. Im just not sure that people with menatl illnesses should be able to purchase guns so easily.

Well I wouldn't blame you for buying a firearm, sounds like something you need to do. I wasn't saying you shouldn't have the right to stay where you are, if the risks are acceptable then buy a firearm and stay put. Are you sure this guy isn't all about false bravado?

[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)

[KILLER_CLOWN]

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?

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

It's unenforceable, too many laws now that don't work and might actually restrict people who should have the right.

btw I'm not a gun lover, I have one(just one) and don't want to ever have to use it. keep it in video games man.

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Yeah quitting my job would work...

YES. If death is a good possibility it would be in your best interest.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by notorious

This suggestion sucks, but would you feel more comfortable being equipped to fight back?


I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I have been in a similar situation with a local around here that was a ticking time-bomb. He wanted to learn how to fly (I'm an instructor) and he was constantly contacting me about it even though I told him that he wasn't in the proper condition to take lessons.

He finally got caught while drunk in his car and a loaded revolver in the passenger seat. He had mental issues, drug issues, etc. This all happened before I had my CCL, and every time I saw him I felt helpless.

Things are a lot different now.

Yeah, Ive thought about that for sure. Ive thought about getting a gun for myself for various reasons, and I have the means and access to get a great gun for me at a very low cost. I just dont want to own one, so Ive held it off. But, Ive considered, and still consider, very seriously my need for one. which for me, I find sad. For me. Im not a gun person, but my friends are, and I understand their love for guns. Im just not, so for me, its sad to think maybe I need one...

[dirk digler]

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)

Nothing and honestly should be required.

[mlyonsd]

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)

I don't have a problem with it but those kids in CN still would have died.

That's the thing. Short of banning guns altogether those kids would still be dead.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Well I wouldn't blame you for buying a firearm, sounds like something you need to do. I wasn't saying you shouldn't have the right to stay where you are, if the risks are acceptable then buy a firearm and stay put. Are you sure this guy isn't all about false bravado?

No, hes for reall. I mean maybe he wont go all postal on us one day, but hes certifiable crazy. No fear, and ready to take on the world. Thats why he has all the ammo...

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

No, hes for reall. I mean maybe he wont go all postal on us one day, but hes certifiable crazy. No fear, and ready to take on the world. Thats why he has all the ammo...

Duke Nukem in the flesh eh?

[kcpasco]

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)

Because where does it end? What about when a son inherits guns from his father?

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

YES. If death is a good possibility it would be in your best interest.

Again, I should quit my job and go on unemployment instead of him losing his rights to bear enough arms to blow multiple schools away?? Really?

[notorious]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

It's unenforceable, too many laws now that don't work and might actually restrict people who should have the right.

btw I'm not a gun lover, I have one(just one) and don't want to ever have to use it. keep it in video games man.

I agree.

When I received my first AR15, I traded a floor refinish for the rifle and it was as simple as him handing me the rifle.

That scares me. I don't want to sound like an elitist asshole, but there are a lot of people out there that shouldn't be trusted with a rubberband gun. He knew I was a good guy, but there are a lot of private sells out there in which the seller knows nothing about the buyer.

What can we do about that? Probably nothing.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Duke Nukem in the flesh eh?

yeah, he has a basement full of arms/ammo food dehydrators and other 'end of the world" shit. He talks about the end of the world and how hes ready...

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Again, I should quit my job and go on unemployment instead of him losing his rights to bear enough arms to blow multiple schools away?? Really?

Well this is the land of the free, sometimes we have to put up with people we don't like/trust. This country is definitely unique, and I like it with all of it's pitfalls.