Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[Wiley]

It doesn't reserve that express right, either. It's meant to be dealt with by elected officials. Prohibiting large-capacity mags violates no Constitutional provision, and evidently the assualt rifle ban didn't either, although I'd disagree with going that far.

Wiley- Like I mentioned a couple posts back, the shooting was only 90 seconds. A few reloads in a stressful situation is less people shot at the end of the day. No, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, but it would have been different. Many people argue that the killer could have used homemade explosives with everyday items that you can pick up at your grocery store. However, he didn't. He chose the gun route. Had such a simple regulation been in place, he wouldn't have had easy access to large clips and the result would most likely have been different, as I've already laid out. Furthermore, not being able to shoot 100 round mags at a range is not even really a price to pay for legal gun owners.

So... instead of 90 seconds of firing, he would've had 84 seconds of firing.  You said so yourself, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, then why bother?  If you're going to propose something to help a problem, doesn't it make sense to propose something that actually does something, rather than a measure that you yourself admitted would be virtually ineffective?

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

 A few reloads in a stressful situation is less people shot at the end of the day. No, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, but it would have been different. Many people argue that the killer could have used homemade explosives with everyday items that you can pick up at your grocery store. However, he didn't. He chose the gun route. Had such a simple regulation been in place, he wouldn't have had easy access to large clips and the result would most likely have been different, as I've already laid out. Furthermore, not being able to shoot 100 round mags at a range is not even really a price to pay for legal gun owners.

Witnesses say the shooter was cool as a cucumber.

His 100 round magazine jammed. He came nowhere near emptying it. He switched to shotgun and pistol.

[Maverick]

For those of you who are harping on the high cap magazine aspect, you might want to consdider something. It was the high cap mag that jammed his gun cutting short his shooting session with the rifle. Had he stuck with the standard mags and just swapped them out he probably would have gotten more folks. In this case, blaming the high cap magazine is silly since it hindered rather than helped the shooter.

[TonyJoey]

I say drastically, as in such a law wouldn't prevent the shooting, or halve the casualties. Instead, it might save 5-10 people from being shot or killed. Given the scenario, that is very effective if you ask me. A law with such benefits and no loss of freedom makes sense to me.

[Wiley]

I say drastically, as in such a law wouldn't prevent the shooting, or halve the casualties. Instead, it might save 5-10 people from being shot or killed. Given the scenario, that is very effective if you ask me. A law with such benefits and no loss of freedom makes sense to me.

Or, as stated, they most likely wouldn't have jammed and he might have killed 5-10 more people.  Playing 'what if' with this kind of thing is meaningless.

Wiley.

[TonyJoey]

Unfortunately, I can not respond to five people arguing with different facets of each post I make, so I will respectfully bow out and hope that some may realize that not every regulation is an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and can actually have benefits. 

[Bodhi]

I say drastically, as in such a law wouldn't prevent the shooting, or halve the casualties. Instead, it might save 5-10 people from being shot or killed. Given the scenario, that is very effective if you ask me. A law with such benefits and no loss of freedom makes sense to me.

I would disagree.  If the shooter had stuck with regular magazines, it is likely more would be dead.  Further, you are forgetting a very important aspect here.  That is the 2nd Amendment.  It expressly forbids infringement on arms.  A magazine ban is an infringement.

[Wiley]

Unfortunately, I can not respond to five people arguing with different facets of each post I make, so I will respectfully bow out and hope that some may realize that not every regulation is an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and can actually have benefits. 

Forget about the second amendment, I'm talking purely about effectiveness.  Every single time something like this happens, the public rallies around the idea that Something Must Be Done!  Gun laws are easy to do, they can spend a bunch of time writing up legislation and people can feel better because the Government Did Something.  Whether the legislation has any impact on crime is irrelevant.

Wiley.

[RTHolmes]

serious question here - how many of you take a gun with you every time you go to the movies?

[TonyJoey]

Forget about the second amendment, I'm talking purely about effectiveness.  Every single time something like this happens, the public rallies around the idea that Something Must Be Done!  Gun laws are easy to do, they can spend a bunch of time writing up legislation and people can feel better because the Government Did Something.  Whether the legislation has any impact on crime is irrelevant.

Wiley.

There are numerous instances of large capacity mags being used. They've been used in Tucson, Aurora, Long Island Railroad, Fort Hood, and Virginia Tech. Coincedentally, the shooter involved in the Long Island Railroad shooting was subdued while reloading. A ban on such magazines would make them harder to get, and could lessen the damage in future shootings for virtually zero price to legal firearms owners. I believe the effectiveness of the ban would not be as small as many who say that "they will find ways" seem to let on. For the most part, the perpetrators in these massacres aren't hardened criminals with ample access to such accessories. Instead, they use the tools available.

[Jayhawk]

serious question here - how many of you take a gun with you every time you go to the movies?

Every time since I got my license.

There are numerous instances of the effectiveness of large capacity mags. They've been used in Tucson, Aurora, Long Island Railroad, Fort Hood, and Virginia Tech. Coincedentally, the shooter involved in the Long Island Railroad shooting was subdued while reloading. A ban on such magazines would make them harder to get, and could lessen the damage in future shootings for virtually zero price to legal firearms owners.

What's your definition of a large capacity magazine?

[Shuffler]

serious question here - how many of you take a gun with you every time you go to the movies?

I have not been to the movies in years. When my wife and daughter go, my wife leaves hers in the truck because the theater they go to is posted.

[TonyJoey]

Getting sucked back into the vortex of debate... I would consider anything over 10-15 rounds large-capacity.

[Wiley]

For the most part, the perpetrators in these massacres aren't hardened criminals with ample access to such weapons. Instead, they use the tools available.

So... you're proposing what, confiscation, or merely halting of production?  If halting production, the genie's already out of the bottle, it will be ineffective.  If confiscation, are you seriously proposing the rounding up of billions of dollars of peoples' personal property for the actions of what, 10, 12 people over the last 10-15 years?

Wiley.

[Jayhawk]

Getting sucked back into the vortex of debate... I would consider anything over 10-15 rounds large-capacity.

Many full sized 9mm pistols come with stock magazines that hold 17-19 rounds.