Reuters/Reuters - Residents protest outside the National Shooting Sports Foundation in Newtown, Connecticut March 28, 2013 after receiving robocalls from the NRA, trying to enlist them in efforts to defeat
Yahoo News reports
Legislative leaders in Connecticut, where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in December, said on Monday they had agreed some of the toughest gun regulations in the nation and expected to adopt them this week.
The proposal, which is expected to pass both Democratic-controlled houses of the state legislature this week and become law, includes a ban on sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines, background checks for private gun sales and a registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets.The proposed legislation creates a state-issued eligibility certificate for the purchase of any rifle, shotgun or ammunition. A buyer would need to be fingerprinted, take a firearms training course and undergo a background check to qualify.
The measure not only bans the sale of high-capacity magazines from January 1, 2014, but such magazines that exist now must be registered with the state by that date, or it will become a felony to own them.
The outrage in Connecticut is naturally greater than in other states. But only lying, self-serving gun fanatics can deny that high-capacity magazines directly add to the death toll in mass shootings, Lanza and Loughner being the clearest examples.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Hey! Mike continues to include his commentary as if it is part of the press reports! As if the media were not mostly in the tank for gun control already.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Mike, Nice tactic declaring that something arguable can't be argued except by liars.
As for your assertion, which you inserted into the article, yes, if you're going to walk into the group like Loughner, having a higher capacity magazine can increase toll a bit, but it also provides a bigger target for your intended victims to wrest away from you as you reload.
As for Lanza, the media reports, for months, have indicated that he took tactics into consideration, and being limited to smaller magazines would have had no effect. He would have merely fired more deliberately, conserving ammo, and still been able to quickly change magazines the way we already know he did, dropping half full magazines out and reloading with a full magazine when he saw an opportunity to top up.
All it will take, if you get your dream laws, is a mass shooter who keeps reloading with 10 round magazines, or a gun with 5 round stripper clips and your side will want to limit us to single shot weapons.
Of course, then mass shooters will just switch to hunting rifles and find a nest or a hillside to shoot from like the Texas shooter decades back.
But then you'll want to ban Sniper rifles, perhaps by banning scopes. After all, some of your allies in this issue have already declared that scopes aren't sporting.
Never mind that the Sniper who, in all history, has the most confirmed kills was a Finn who refused to use a scope on his Mosin Nagant--a bolt action that was recently as cheap as 70-90 dollars. (The Russians alone made around 37 million of them, many of which are here in the US now.) What happens after that step?
I'm sure you'll say that I'm postulating a slippery slope, but one only has to look at your side's history to see that this is not far fetched. You, yourself, admitted that there may be something to our slippery slope argument when it comes to magazine limits back when NY first proposed their ridiculous 7 round limit.
I didn't insert anything into the article. I provided the link.
DeleteSorry, I see it now. It was an accident in the blocking of the text. Of course you guys have to make it into a big deal. You just love the "gotcha" dontcha?
DeleteNo more than you do with that one-strike rule of yours.
DeleteIf someone on our side makes a similar mistake, you jump on with both feet, accusing them of dishonesty, fraud, or whatever else you think you can make stick.
DeleteWe're just returning the favor and trying to make you play by your own rules Mike. Not so fun when Right wingers read Rules for Radicals and start applying it back against you progs is it?
The one strike rule is not a gotcha. That's a serious violation of the 4 Rules. This mistake in formatting was a gotcha.
DeleteIf you get to decide what are serious violations of blogging, we'll decide on gun matters. Or how about we agree that to err is human and have a bit more compassion?
DeleteSecond attempt at this comment:
ReplyDeleteI'm invoking the one-strike rule here, but you've already had your one strike. You inserted your own writing into the same block and font as you used for the source article. This implies that someone else agrees with your position who doesn't necessarily do any such thing. Negligence with ideas is more dangerous than negligence with firearms. Ideas shape the whole world, not just one life at a time.
One other point which you'll need to clarify for me, Mikeb. How can a magazine be registered? They don't typically have serial numbers. In fact, there are usually no distinctive markings whatsoever, other than perhaps a brand name. Someone could "register" one, while possessing hundreds of the same type, without the state having any clue.
ReplyDeleteI suppose each owner will have to let the police know how many of those evil magazines they own. Then when the jack-booted thugs come busting in one day to count them they'll know the number.
DeleteSo you don't have an answer. Since magazines don't have identifying marks, one can stand in for many. An owner can say, why yes, officer, this magazine is registered. Who's to know?
DeleteWow, Mike! You can't answer Greg's question, so you turn into a poo flinging monkey! How the mighty have fallen!
DeleteYou're supposed to follow SOP: Ignore questions posed regarding feasibility, or make up some shit that's not in the law like requiring that magazines be brought in, serialized with a dremmel, and registered. Also, it's SOP to leave the PFM behavior to Dog Gone or Jade and their drive by insults that are almost never backed up or argued for.
No I don't know, but what I suggested as a possibility was that an owner of such regulated items would have to register how many he owns. Afterwards he wouldn't legally be allowed to buy or sell or give away any more.
DeleteI'm just guessin' What's the difference anyway?
Because the law is impossible to implement. You might as well demand that every magazine be stamped with a medallion made of unobtainium. On most magazines, there's nothing to distinguish the registered ones from the unregistered ones. That opens a whole wide window of opportunity for abuse by government officials. It also opens up a chance for citizens to get away with breaking the law--something that you should be concerned about.
DeleteJust to give an example Greg's point regarding opportunity for abuse--the '94 AWB put the onus on prosecutors to prove that the magazine in question had been procured after the date the law went into effect. Later renewal bills removed this and placed the burden of proof on the owner. In such a situation, how can you prove that the magazine you're being charged for wasn't a NEW one you bought, in violation of the law, to replace a damaged one you registered.
DeleteOn the other side of things, what would prevent someone from walking in and registering the 20 magazines they have, then doing so again a couple weeks later, saying they found a new box in the garage, and maybe again. Now they have "registered" 40, 60, or however many magazines they want. They can go to another state, legally buy more once the price comes down, and return home with them illegally. If the question ever arises of where the extras are, they can say they wore out or the feed lip bent/broke, they pancaked the mag with a hammer, and tossed it in the trash. There would be no way to prove otherwise in either case.
This is why we call these feel good window dressing. There's no way to track and prove a case, so either the law produces zero convictions, or you put the burden of proof on the citizen, and risk prosecution and conviction of those who follow the law and only hang onto their previously purchased, properly registered magazines.