Skip to main content

View Diary: Dianne Feinstein To Introduce Assault Weapons Ban On First Day Of Congress (307 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No legislation (7+ / 0-)

    will end mass murders and other gun violence.  An assault weapons ban is largely symbolic -- only a small percentage of homicides are committed with assault weapons.  But it's progress, politically doable, and a stepping stone towards tighter controls.

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 11:49:20 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What about banning larger magazines (5+ / 0-)

      plus external rapid reloading mechanisms like stripper clips? That's what billmosby just pointed out and what seems to me like could have averted some of this stuff.

      Weren't these used in all of the mass murders? Literally, all of them?

      I'm mainly concerned with mass murders, as you can see here. I'm also of course concerned with other forms of gun violence, which seems to happen with handguns, but that's perhaps another conversation. Right now, I'm thinking "How do we keep mentally unstable people from killing a lot of people all at once?"

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 12:00:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I'm sure (5+ / 0-)

        these sorts of restrictions could and would be circumvented by criminals and homicidal maniacs, limiting readily available magazines to 5 or even 3 rounds may be effective to a degree.  I don't know of any statistics to back this up, but it seems logical.

        How many murders occurring all at once would be -- acceptable?  And I don't mean this in a callous way.  There are 35 gun deaths each day in the US, not counting suicides.  I suppose it's "worse" when the deaths occur at the same place and time, but maybe not so different for the family and loved ones who suffer a loss.

        The question, "how do we keep mentally unstable people from killing a lot of people all at once?" is a good one.  Perhaps we can limit the damage.  But as a corollary, how do we keep mentally unstable people from killing at all?  Is this a sensible question?

        Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

        by winsock on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 12:45:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can't stop them from killing at all. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          winsock

          Not all of them.

          Minus guns, the odds are good the shooter would still have killed his mom and his brother and himself.

          People lose it and murder their families in countries where guns are almost impossible to get, too.

          But they don't go to a nearby school and kill dozens.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 02:54:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site