Nitpick: The Beretta 92 has 15 round mags standard.
My bad.
Yeah, I had a 96 (.40 cal) it had 12 round mags which I believe were 9mm 15 round mags with a different follower. Does that sound right?
Considering I cited numbers provided by that study and you quoted something that said they have no data I find odd. Either we are missing something (maybe “first study” versus this study?) or they are making shit up. I doubt it is the latter/
I agree the AWB did little to diminish crime. That report pretty much says that. But then the AWB as written was faulty on many levels.
Yeah because, as noted in the report, there was a loophole big enough to drive a battleship through on the LCM side of things.
See my cite above for the percentage of pistols they deemed as “Assault Pistols” (yeah I know…I presume they have some metric for assigning a given gun as an “AP”…take it up with them if you don’t like it, not my doing).
Sure because none of it undoes what I cited above.
Never used a 96, but it sounds possible - the size would be about right.
I agree that is not a very notable difference.
One of the issues I have with gun control laws (in general) is that in the battle to get the legislation passed things get watered down to the point of making the actual legislation largely useless. Things such as banning LCMs but allowing LCMs from pre-1994 to be sold including imports of more LCMs. I mean seriously, is it surprising to anyone that this did nothing whatsoever? Pure idiocy. Then the gun crowd goes, “See! We told you that wouldn’t do anything!” Hell…I could’ve told you that before the thing was ever signed.
With the LCM limit I mentioned before a 6-round limit would be more to my liking. Then it might actually be a meaningful regulation and have some impact. I know this makes you and yours howl in frustration but a gimped regulation is bogus. Maybe a 6-round limit on pistols and 10-round on rifles. I dunno but something like that.
But what if there was no significant impact? In that case, would the antis push just as hard to repeal the law as they had pushed to get it through? Or would they use it as an excuse to demand even more restrictions?
Show me in that study where the number of mags carried by criminals are being tracked.
Show me in that study how many crimes are committed where a gun is fired
Show me in that study where when a gun is fired, the number of round have been tracked.
That is what I was referring to regarding another poster as items NOT being tracked. If they are I will apologize with the same amount of vigor.
So why in the hell are you promoting components of the AWB (mag-cap restrictions) and trying to fucking guilt me into submission?
They too note that their data is flawed. An AP to them is a pistol that can carry hi cap mags. What threw a wrench in their study is when a AP was used but it contained low-cap mags. Flawed data again, and you still want to cite it?
You’re killing me here. That study is a piece of shit, your points were refuted by mine and vice versa. Is it any wonder that the Justice Departments (both of them) decided that the data was inconclusive?
And the answer is…
#2 What do I win?
I’d have no problem with some sort of sunset clause in the legislation. Set some metrics (and ensure the means to track that data exists), set a timeframe and set a bar that says if the LCM regulation did not meet the specified goals it goes out the window.
Of course the limits would have to be sensible (e.g. allow enough time for the change to impact the system and not like three months after the law is passed).
Your wish has already been granted.
We had 10 years of “Assault Weapon Ban” and “High Capacity Magazine Ban,” and the CDC found no measurable effect.
While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, how much more in-depth would the CDC have to delve to convince anti-gunners that 99% of the crap they propose is not effective?
How is that ballistic fingerprint deal going in Maryland ExTank? Have they solved a single crime with it yet? How about the costs to date vs. crimes solved?
More legislation that really could have used a sunset vs. metrics clause or two…
Well, it’s all we got.
But fine…let’s engage our brains a minute and think about it.
Every time someone pulls a trigger on a gun (with a bullet chambered of course) there is some chance the bullet will hit someone. Of course the skill of the shooter affects this but there remains some non-zero chance the bullet hits another person.
So, I think it stands to reason that the more times you fire the gun the greater the chances of hitting someone.
So we have gangster-X shooting at someone. He has a full magazine in the gun and two more on his hip. At the 6-shot limit he can shoot 18 times. At the 15-shot limit he can shoot 45-times (add one more bullet if they had one in the chamber at the start). Big difference.
Also, while I am aware that it is possible to reload some guns very quickly I do not think Joe Crackhead is probably well trained and well versed with the use of his gun and doubt they will be managing in one second. Not to mention issues with re-acquiring your target.
I submit that most times more than one (or a few anyway) shots are fired the person is in some kind of shootout or just spraying bullets at an enemy hoping one will hit. I do not think most people committing crimes with guns are either expert shots or particularly familiar with the use of their gun (e.g. that gangsta holding the pistol sideways thing because it looks “bad ass” or something). I think it is likely these people get all jacked up with adrenaline when the shooting starts and do not keep their calm to ensure straight shooting and careful target selection. More likely they will be mashing the trigger and pointing in the general direction of the people they are shooting at.
Doubtless there are criminals who are expert with a gun. I just do not think that is most of them.
In short, I think making it so fewer shots can me made almost has to show a decrease in the number of people shot. Hard to imagine how it could be otherwise.
Did you read the rest of this thread?
I already stipulated that the AWB did not achieve noticeable results. I also noted that things like the Large Capacity Magazine ban was so completely gutted with loopholes a mile wide it is of absolutely no surprise it didn’t work.
I maintain it could be useful (as noted just above) if it was written to not allow any loopholes.
The only “loophole” I can think of in the LCM ban is the grandfather clause, and you have to admit that you have to have that grandfather clause.
If not, anyone who acquired a gun pre-1994 or 2004-2009 would be transformed into a federal felon. Imagine a 98 year old grandmother shooting an intruder trying to rape her in the year 2041, but she goes to jail because the ancient pistol has a 12 round magazine that her (now dead) husband bought for her in 2006.
Well…not only was it pre-94 mags people already had it allowed imports to be sold as well.
And I am willing to risk the unlikely issue of the 98 year old lady you mention and hope the DA will work something out under those circumstances.
And as for becoming an insta-felon I would think there would be a lead in time where the government let it be known after a given date don’t have any LCMs on hand.
Part of the problem is that, via legislative fiat, a standard magazine becomes an LCM overnight. And handguns are shaped/balanced to work with the magazine they come with. What would the option even be for people who bought a factory-standard gun and, years later, found out that the government wanted them to have fewer bullets in the mag?
Not sure I am following the problem you mention. I see no reason why magazine manufacturers couldn’t engineer a new magazine that fit your gun and had weight added to it sufficient for the balance you mention while limiting the number of bullets the magazine can hold at one time. As noted there would be a lead-in time to allow manufacturers to get plenty of new magazines on the market.
People have mentioned several times how blindly simple it is to make these things. I am pretty sure magazine manufacturers are up to the task.
Hey there, Whack, I just wanted to jump into the fray a little bit. You’ve been coherent and non-snide, and you strike me as someone who considers others’ positions (even when disagreeing with them.)
What I didn’t notice earlier in the thread–about the time the discussion turned to others’ possession of guns being dangerous to you, versus automobiles, etc.–was something along the following lines. You may or may not have considered this (particularly depending on where you live.)
Yes, a gun (let’s ignore the bean-counting on capacity for the time being) in the hands of Joe Criminal on the street is potentially dangerous to you.
Yes, a gun in the hands of a decent law-enforcement officer is of potential benefit to you. He or she is tasked with protecting and serving you, especially from Joe Criminal.
Thing is…that’s something of a false dichotomy. There is a third option (and this is where the “where you live” comes in.)
Me.
I’m not a cop. Didn’t play one on TV. Didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Just a lowly adjunct professor. I have a gun, too. Carry it on my hip every day. Of course I have the little ID card from the state that says I passed a class and a written exam about the law, and I passed the shooting test–same one that the Texas DPS troopers take. But regardless, I’m just a regular guy. I’m probably around you a lot more than the police are. You see me all the time–it’s fairly rare to see a cop standing next to you.
Now, if I were walking down the street and I happened to peek into an alley and saw you getting raped–your gender doesn’t really matter–I could, with the full endorsement of the law, pull my gun on the rapist. I’d have every intent to kill him in order to save you from death or serious bodily injury, but if he immediately ceased, I’d likely not shoot. Still, the situation is over.
I realize that the situation is unlikely in the abstract, but it does happen. The studies on defensive gun uses vary so widely in numbers that it’s almost useless to cite them. Still, excluding the deterrent factor of armed citizens…having more “good guys” out there carrying is, at least IMHO, a good thing.
My justification* for carrying a standard capacity magazine (12 rounds as opposed to the 10 during the AWB) is, well, somewhat my own. I have 13 rounds in the gun, and I carry 2 spare magazines each loaded with 12. That gives me 37 rounds on my person wherever I am–outside certain designated no-no places–in the unlikely event that the zombie invasion occurs. Yeah, zombies are kinda unlikely, but hell…if you’re prepared for that…a violent riot or civil uprising seems minor in comparison. 
*Not that I feel like I need one. Like Argent, I don’t think I should have to justify myself.
And if I am getting raped in an alley (I’m male) the rapist almost certainly has a gun pointed at my head (that or Salma Hayek is forcing herself on me but then I’d shoot you if you stopped her ;)).
Point is having guns available means they are available to bad guys as well as good guys. So we seek ways to try to limit bad people having them without unduly frustrating the good people who want one.
And I have to say you having a gun, to me, is a de facto threat in my book. You may be the nicest and gentlest person in the world. But how do I know that? What if we get into an argument? What if you are having a really bad day and lose your temper (happens to everyone)? I am reasonably certain even on your bad days you would not shoot anyone without a serious and imminent threat but can I be 100% certain? By default your having a gun tips the scales in your favor should, for whatever reason, we be at odds with each other.
Your having a knife would likewise concern me or you casually twirling a baseball bat but not as much as you having a gun.
FYI: I live in Chicago (says so near my post count :D)
Imports made after the ban could be sold? My cite says “no”.
What cite are you offering to support your claim?