On TTAG, Robert Farago called O'Donnell "insane" for this. Here's my comment:
When faced with a compelling argument, you attack. The man is insane. Others you call troll.
What he said about Loughner is exactly right and it’s one of the best arguments for prohibiting larger-capacity magazines. Lanza is another one. Holmes too.
Some of us have been saying this all along.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Criminals have used pretty much everything to kill victims including pillows (suffocation), cloth/rope (strangulation), scissors, knives, water (drowning), golf clubs, cars, poison, rocks, fire, electricity, etc. etc. etc. Restricting firearm features will never stop criminals because there are an infinite number of alternative items (and ways to use those items) that criminals can use to kill people.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, government restrictions on firearm features violates every citizen's unalienable right to do or own anything they want as long as they do not infringe on another citizen's rights to do or own anything they want. Period. No exceptions.
I am a citizen. If I own a rifle with a 30 round magazine, I am not interfering with anyone's right to own or do anything they want. Thus there is no reason to prohibit me from owning it.
We have been over this issue time and time again. For one thing, even during the last ban, these magazines were available because so many million (or maybe billion) were already in circulation, so he's wrong to say that the magazines would have been illegal and unavailable under past law.
ReplyDeleteYou and Lawrence make a big deal about mass shooters who have used high capacity magazines, but you don't take anything else into account. Lanza did tactical reloads--he knew how to reload the weapon quickly and was keeping it topped off. Had he been using 10 round magazines, he would likely have killed as many people by utilizing this same tactic.
Holmes may have killed as many or more with his shotgun. We don't know since the case is sealed, so we need to wait to know which way that one goes.
You bring up Loughner, but I counter with Cho. Cho used 10 round magazines and still managed the most deadly school shooting we've had. The difference between these cases is less about the size of the magazines and more about the reactions of the victims. In Tuscon, they took stock of their situation and jumped the shooter. In Virginia Tech, people played dead on the floor.
If the victims attack back, they can win and stop a shooting, but if they lay back, it doesn't matter how much you limit magazine capacity.
What do you mean, you counter with Cho? Why don't you just counter with Uncle Ripley who shot a deer with one round.
DeleteLoughner, Lanza and Holmes all killed more people due to the magazines they used.
You ought to stick to the percentages argument. Spree shootings are rare.
Loughner, Lanza and Holmes all killed more people due to the magazines they used. Mikeb
DeleteNo, mikeb, they killed people because of the Big Pharma drugs they were on.
orlin sellers
What do you mean, you counter with Cho?
DeleteCountering with Cho makes a great deal of sense. We know that this "progressive" filth had two firearms, with which he fired 174 rounds.
We also know that he used 17 magazines.
If he had chambered a round in each handgun in advance, and if all 17 of his magazines had been blessed with the 10-Round Lawrence O'Donnell Socialist Seal of Approval, that would account for 172 of the 174 rounds fired--over 98.85%, in other words.
Are you really stupid enough, herbivore, to argue that limiting the next "progressive" sack of filth to 172 rounds will be a triumph in combating so-called "gun violence"?
Tell me that's what you believe. Give me yet another opportunity to revel in your idiocy.
The point we make is that MANY of the mass shooters have benefited from the larger magazines. The fact that Cho was not one of them is not a good rebuttal. The fact that 10-round magazines CAN be used to kill lots of people is not an argument against making it more difficult to do so.
DeleteMikeb, the actual extended magazine at Aurora jammed, possibly saving lives. But consider your "argument": Because one or two wackos in a given year do something wrong, millions of good citizens must be banned from having standard capacity magazines.
DeleteDo you understand the concept of proportionality?
Cho is an illustration that even if Lanza had only had 10 round magazines, he could have achieved the same results. He was tactically reloading whenever he moved. If Cho wasn't slowed down by reloading, why would Lanza have been slowed down?
DeleteIsn't it possible that if Cho had had the larger magazines, he would have killed even more? Of course it is. Just like Lanza would have killed fewer if he'd been limited to the 10-rounders.
DeleteSo on the basis of pure speculation, let's ban something? No, thanks.
DeleteSo on the basis of pure speculation, let's ban something? No, thanks.
DeleteNow, Greg, be a sport here. I'll play.
It's possible that if Cho and/or Lanza had used the really "scary" (to anti-gun bed-wetters) magazine, like the 100-round (if I recall correctly) drum Holmes used, it would have jammed, like Holmes' did, with consequently fewer deaths, as happened in Aurora.
Maybe you should advocate mandating 100-round drums, eh, herbivore?
Mike, Is it possible? Sure, anything is, but there's no evidence that points in that direction. Instead, the evidence points the other way.
DeleteMikeb either forgets or is unaware of the fact that the "Assault Weapons Ban" of the 90s brought about a renewed interest in the .45 A.C.P. cartridge. If we can only have ten rounds, those might as well be the ten heaviest and largest rounds readily available.
DeleteOh, it also created a new market for pocket--read easily concealable--guns.
Very good point, Greg. Maybe this time around, the .50 GI will really take off. I'd love to see that.
DeleteAnonymous: "Mike, Is it possible? Sure, anything is, but there's no evidence that points in that direction. Instead, the evidence points the other way."
DeleteAnd what evidence would that be? We're talking about hypothetical cases, IF he had this and IF the other guy had that. What exidence is pointing in the direction that makes you more right than me?
The fact that massacres carried out by nutbags with limited capacity magazines have not been any less deadly than those carried out by nutbags with hi-caps.
DeleteIf reduced magazine capacity would improve the situation, you wouldn't expect someone like Cho to rack up such a body count. The logical conclusion is that the body count is less about the size of the magazine used and more about the reactions of the shooter and the victims.
Mikeb said, "When faced with a compelling argument, you attack."
ReplyDeleteWhat mindlessness. You actually think you have a compelling argument against human RIGHTS? You don't. Every human being has a right to choose to defend themselves by any means possible. Yet, you hate individuals having such choices.
Do you understand the difference between Attack and Defend? We are defending the rights put forth in the 2A. You are the ones attacking those rights. You are the ones who want to infringe on our rights. No one has ever attacked you for not bearing arms.
orlin sellers
Magazine capacity limits no one from causing carnage. All the wacko in Tucson had to do was stand off with a .30-'06. Or learn to change magazines quickly. Or use gasoline and petroleum jelly. Or on and on.
ReplyDeleteHerbivore, do you know the difference between a 10-round AR-15 magazine for the .50 Beowulf cartridge, and a 30-round AR-15 magazine for 5.56mm NATO/.223 Remington? Basically, it's which ammo is put into it--the magazine bodies are the same size and shape.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the feed lip geometry is a bit different, and maybe the magazine followers are, too (can't remember, and don't feel like checking at the moment), and reliability will suffer some when using the "wrong" magazine for the caliber, but I've seen .50 Beowulf mags feed 5.56mm reliably, and vice versa.
So tell me, o wise chewer of cud, how is the "justice" system to determine whether someone has a perfectly legal 10-round .50 Beowulf mag, or a s-c-a-a-a-a-a-a-r-y 30-round 5.56mm one?