How does one do that without getting rid of the 1st amendment?
I don’t recall how hard my test was for my CCW but I thought the class was very informative. My state has since allowed concealed carry without a permit, which I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but I don’t think they found a subsequent rise in gun deaths because of it.
No, as I recall they say the average distance for defensive shooting is only 7 feet. Also from what I can gather off of youtube anecdotes, senior citizens are frequently the targets of home invasion and have less mobility to escape.
It does post-D.C. v Heller.
No handgun bans without an amendment, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself at some point.
The test I took for my driver’s license was so easy as to be meaningless. You don’t seriously think that rising to the difficulty of a driver’s license exam is some sort of accomplishment, do you?
Only as it applies to concealed carry weapons. If they can’t see the target well enough to hit it then I guess they don’t get to pack heat.
So you don’t consider the fact that when a certain type of magazine was banned that it’s confiscation steadily decreased until the moment the ban expired, when the number of them confiscated suddenly shot back up, is NOT an indication that the ban against larger magazines led to less people having them? Fascinating…
I realize that the methodology of a lot of gun statistics can be flawed or skewed (which is why both supporters and opponents of the AWB have used the same study to bolster their side) but this one, while limited to one state, is pretty compelling evidence that people in that state obeyed the law until it stopped being the law. Unless you find it all a huge coincidence? 
Not at all. I am not claiming that the law did not reduce the number of people with that magazine.
But so what if it did? Did the murder rate go down? What did the reduced magazine capacity law actually do, *vis a vis *reducing violent crime?
If less people have high-capacity ammo magazines, less people are able to shoot 155 shots in less than five minutes which is what Adam Lanza did. The banning of high-capacity ammo magazines may very well not remove the number of incidents that happen, but it’s totally logical to assume that if the ban is working (and the evidence shows that it was working) there are less people with high-capacity ammo magazines so the incidents that do happen are very likely to cause less casualties.
Look at it this way: Lanza only had to reload his gun five times in order to squeeze off those 155 rounds. During one of the times when he was reloading (although the pause also may have come from his weapon jamming), “as many as a half-dozen first graders may have survived Adam Lanza’s deadly shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School because he stopped firing briefly.” (Hartford Courant)
This is anecdotal, only one shooting. But it could be part of a larger trend during the AWB which is harder to enumerate. The lives saved may be smaller in number but it’s ridiculous to think that it’s statistically insignificant. And at what cost? Hunters still hunt (responsibly, I might add), people can still defend themselves, world keeps on spinning.
To be honest, if Lanza reloading a few more times would have meant just one more kid alive, just at that one incident, I have trouble seeing why anyone would be against the ban.
I am not interested in solving bar-fights here. I am interested in solving fatal violence problems. If you can demonstrate that guns do not contribute to a sizable portion of those, then I will concede your point.
WRT the OP, as a staunch gun-control advocate I think the assault weapon focus is misguided and stupid. Not because they shouldn’t be banned, but because it is too narrow of a focus. Even if we win, it accomplishes almost nothing.
What section of the 1994 AW ban outlawed private possession or trade of existing high capacity mags?
What part of the legislation removed a single mag off of the “street”?
Since there was no part of the ban that did either of those things, how do you figure the ban was working? There was nothing in it to “work”.
By convincing enough of them that they are wrong, obviously. Or making there opinions too embarrassing to mention in public. That works; after all, you don’t see many people openly pro-slavery any more or demanding that the Presidency be made a monarchy.
Then there’s no possible solution and the killing will go on indefinitely. The pro-gun people can continue to wallow in the blood of their sacrifices.
The next wallow is scheduled for Friday night. It’s a pot luck.
On the other hand, if 400 people were killed by Home Permanents, I’d presume that the FDA (or some other agency) would work to ban them.
Thereasonableness of a ban has to do with the necessity of the item, the alternate uses of the item, the “context” of the deaths, not just the raw number.
That’s a pretty grim assessment. Serbia, for instance, allows possession of handguns with a license, and is fifth in the world in guns per capita. Yet, their intentional homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000, the same as gun-phobic Great Britain’s, and less than the U.S.’ 4.8. Obviously, factors other than the laws are at work here, namely, cultural factors that can change with time, such as the honor culture.
A handgun ban is off the table, but that’s not necessary to achieve a low homicide rate. We’ll just have to work a little harder and smarter at it.
I suppose that’s possible, but you picked really bad examples. We never had a monarchy in this country, and we specifically passed an amendment outlawing slavery.
Sure, mores change, but the if you think you can “shame” people into not wanting to lobby for gun rights, you have a more optimistic view of human nature than I have.
We can’t enact policy based on this “if it would have just saved one person” test. Whether it is guns or anything else in life, we would nickel and dime our freedoms down to nothing by the “saving one person” test.
I’m sure you would support a strictly enforced 25mph speed limit on interstates because that law would save thousands of lives.
What is the impact of smaller magazines on the gun owning public? You are forced, by law, to turn in your 30 round magazines and replace them with 6 round magazines (let’s assume at no cost to you, and no record is kept of who turns in magazines). What is the impact?
The impact of 25mph speed limits is going to be huge, not measure in ‘inconvenience’ units, but vastly higher costs for product shipments, extended commute times, wild changes in the availability and cost of goods and services to people across the country.
I’d stop carrying my 9mm in favor of my 3" 44 magnum.
With no empirical evidence, you have just made an arbitrary decision to limit the number of rounds that I can carry in one magazine. You have nothing to stand on to determine that 6 is somehow a safer number than 7, 8, 10, 15, or 30. You have told me that you know better than I how best to defend myself, hunt, or compete. My inventory of expensive magazines has now become either worthless or priceless depending upon which side of the law I choose to stay on.
Other than that, no crimes will be thwarted, no lives saved, in the end nothing will be impacted other than the people not causing problems in the first place.
Your inventory of expensive magazines is replaced at no cost to you with functionally identical magazines of smaller size. If you like, let’s assume the replacement quantity provides for equivalent or greater overall storage capacity than the units returned.
So… “no impact”?
I am against banning any magazine sizes as magazines don’t kill people. That being said, if my collection was replaced as you mention, it would make it more palatable. I would spend every last dollar and moment of my time to insure that any legislator if voted for such a measure lost their job however.
Again, you have just made an arbitrary decision to limit the number of rounds that I can carry in one magazine. You have nothing to stand on to determine that 6 is somehow a better number than 7, 8, 10, 15, or 30. Besides making me a felon overnight if I don’t relinquish my once legal property as well as significantly neutering my ability to defend, or compete, all because you came up with the number 6, nah no impact at all…