Some pages back in this thread I asked for concrete suggestions of new laws that might have prevented this attack in Aurora (or similar ones), without unduly restricting our liberties. The only one so far put forth is to limit magazines to 15 rounds or less. The arbitrariness of the proposed solution, the problems of implementing such a scheme, and it's likely unefficacy in preventing an intelligent but unbalanced individual from commiting mass murder leads me to discount this suggestion. Any one else got any ideas?
Incidentally, I was watching the news and they had Sen Diane Fienstein (mother of the assault weapons ban) on, and her basic argument for banning all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds really boiled down to, "civilians just don't need these kinds of weapons." Forget the fact that (contrary to her assertions) the AWB had no affect on number of deaths from guns). The bigger problem is, anytime the government tells you what you can and can't have, it represents a loss of liberty, in which are sown the seeds of tyranny. And where does it stop? Do I need an F350, dually pickup truck? I'm not a contractor, and I don't have a fifth-wheel trailer. Freedom means I don't need a reason to have one, other than, "Because they're cool!" Yet, there are those that argue that to save the planet, these vehicles should be restricted to those with a "legitimate need" (as determined by un-elected beaurocrats). Today it's semi-automatic weapons; what will it be tomorrow?
Case in point: Once upon a time, and not all that long ago, fully automatic weapons (i.e. real assault weapons) were legal to own without any kind of special license. Similar arguments to those being made today were made back then, resulting in a general ban on private ownership of such. It didn't end, or even lesson gun violence. We gave up a bit of our liberty to purchase safety, and have less of both today. Now, let's say insanity prevails and the AWB is reinstated. As history has already demonstrated back in the '90s, this too will be ineffective. Then, 10 or 15 years down the road someone packing a winchester repeater and a brace of six-guns (or maybe 8 semi-auto pistols strapped all over their body, all with legal 15-round mags) walks into a shopping mall on Black Friday and slews 20 folks. The hew and cry would begin anew and soon enough the only legal guns will be blackpowder rifles and single-shot blackpowder pistols...and on and on until all freedom is gone and we wake up at last in Orwell's 1984. So, before we trade yet another piece of our liberty, I'd like something more than, "it might" or "it could", in regards to effectiveness. No, guns don't automatically equal freedom, but the right to have them does!
