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.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

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...

That doesn't make him certifiably psychotic though....I am somewhat prepared but I'm definitely not a gun nut...One is enough for me.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

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.

Ya, I am just trying to figure out a way to make things safer while only adding a minor hassle to my fellow gun-loving nuts.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

Not much if we want to live the free life, best to be prepared yourself just in case.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

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.

IMHO you don't design laws to stop one-off events. Nothing would have stopped him from killing those kids except maybe a very highly trained armed guard.

[notorious]

Well, I think my time in DC is up.


Thanks for being civil and polite.

Good luck Carlota, I suggest looking into giving yourself a little 9mm insurance, since that is the only way to protect yourself in your situation.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

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.

True, plus I could quit my really well paying job for a not so hot job and still work with a nnutjob who thinks Mad MAx is really going to happen. So then what?? I still blown away at work, but I dont make as much money???

[notorious]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Not much if we want to live the free life, best to be prepared yourself just in case.

...grins while patting Mr. S&W 642.......

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

Treat it just like a car, you want to use it you have to have a license for each gun which requires a background check (car inspection).

Get caught with a non-registered gun go to jail mandatory 5 years.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

True, plus I could quit my really well paying job for a not so hot job and still work with a nnutjob who thinks Mad MAx is really going to happen. So then what?? I still blown away at work, but I dont make as much money???

Get armed, get ready....I don't necessarily think the guy is crazy for thinking some crazy stuff could go down. It's happened to every other empire at some point in time. I think we're still a ways off from that, I think most people would just rather lay down and accept our new overlords whomever they may be.

You also have something this guy doesn't if you buy a gun, the element of surprise should he go postal.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by notorious

Well, I think my time in DC is up.


Thanks for being civil and polite.

Good luck Carlota, I suggest looking into giving yourself a little 9mm insurance, since that is the only way to protect yourself in your situation.

Youre sweet. I dont think hes going off the deep end anytime soon, but if Im wrong...well..Good knowing ya..LOL
And If I get another stalker that strikes the "Creepo" nerve in me, I will for sure be buying some "Insurance"

[HC_Chief]

Outlaw cancer. That'll learn that damn disease!

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

There's a pretty good reason why private-party transactions are not background-checked. Felons already know they cant have a weapon, if they have one for whatever reason, they'll be punished for it.

You obviously cant enforce at the point of sale like you can with a dealer, so your enforcement mechanism is to bring the hammer down later after the gun becomes relevant for some reason, and its discovered that the original owner did not follow the rules.

This isn't always going to be a nefarious character selling guns to criminals, often we'll be asked to send a dad to jail for giving a gun to his son for his birthday. Or pick any other family/friend relationship. More than likely they will not even have been the one to commit whatever act of violence, the gun was stolen, the shooter is in jail, and while figuring out where the gun came from we find out it was stolen from the son of the original buyer, and now we want one or both of those guys in jail, too? You really want to do that?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

IMHO you don't design laws to stop one-off events. Nothing would have stopped him from killing those kids except maybe a very highly trained armed guard.

That's exactly how many people are viewing the Newtown tragedy though. Gun violence overall is the lowest it's been since the 60s. Technically, the US is safer than it's ever been before.

But yet, we have people saying things like

Originally Posted by Carlota69

When 20 children get massacred, its a problem. [..]

I hate to sound callous, but the fact that children were involved is the sole reason this is still being discussed.

[Hog Farmer]

I think it should be against the law to carry more than one bullett. you know, like Barney Fife.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Fish

That's exactly how many people are viewing the Newtown tragedy though. Gun violence overall is the lowest it's been since the 60s. Technically, the US is safer than it's ever been before.

But yet, we have people saying things like



I hate to sound callous, but the fact that children were involved is the sole reason this is still being discussed.

I think people are viewing it as an opportunity to tighten gun laws up which they should be. I don't think you will see any gun law proposal in the next couple of months that will say this law will stop what happened in Newton from every happening again.