Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the reply. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, raincrow, gerrilea

    Can I assume that you believe that outlawing high capacity clips is a more effective (and honest) way of reducing the lethality of both automatic and semi-automatic weapons (insofaras making it take more time to reload)?  

    Are semi-automatic rifles the most common type of weapon used in hunting?

    •  I have actually written a diary suggesting (4+ / 0-)

      that magazine capacity be restricted to 10 rounds, it's one of the few proposals as far as bans go that has the potential of reducing the severity of mass shootings.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:28:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I disagree most vehemently. Two of the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, oldpunk, rockhound, gerrilea

        most notorious mass shooters (Cho at VT, and Harris at Columbine) operated almost exclusively with 10-round magazines - a dozen or more each.

        The "instances" where a shooter was stymied in reload involved extreme capacity magazines (the AR at Aurora, or the attack on Giffords), where the inherent unreliability of the magazine caused a jam either in the magazine or the well.

        Restricting magazines, to the contrary, only harms those who don't fill a backpack full of reloads - in other words, magazine limits disadvantage those who are minding their own business but who might be armed against people who came looking to murder a bunch of people.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:39:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You and I are actually closer to violent agreement (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, gerrilea

          than anything else. That's why I said that restricting magazine capacity is one of the few proposals that has the potential to reduce the severity of a mass shooting. Banning scary looking firearms will do less than fuck all, other than hurt Dems in the midterms.

          I personally think that such a restriction will have the same effect that it had last time which is pretty much zip. So I guess I am really more ambivalent than anything. With that said I would be willing to give on magazine capacity, I see it as a sop, but that would be about it.

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:02:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  See, I'm not willing to go with any bans. (5+ / 0-)

            Because "ban" is short for "criminalize the possession of".

            Think about that. Even if old magazines are grandfathered in, a ban sends people to prison not for what they do, but what they have.

            As such, criminalizing possession should never be offered as a sop - it should always be given the highest level of scrutiny with regard to efficacy.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:12:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site