3 ms·

the theory is that decreasing access to large magazines and/or 100-round drums would decrease the mass-murder rate. Considering we're talking about mentally un

by zzzeek 14y ago

the theory is that decreasing access to large magazines and/or 100-round drums would decrease the mass-murder rate. Considering we're talking about mentally unstable suspects, a little bit of resistance to being able to get a large magazine might mean they can't fire off 30-100 rounds without reloading when they go off on their spree.

vacri 14y ago
Mass murder is highly visible, but makes barely a dent in the annual toll. Not to mention that the two biggest school-based mass-murderers in the US did their massacres with legally obtained handguns, not assault weapons. Even if there were ten mass-murders the size of Sandy Hook a year, that'd still make only 300 homicides out of 13k firearm and 17k total. And according to this page [1], there's actually only been about 75 mass-shooting homicides in the US in 2012, including Sandy Hook. 75 is three orders of magnitude less than the annual toll. Also, 'mentally unstable' doesn't mean 'frothing at the mouth and barking at the moon'. Simply because a mentally ill person might have troubles with moral judgments doesn't mean that they lose the capacity for forethought - look at Cho chaining the doors shut before starting. Assault rifles are just simply not the problem in US homicides. [1] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeli...
- zzzeek 14y ago
  regardless, there's not much of an argument for 30-round/100-round magazines to be legal. Just like there's not much argument for pipe-bombs to be legal (anyone can make one, right ? is the illegality of easy-to-build bombs "security theater" or just common sense?). These devices have no legitimate uses by civilians.
  - vacri 14y ago
    I completely agree. I'm for gun reform of pretty much all kinds except perhaps hunting rifles and longarms for farm/rural use. The problem is that the assault rifle are not even a sideshow to the main event. It's going to run counter to gun reformists desires because after long, drawn-out arguments where they finally wrest some concessions, those concessions are going to do absolutely nothing substantial, leaving the opposing side with a hard-to-argue-with "I told you so".

by zzzeek 14y ago

vacri 14y ago

Mass murder is highly visible, but makes barely a dent in the annual toll. Not to mention that the two biggest school-based mass-murderers in the US did their massacres with legally obtained handguns, not assault weapons. Even if there were ten mass-murders the size of Sandy Hook a year, that'd still make only 300 homicides out of 13k firearm and 17k total. And according to this page [1], there's actually only been about 75 mass-shooting homicides in the US in 2012, including Sandy Hook. 75 is three orders of magnitude less than the annual toll. Also, 'mentally unstable' doesn't mean 'frothing at the mouth and barking at the moon'. Simply because a mentally ill person might have troubles with moral judgments doesn't mean that they lose the capacity for forethought - look at Cho chaining the doors shut before starting. Assault rifles are just simply not the problem in US homicides. [1] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeli...

zzzeek 14y ago
regardless, there's not much of an argument for 30-round/100-round magazines to be legal. Just like there's not much argument for pipe-bombs to be legal (anyone can make one, right ? is the illegality of easy-to-build bombs "security theater" or just common sense?). These devices have no legitimate uses by civilians.
- vacri 14y ago
  I completely agree. I'm for gun reform of pretty much all kinds except perhaps hunting rifles and longarms for farm/rural use. The problem is that the assault rifle are not even a sideshow to the main event. It's going to run counter to gun reformists desires because after long, drawn-out arguments where they finally wrest some concessions, those concessions are going to do absolutely nothing substantial, leaving the opposing side with a hard-to-argue-with "I told you so".