In Canada our pistols are limited to a 10 round mag and a 5 round in a long gun. Someone imported a 5.56 pistol just for the sole purpose of being able to sell a 10 round AR mag. I wished we could have a 20 round mag. I know they shut down the 5.56 pistol after a bit because of the mag issue, i am pretty sure those 10 round mags go for a premium now because you cant get them anymore.
FBI/CDC 25 year gun death data The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.
I agree. I don't see any practical use in having a hundred round drum. It's a slippery slope issue to gun advocates, but so is everything to them. I don't see a ban on this being super effective at stopping mass shootings either, but it's stupid to sell something like that legally. What the fuck are you going to do with a hundred round drum? Shoot up a junked car with your redneck buddies? Is anybody else kind of annoyed with the definition of mass shooting a lot of the media are using for their statistics? They're going off any event where four or more are injured, so in about half of the mass shootings in their 250+ total that keeps getting quoted so far this year there wasn't any fatalities. Naturally, most of the mass shootings in this stat are gangland violence. That is a real problem as well, and probably a bigger one than the mental whack jobs who just snap, but they're completely different crimes. It seems like they're using the loosest definition of mass shooting they can find by anyone keeping statistics just so they can have the highest total.
I would use the traditional FBI definition, which is 4 or more killed with no cooling off period. Based on that, there's been 20 this year. That's still a lot. Or use the Congressional Research Services' definition for public mass shooting, which is four or more killed indiscriminately. Based on that I'm not sure how many there have been this year as in the 20 based on the FBI definition a lot of gang violence as well and not indiscriminate.
4 or more killed is the traditional metric. Slanted msm outlets have started using their own watered down definitions that conflate the two for maximizing emotional impact, conflating these spree killer incidents with gangland shootings. Like kamp said you count 4 or more injured number shoots up dramatically because criminal gang violence is much much more common than lone wolf killers. These numbers are an inconvenient truth as it tends to be minorities and is all but ignored by both sides for various fucked up racial issues. The real solutions are economic based but the narrative is the bigger existential threat is lone wolf killers, so we always circle back to gun control.
Details from your source Given that they are ignoring unintentional deaths, read DUI, and killings where alcohol was a contributing factor, that statistic does not paint a full picture of alcohol's deathly impact on society by a long shot.
There are two issues I have with this argument. The first is the notion that the government should weigh the feelings of gun owners against public safety when it comes to gun regulation. The government didn't give a shit about how drivers felt when they mandated we all wear seat belts and implemented speed limits. Why should gun owners feelings mean more than the lives of the public? The second is the notion that people don't trust the government to stop regulating. Lucky for us, people can be elected to represent our interests when it comes to the creation, modification and repeal of laws. Our civic engagement determines how much influence the government has on our life. If someone really has a hair up their ass about not being able to buy a 100 round drum magazine, it's reasonable for them to raise hell with their representatives. If they don't, they won't. That's how it works. Whinging about what the government may or may not do is not an excuse for the status quo to continue. The first sentence is why a magazine limit should be considered. For me, the goal is to prevent randoms from buying a gun, packing it with bullets, and shooting indiscriminately at a crowd of people. Shit, I know nothing about guns and I could do this today, if I wanted. If I had to learn how to switch out magazines, or deal with gun jams, that would certainly make me stop and think about what I was doing before I did it. The more obstacles that are put in your way of a goal, the less likely it is you reach that goal. That is human nature. Would that stop the driven? No. But maybe it stops little Timmy from grabbing his dad's AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, and blowing away half his class. And even if little Timmy knew how to change a magazine, the time he takes might allow another set of parents to see their child again. Assuming of course, little Timmy can quickly change a magazine while people are screaming, dying, and even perhaps rushing him to take the gun away. It's my impression that for mass shooters, guns are simply a means to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. That said, slightly inconveniencing law-abiding gun owners by making them use smaller magazines or incentivizing the safe storage of guns and ammunition seems like a fair trade off to me. Especially since most law-abiding gun owners aren't leaving their guns out everywhere and don't have 50 round drum magazines anyway.
The right to bear arms is an enumerated constitutional right driving isn’t. Not universal in all things but typically we have much higher standards to meet to rankle them legislatively/judicially. As far as public safety is concerned, again, are large capacity magazines a health crisis? Or assault rifles? At most people killed with both top maybe 500 a year? You were right to say the real issue is pistols but democrats know there is less than zero support to ban those. Booze is a much bigger scourge health crisis wise but it doesn’t draw the same shocking headlines and no one wants to tackle soccer moms giving up 1$ Applebee’s margaritas. And that’s what you’ve seen the past 30 odd years. Gun control legislation has stung the federal level reps enough that they don’t. You can whine and cry that it’s the NRA in bed with gun manufacturers all you want but the people that voted is where the power lies.
So your answer is "don't worry about the government passing oppressive gun laws, because we can always vote them out and get the laws changed"? Once a law is on the books, it's generally pretty tough to get it overturned. Also, the " vote them out" is pretty funny, because weren't you the one who posted a link about the supreme court upholding gerrymandering? Didn't you say that that "disincentives" voters? I've been thinking about something: let's say that all "assault weapons" are magically gone tomorrow. What's to stop these guys from making bombs to get a high body count? Come to think of it, why aren't they doing that already?
Freedom is speech is also a constitutional right and laws are put in place to regulate that as well. I addressed this earlier. How about the fact that a backfiring motorcycle in Times Square caused a fucking stampede because everybody thought they were going to be another mass shooting victim? I'm not sure I even know what you're arguing for. Are you arguing that gun regulations should never be made, ever? Or are you arguing that because not enough people get killed, it shouldn't be addressed? Stop equating alcohol consumption and shooting a bunch of innocent people. The only ways those two events are linked at all is the irresponsibility of the person committing the act and the availability of guns and alcohol. You can't have a mass shooting without a bunch of people getting killed and/or injured. I care very much that mass shootings are occurring because that could very directly affect not only me, but my wife and children. The rate of them occurring is increasing. That people refuse to even consider doing anything, even if the proposed solution is imperfect, is terrifying and maddening to me. Then it shouldn't be a problem with you if the people vote for gun control laws, right? That's where the power lies, after all. Just because it's hard, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. This is why democracy is great. Look, just because you might know how to do something (and I'm not saying you do), doesn't mean everybody else does. And everybody who buys material to make high explosives is tracked, thanks to Timothy McVeigh. I'm sure the government also tracks people who look up that kind of information online. Given all the risk between acquiring not only the materials but the information to make bombs, wouldn't it be easier to go to a gun show and buy a gun and some bullets instead?
With regards to Epstein's case some names are finally starting to come out in a way that actually matters. This isn't proven yet, but those are your big names. At least so far.
There’s a lot of important people potentially breathing a sigh of relief this morning. I wonder what the tapes he had will show. Interesting how someone who tried to do this once before was able to do it again.
Well, that didn't take long. Was that supposed to be not suspicious? Eh, maybe. It's not like the witnesses/victims are dead. They can all still testify.
Well the case against him died soooo..... I guess they go after that woman that was helping him recruit?
I'm just imagining a scenario where assassins sent by Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz all bump into each other right outside Epstein's cell, and after a brief comedy skit they throw lots to see who gets to actually "suicide" him.