I’m not sure if you picked Serbia for exactly this reason, but they just had a mass shooting: Thirteen dead in Serbia gun rampage - BBC News
I picked Serbia because they have legal handguns, yet a lower homicide rate than Canada, and equal to the U.K. Thus, you can have a low homicide rate without a handgun ban.
Incidents like the above are only relevant in that they affect the homicide rate.
Of course it’s arbitrary. The point is that the actual effect of this arbitrary restriction is miniscule. You not only need to be at a point of defending your home with your weapon, you also need to exchange fire, and in quantities sufficient to have your need to reload become an issue. I am interested in what you mean by ‘compete’, not sure how that plays.
In comparison to instituting a 25mph speed limit, which would have massive effects to our economy, where people can live and work, and affect every single resident every single day of their lives, it is just this side of nothing.
Compete - There are millions of AW’s out there. There are hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines out there for them. 400 deaths using them since 2004. So what are the millions of guns being used for since it is clearly not killing people? Most sit and collect dust. Many, far far more than are used illegally, are used for target practice and competition.
The impact of mag restrictions on gun owners is miniscule as AW owners are a small subset of gun owners in general. The impact on gun violence however, is zero. Because of that, it is pointless.
Really? Is your toy not as much fun now that you have to reload more often?
I can see why this is such an important political topic, it would affect hobbyists!
I keep seeing the phrase, “reduce gun violence.” Is that the actual goal? Shouldn’t the goal be to reduce violent crime, period? If you remove all of the guns, but violent crime increases anyway (as it has in Britain from what I’ve read), you’ve succeeded in reducing gun violence…hooray!..but at what cost? To what end? Again - shouldn’t the goal be reducing violence in general? To me it seems that “reducing gun violence” is just a red herring that actually means, “take all the guns away.”
You can split hairs if you like though I don’t know why we would ignore the provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in its entirety unless you do like splitting hairs.
Or unless you do not want that to come into the discussion since it’s not dismissed so readily as banning guns for any reason, let alone cosmetic ones, and there is a study that shows that this was effective and unambiguously so.
That would have shown an undue hardship on commuters. I fail to see any undue hardship on saying “you have to reload your weapon after 10 shots.” Can you explain that hardship to me?
I use the “save one person” as hyperbole anyway. The evidence infers that far more than one person would be saved if someone bent on opening fire in a theater had to stop to reload more often.
In fact, if they had to reload after every shot it would save even more lives, but although that regulation would limit weapons to what they had back when the Second Amendment was written (shouldn’t strict Constitutionalists appreciate this?), it would still be bad, kind of like making highways 25 MPH speed limits. Which is why nobody has seriously suggested either should be implemented.
That law did not prohibit private possession or trade of high capacity magazines, just their manufacture and import. I bought about 15 30-round AR-15 magazines during the ban, and it was entirely legal.
“Contribute” yes- "cause’= no. Or to be more clear, there is no evidence whatsoever that stricter gun control laws in the USA reduce violent crime.
It’s a lot easier to have your violence end up with people killed with a gun than other weapons. It’s a lot easier to kill many people with one gun than any other weapon. A person bent on violence may be violent regardless of the tools they have at their disposal, but not everyone with a kitchen knife can go into a school and kill a couple dozen school kids in less than five minutes. In fact, right around the time of the Connecticut shooting, there was news of someone slashing up a school in China, I believe. Zero fatalities.
The best way to curb violence in general would be a separate discussion. This is about making it harder for violent people to kill you and a lot of your friends with relative ease.
Which means that the law should have been stronger, obviously.
The solution to an imperfectly written law is not that all laws should be scrapped. The solution is to write one that is good.
Maybe so. But again, gun control in the USA has never reduced violent crime in a significant way.
I know, it’s sounds logical. A lot of violent crimes are committed with guns, thus reducing guns = reduced crime. But not only is there at least one flaw in that logic, i*t simply does not work. *
You are misrepresenting what was said. Reducing guns = reducing guns used for violence = not as easy to kill as with a gun.
Violence may remain but killing people is harder and killing many, many people at once is a great deal harder without a gun.
Don’t believe me? Then the logical thing to do is to replace all guns you own with another weapon of your choosing. You’ll be just as protected, right?
You misunderstand the nature of rights, and the proper role of government. Gun owners do not have to prove to you that the hardship is undue. You have to prove that it is not undue.
Simply saying “I want to ban such-and-such, there is no evidence that it will do much good, but it won’t burden you very much so you have to convince me not to do it” is not how it works.
Think of gun rights as you would about abortion rights. A 24 hour waiting period is not that much of a burden on a woman wanting an abortion, but it is still an infringement. Therefore you have to show what good a waiting period would do, to outweigh the infringement.
Regards,
Shodan
Yep. I could go on and on about self defense, defending liberty and the other things that you most likely consider bullshit, but I thought I’d at least try to bring another side of the debate into the discussion. If you’ve spent any amount of time in this issue you know that mag limits are ridiculous and a complete waste of time. If someone wants to shoot up their office, they can be just as effective with a 10 round mag. They just need to spend a second or so between reloads. See Va Tech as a good example.
Millions and millions of mags already in the public’s hands were grandfathered in post 1994. Nothing changed. Nothing was confiscated, no forced buy backs. There were no less high caps the day after the legislation was signed than there were the day it expired, due to the law anyway.
The only thing banned were sales of NEW high cap mags manufactured post 1994. The average joe didn’t have to “obey” the law. The law was focused at the retail and manufacturer level.
Are you implying that there was some other mechanism that took high cap mags off the street or off of retailer’s shelves?
If the government has a compelling reason it can infringe on any right and still be square with the Constitution.
I asked for the hardship that limiting a magazine to 10 shots would cause. You didn’t answer. I assume that means there is no hardship.
I don’t like TRAP laws, but if they are Constitutional (or at least the one specific one you bring up is) then I fail to see how banning high-volume magazines isn’t either.
Yes, like I said, the law was not as good as it should have been. The answer, then, is not to scrap the law. It’s to make it better.
The study speaks for itself. Even the imperfect law managed to limit the amount of high volume magazines were being confiscated. Imagine the impact of a law that was less imperfect.
What is your compelling reason for infringing on Second Amendment rights?
Feel free to assume whatever you like. But you need to read my post again.
The burden of proof is on you.
Regards,
Shodan