Skip to main content

View Diary: White House task force reviewing gun violence options pushes to meet end of month deadline (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How do you figure? Similar reasoning applies here (0+ / 0-)

    as for restricting the capacity of magazines: reducing the quantity of firearms available at any given "event" minimizes the amount of death a psychopath can deal out any given moment, just like reducing the capacity of magazines maximizes the time spent not firing off rounds.

    •  Whether someone has 2 or 20 rifles and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      shotguns has little to nothing to do with how lethal a mass casualty shooting will be.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:40:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That isn't true at all. If a person has one gun he (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        has to reload more often and therefore necessarily is shooting less often. It necessarily increases the opportunity to stop him and decreases the quantity of violence he can dish out.

        •  Seriously think about trying to carry more than 2 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          liberaldemdave, Womantrust

          long guns in a real world scenario, and about changing from one to another.

          Up to a point, I can see the argument if we're talking about someone with two or three pistols.  I don't see us actually managing to pass laws restricting people to less than that, but I get the point.  

          Changing magazines is almost always going to be quicker than changing weapons, but maybe if someone is carrying multiple revolvers...

          You can't drape yourself in six shotguns and walk into a crowded room and start grabbing weapon after weapon off your back anywhere but a Stallone movie.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:16:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have to think about it.... (0+ / 0-)

            A determined individual can carry one such weapon and still tote a carrying device that has ready access to more if he wants to. I'm pretty sure the Columbine kids had exactly that in mind (or actually did it--I don't recall the specific details regarding whether they were able to leverage a 'portable' stash of guns or not).

            •  You're reaching as hard as the "but they can just (0+ / 0-)

              use something besides guns, like build a bomb" crowd at this point.

              "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

              by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:55:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Columbine kids bought their guns illegally....just (0+ / 0-)

              like any determined monster who will side step any restrictions you put on how many guns a law abiding citizen can have.

                The monsters of this world will get as many as they need to kill.

            •  They had 4 shotguns, a rifle, a handgun (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy

              one 9mm carbine and one Tech-9.

              What they actually used on the day of the attack were two of the four shotguns, the 9mm carbine, and the Tech-9.

              Two weapons each, despite the arsenal they'd amassed.

              It's generally faster to reload a weapon than to try to dig one out of a duffel bag.

              "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

              by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:37:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site