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.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by Fish

You can't really take your opinion of "Need", and apply it to the American populace though. If that were the case, we'd all be driving little Geo Metros with 20hp engines. Because nobody "Needs" a giant SUV. Those are dangerous.

And your friend doesn't have a "Machine gun". I can pretty much guarantee that. Those have been illegal since 1934. There are some exceptions to that rule, but unless he's a billionaire gun dealer, I can assure you he doesn't have a machine gun. You're likely confusing "Machine gun" with "Semi-automatic rifle".

Thats fine, but whatever they are, he has magazines for them, and an unbelievable amount of ammo..

Need for a gun is possible in my case. Ive come close to purchasing a gun due to stalkers. A co-worker of mine had to purchase one to protect her from a stalker as well. Its not really a want of mine, but possibly a need. And I wasnt taking my needs to the American peolpe. I know loits of gun enthusiast who want guns, collelct them, hunt etc...for me, it would be a need.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You don't need to say it outright—nor any socialist politician. Certainly you agree with the socialist America part. ( as does Direckshun)

Those quotes are about banning all guns--and those people never said those things anyway, you gullible idiot--and you said "sounds like cosmo" when I never said anything even close to it--batshit crazy ****.

Since it censored my original word, let's go with batshit crazy bitch.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Fish

You can't really take your opinion of "Need", and apply it to the American populace though. If that were the case, we'd all be driving little Geo Metros with 20hp engines. Because nobody "Needs" a giant SUV. Those are dangerous.

And your friend doesn't have a "Machine gun". I can pretty much guarantee that. Those have been illegal since 1934. There are some exceptions to that rule, but unless he's a billionaire gun dealer, I can assure you he doesn't have a machine gun. You're likely confusing "Machine gun" with "Semi-automatic rifle".

He can get a full auto weapon, but he has to got through a LOT of checks and paperwork to own it.

Once he gets the OK, ATF can visit him at any time without cause.

[A Salt Weapon]

Are we going to limit free speech to 6 words or less as well?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by kcpasco

Machine guns are already illegal to have in this country. So unless your co worker has a special and difficut to get permit with the ATF then he can't have fully automatic weapons.

Well whatever he has, its has magazines and holds a shit ton of ammo...He is mental and will lose it someday. He shouldnt be able to purchase whatever he has with his history. but he can. Thats not good.

[OmahaChief]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Or if the mom securley locked away her guns properly from her psychotic undisciplined son, no one gets killed and Obama doesn't have to fake cry in front on the nation.

See how easy common sense is?

Makes too much sense!

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by notorious

He can get a full auto weapon, but he has to got through a LOT of checks and paperwork to own it.

Once he gets the OK, ATF can visit him at any time without cause.

Im not sure what an AK-47 is, semi I assume?? He has a number of those...hes been in hospitals for mental issues and is on medications. How is he able to purchase guns at all is beyond me...

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Well whatever he has, its has magazines and holds a shit ton of ammo...He is mental and will lose it someday. He shouldnt be able to purchase whatever he has with his history. but he can. Thats not good.

Hes obviously never been convicted of a any violent crime nor is a felon.
So just what has he done that makes him to crazy to own firearms?

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Well whatever he has, its has magazines and holds a shit ton of ammo...He is mental and will lose it someday. He shouldnt be able to purchase whatever he has with his history. but he can. Thats not good.

If what you are explaining is true you should notify the authorities. If nothing else as a CYA due to what posted.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

I love how the response to this post is nothing but slander towards "moonbat liberrals who want to ban all guns"

We arent going to geT anywhere in a dire situation where we desperately need to get somewhere with if we keep insulting the other side. I dont tihnk anyone wants to see what happened in CT happen again. I think most Americans would liek to come to some solution to do everything we can to protect ourselves and our children. WE ARENT GOING TO GET THAT DONE BY TROWING INSULTS AND FALSITIES AT EACH OTHER.

the above quote is basically about having meaningful conversations about what to do next. How do we protect ourselves as well as the 2nd ammendent? Without disarming citizens and without arming children when they go to school?

I dont own a gun, but if I wanted to or needed to, Id like to be able, but I dont need a AK-47.

I work with a guy who has enough guns, machine guns and ammo to blow away a couple of schools. he also has a history of mental illness. he has purchased these guns legally. THATS A PROBLEM.

How do we make it tougher for someone like him to buy machine guns???? I dont think the conversation should be about taking anyones guns away, unless they have a history of mentall illness, but how can we be more through in things like background checks and psychological testing? I realize that wont stop crazies from getting guns form non crazy gun owners, but we have to have a conversation about making things just a little bit harder or something...something has to change..

It's NOT A DIRE SITUATION. There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. Less than 100 have died in mass shootings this year.

Has anybody taken a shot at you this week? This year? Ever? Guess what - THAT'S MOST OF US.

Stop letting the media scare the shit out of you. There is not a psycho with a machine gun lurking around every corner. Guns are not littering the streets.

****.

[kcpasco]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Im not sure what an AK-47 is, semi I assume?? He has a number of those...hes been in hospitals for mental issues and is on medications. How is he able to purchase guns at all is beyond me...

You can purchase a legal semi-auto AK. With the proper know how it can be modified to be full.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Hes obviously never been convicted of a any violent crime nor is a felon.
So just what has he done that makes him to crazy to own firearms?

Its my understanding, and maybe Im wrong, if you are or have been on perscription meds for mental illness, or have been admitted to a facility dealing with mental illness, you arent allowed to own a gun.

he has all the above...

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

If what you are explaining is true you should notify the authorities. If nothing else as a CYA due to what posted.

He has them legally. Thats the problem.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by frazod

It's NOT A DIRE SITUATION. There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. Less than 100 have died in mass shootings this year.

Has anybody taken a shot at you this week? This year? Ever? Guess what - THAT'S MOST OF US.

Stop letting the media scare the shit out of you. There is not a psycho with a machine gun lurking around every corner. Guns are not littering the streets.

****.

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.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

Im not sure what an AK-47 is, semi I assume?? He has a number of those...hes been in hospitals for mental issues and is on medications. How is he able to purchase guns at all is beyond me...

Tell the police and give them his full name. They will tell you if there is anything they can do.

Yes, and AK-47 is a semi-automatic rifle. Usually 16" barrel with a gas-piston system. Loved for is ruggedness and reliability.