"However, we can draw conclusions based off of STRONG correlations." No we can't, you can. I think you are speculating... and speculation is not always accurate. "it is safe to assume, that there is a high probability gun confiscation will follow after registration." I think assumptions are anything but safe. You seem to use cherry picked facts, tied in with speculation based upon an assumption then try to repackage it as a fact. I am not buying. And I have no problem with hand guns as they are not generally used in mass shootings. In my lifetime most of the spree shooters use either an assault style or submachine gun style weapon with a high capacity magazine or clip. Ok, I see your point, but that only applies to the recent school shooting. I am not talking about the recent shooting, I am referring to all the mass shootings all the way back to the first one I remember... at a McDonnald's in California in the early 80's. Time and time again it is an SKS, or an AR-15, or a Tech 9 with the extended clip. Perhaps you think all this is a knee jerk reaction. Some of us have been seeing these killings happen again and again over 40 years and have finally arrived at the point where enough is enough. A man firing 500 rounds into the air is a far cry from firing 30 rounds directly into a gathering mob. I stand by my assertion that after you fire the first round INTO the crowd, the crowd will immediately disperse. Who in their right mind faces a man with a hand gun, or a rifle, or a shotgun, when the man shoots someone in plain view demonstrating that he can and will kill if need be? And if the crowd is armed with hand guns and SKS's you really think your measly 30 rounds will do the trick? Can you dodge a bullet Neo? You offer me a scenario that has never happened, all to support your need for a rifle with a 30 round magazine. All you have is an opinion until you can provide me a link where an person in America had to empty 30 rounds into a hostile mob all to save their business of family.
The people that want guns banned or want gun control are the ones that don't use or own one. They don't understand the "culture" of guns as they put it. If you think guns kill people, try this study. Put a loaded gun under a webcam, untouched, and see if it gets up and shoots anybody. If laws stopped things from happening, then murder wouldn't happen. Do you know what would have stopped Sandy Hook? If the principle had a gun to shoot the person instead of having to lunge at him with no weapon, as brave as she was for doing so. That is the only thing that would have prevented what happened. Schools are prime picking. The fear I have is the next psycho will try to one up this and go to a daycare with infants and 2 year olds. The only thing gun control does is prevent lawful abiding citizens from their rights, and gives more power to the lawbreakers.
Eh,I dunno man. I love guns, literally one of my favorite things to do is clean my rifle at my living room table as I have a cocktail and watch the news. I feel like such a hick in LA! JK, JK. But something has to be done, I think people are going about it the wrong way though. I'm unsure that magazine limits will help (although I think 10 would be fine).i would like to see more retroactive laws that are placed on the owner. Owning a gun comes with responsibility but I think it should come with even more. If your gun is taken from you and used it should be the same as you using it. People need to be responsible with storage, the fact is many, MANY, are not. Life in prison if you are found to be negligible storing your weapons. I dunno, something to that tune.
Saying "just because it hasn't happened, means it won't happen" is a dangerous way of thinking. While I can't find a report of it happening, I think the example with the LA riots and the Korean shop owners is good enough. California has a 10 round magazine limit, prove to me how this limit has helped reduce casualties in mass shootings in California. Better yet, how many times has an unarmed bystander disarmed a shooter? I can only think of one time off of the top of my head. The point that I am sticking with is that limiting the magazine capacity is ineffective in reducing the casualties in mass shootings. We will have to agree to disagree on that.
I disagree with your proposed penalties for gun owners, that's a bit much. I do believe it is a gun owner's responsibility to keep their guns safely locked up but there is no 100% fool-proof way to do it. I would be happy with a fine if an owners gun is stolen and used in a crime, say $5,000.
Indeed it can be. But it can be just as dangerous to believe it will happen. But its a failed argument in support for 30 round magazines IMO. There has to be a balance between the 2nd Amendment and public safety. Some say lets become an armed camp like Israel, some say lets destroy all weapons... I just say ban those (*)(*)(*)(*) high capacity clips. The shop owner is an idiot. Firing 500 rounds into the air?! He plainly does not understand the lethality a falling bullet has. He risked innocent lives all to protect a bunch of inanimate objects. Sure the store was his livelihood, but not worth the risk of randomly sending 500 rounds skyward and letting them fall back to earth all risking serious injury or death to innocent people a mile or two away who posed no threat to his business. The California law is impotent. For a 10 round magazine limit to actually be effective it has to be a Federal level ban effecting all States, coupled with a mandatory surrendering (for cash) of all existing 11+ round magazines for rifles, machine pistol style and submachine gun style firearms with strict Federal, State and local enforcement and heavy fines for violators. Anything less and we will just be pissing in the wind. How do you prove that point? You have some data to present proving your point? What, the fact the latest school shooter was a idiot and did not expend all rounds in his clip... that is your proof? That only covers one shooting, and thank God he did not use all rounds, making it so he had to reload more times than needed. To me it shows it could have been much worse. And on that point we do agree. (-:
Hold the presses!!! I find myself in agreement with you for the 2nd time today. Indeed there is no foolproof way to secure a firearm, and I like the idea of a $5,000 penalty to the owner of a stolen weapon than used in a crime.
I have a question About that. Lets say someone steals my weapon and I dont know its been stolen and it gets into a crime the person is fined 5g's ok now lets say someone breaks in and I file a police report and something happens, Does this person get the 5g fine?
Good question. Depends on how the law was written I suspect. If you left a weapon in your house unsecured while no one was at home, and then the weapon was stolen and used in a crime... I say pay up a $5,000 fine. If you had the gun secured in one of those little bedside locked box and the box was stolen... then no, IMO you took a reasonable step to secure your weapon. Gun safes are best, but I think it would be going way too far to demand that every gun owner spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to secure their weapons. Rifles are harder to secure without a gun safe though, a trigger lock is nice, but once stolen a thief could remove the lock and still use the weapon in a crime... just as a thief could eventually break the lock of a gun lock box and retrieve the gun. Not a perfect solution, but what is?
If you're negligent enough with your firearms to not notice they're missing, then you should pay the fine. Now if you're out of town for a week and come back to a burglarized house, then no, that I think would be an extenuating circumstance. Laws like these would be hard to enforce for that reason though.
Any lawmaker must realise that they are not above the law, any laws they pass they will have to abide by. Sen. Feinstein must abide by the laws in her state or District of residence. If she is suggesting that she and other lawmakers are above the law then that would not just be rank hypocrisy it would be undemocratic. Registration of firearms shouldn't concern law-abiding gun owners. It doesn't necessarily lead to confiscation, I think wholesale confiscation of firearms can be achieved without the need for registration, although that would make it easier, but it wouldn't make it ultimately more successful. A totalitarian government intent on removing (previously) lawfully-held firearms would probably be using other sources of information including snitches.
While I agree in theory to your first paragraph. I do not feel that ever happens. While I know little on the government of other countries I would bet the elite and politically class are not disarmed in the majority of countries even with the strictest controls. One of my biggest issue with most controls is they usually mainly or exclusively effect the lower classes. At least that is the history of gun control in the US. Most legal gun owners in New York likely never would have believed, they're names, addresses, and a map to their house would be published in a newspaper. It will be10-20 years before a confiscation would be even remotely possible. The baby-boomers still protect us politically. Even then it will never be as effective as Australia or the UK. Geographic differences insure that. We have used many methods including snitches, and searches that would be unconstitutional if they were done on citizens that could afford attorneys. Not even a dent in our drug problem if anything it is worse. I honestly believe if the US survives long enough we will have severely restrictive gun control. I do not think it will happen in my lifetime.
