An Assault on Everyone’s Safety

[SecularMotion]

The Glock 19 is a semiautomatic pistol so reliable that it is used by thousands of law enforcement agencies around the world, including the New York Police Department, to protect the police and the public. On Saturday, in Tucson, it became an instrument of carnage for two preventable reasons: It had an oversize ammunition clip that was once restricted by federal law and still should be; and it was fired by a disturbed man who should never have been able to purchase it legally

The ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country almost certainly made the Tucson tragedy worse. Members of Congress are legitimately concerned about their own safety now, but they should be no less worried about the effect of their inaction on the safety of all Americans.

As lawmakers in Washington engage this week in moments of silence and tributes to Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other casualties, they should realize that they have the power to reduce the number of these sorts of horrors, and their lethality.

To do so, they will need to stand up to the National Rifle Association and its allies, whose lobbying power continues to grow despite the visceral evidence that the groups have made the country a far more dangerous place. Having won a Supreme Court ruling establishing a right to keep a firearm in the home, the gun lobby is striving for new heights of lunacy, waging a campaign to legalize the possession of a gun in schools, bars, parks, offices, and churches, even by teenagers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11tue1.html?src=dayp

[DonP]

1. Maybe you can explain ...

How the country is "a much more dangerous place" while the FBI crime report has shown for three years in a row that violent crime is at a 35 year low?

But perhaps the NYT writer has better crime data than the FBI ... or he may just be full of shit, using emotional rhetoric and counting on the factual ignorance of most of his readership to try and push his personal views.

[shadowrider]

2. Gosh, if this wasn't from the NYTimes I'd assume it was unsubstantiated hyperbole

Wait, nevermind.

[SecularMotion]

3. Any arguments against restriction of oversize ammo clips?

[shadowrider]

4. You'd probably do better to ask

if there are any arguments against restriction of oversize ammo MAGAZINES.

Learn the difference.

[SecularMotion]

5. Do MAGAZINES hold more or less ammo than clips?

[shadowrider]

6. It depends. Know the difference yet?

[SecularMotion]

8. I'm not playing guessing games.

What's your point?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

10. Do fuel tanks hold more or less gasoline than gas cans?

Because therein lies the difference. The magazine is the assembly that feeds the ammunition into the action, just like a fuel tank holds the fuel that is fed to the engine. A clip is a device for transporting ammunition to and feeding it into a fixed magazine, just like a gas can is a device for transporting fuel to and feeding it into a car's fuel tank.

To illustrate: the Rifle, M1, Garand http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/usa/m1-garand-e.html
The Garand has an internal, non-detachable magazine, that is loaded by inserting an "en bloc" clip of ammunition (second picture from below) into it. The clip itself cannot feed ammunition into the action; it's just there to hold the ammunition in a position from which the magazine can feed the ammunition.

Most modern firearms have detachable magazines, with integral springs and "followers" (the bit that sits on top of the magazine spring and pushes the ammunition upwards), but they can still be filled using stripper clips.

[Euromutt]

7. As a matter of fact, yes

In the event you find yourself having to hold off a couple of housebreakers in the middle of the night, when you're not wearing your regular pants with reinforced belt and magazine pouches, it helps if you have as many rounds in the gun to begin with, rather than having to scrabble around in your nightstand drawer for reloads and then trying to draw them from a pocket in your dressing gown.

Are you definitely going to need 20-30 rounds in that kind of situation? Probably not, but if you do, you're going to need them right fucking now, and not in a mag you need to swap out while trying to juggle your cell phone while you're on the line to 911.

[SecularMotion]

9. You have a wild imagination

That's a very extreme and unlikely, worst case scenario.

[shadowrider]

11. You asked for a reason, you were given one, you dismissed it

I rarely, if ever, respond to posts asking for a "reason" why you "need" something when you're the arbitor of what constitutes a good reason. In this case, you won't accept any reason and will walk away feeling vindicated no one could properly answer.

Have fun.

[Euromutt]

13. It was an answer to your question

Unlikely does not equal impossible, ergo there is a legitimate reason to possess an oversized mag for a handgun. And the problem with worst case scenarios is that you can't know you're in one until it's actually happening, at which point you're not exactly in a position to petition your congressman, wait for Congress to modify the law to acknowledge the situation you're in, after which you can run out to the gun store (once they've received a shipment of newly manufactured oversized mags) to buy one and then come back to deal with the intruders.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. So?

That's a very extreme and unlikely, worst case scenario.

So?

I own fire extinguishers, car insurance, flood insurance, life insurance, spare tires, and first aid kits for extremely unlikely, worst-case scenarios. The reason we do this is because the cost of being prepared is minuscule compared to the cost of being unprepared in the unlikely situation that you need them.

Why not have the choice to be prepared for extreme, unlikely, worst-case scenarios?

Or would you rather take away that choice because of the actions of a few?

[SecularMotion]

17. There is a point when the safety of an individual must

be weighed against the safety of the public.

[spin]

21. Well then we have to consider the number of defensive gun uses in the United States each year ...

Statistics are hard to come by on this subject as most incidents never make it into a database. However a number of surveys have been conducted.

You can examine some of the surveys at: http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Introduction

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

My daughter successfully stopped an intruder who was forcing his way through a sliding glass door in our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. He ran. The police were called and arrived, but the incident was never used in a survey.

[SecularMotion]

24. An individual owning a gun to protect against the threat of home intruders

is not a threat to public safety.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. So what is?

An individual owning a gun to protect against the threat of home intruders is not a threat to public safety.

OK, so I'm confused on what you are upset about. Originally you said, in response to Euromutt, that defending your home would be an unlikely, worst-case scenario.

Now you seem to be OK with it. I'm confused.

[SecularMotion]

32. Don't put words in my mouth

I did not say "defending your home would be an unlikely, worst-case scenario."

When you start to imagine the need to defend your home against an army of intruders, the amount of force required to stop that imagined threat may become a threat to public safety.

How much firepower is required to defend a home? A gun, an arsenal, a nuclear weapon?

Where do we draw the line?

[Atypical Liberal]

36. So what were you talking about then?

I did not say "defending your home would be an unlikely, worst-case scenario."

Ok, I'm honestly confused at this point. What were you saying would be an unlikely, worst-case scenario?

When you start to imagine the need to defend your home against an army of intruders, the amount of force required to stop that imagined threat may become a threat to public safety.

How much firepower is required to defend a home? A gun, an arsenal, a nuclear weapon?

Where do we draw the line?

Look, a BB gun could be a threat to public safety. A single-shot muzzle-loading musket could be a threat to public safety (one was used to assassinate President Lincoln). A bolt-action rifle could be a threat to public safety (one was used to assassinate President Kennedy). A shotgun could be a threat to public safety.

I don't see how "Arsenals", or collections of firearms, are particularly dangerous. A person can only operate one firearm at a time. No matter how many he may collect, he can only use one at a time. I myself own 4 shotguns, 4 pistols, and 4 rifles. Is this an "arsenal"? Does it make me more dangerous than owning just one?

How much firepower is required to defend a home? When talking about small arms, I would say as much as you can afford. In other words, while a double-barreled shotgun could be sufficient, I would prefer a 5 or 8-shot shotgun instead. While a 20 gauge might be sufficient, I would prefer a 12 gauge instead. In terms of a handgun, while a 7 rounds of .45ACP might be sufficient (as found in the original Colt 1911 design), I would prefer 13 rounds of .45 ACP as is found in the Springfield Armory XDM 45.

Personally, I think the lines are drawn just fine the way they are today. What would you change?

[PavePusher]

31. And they will still not be, not matter what the size of their magazines. n/t

[spin]

34. In the United States today many citizens legally carry concealed ...

and there have been numerous incidences where they successfully used their weapons for self defense. DGUs are not limited to homeowners.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. The way I see it...

The way I see it, safety of the public starts with safety of the individual.

[PavePusher]

30. I am not posing any danger to the public with my firearms.

Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise...?

[DonP]

12. "Oversize"? or do you mean standard size?

Many modern guns are designed for the 9mm or 40mm double stack magazine. Just like your neighborhood cop carries. There is nothing "oversize" about a firearm, Sig, Glock, Beretta, Springfield Armory et. al. that was designed for use with a 20 to 30 round magazine. That was part of the ridiculous so called assault weapons ban that kept referring to the 20 and 30 round standard magazines the rifles were designed for as "High Capacity".

In the case of the Arizona shooter he bought an "over length" magazine that some people use for range practice, to cut down on time spent reloading empty magazines and spend more time actually shooting.

At Virginia Tech Cho used standard size magazines and killed far more people than this idiot. What's your point here? Do oyu actually think that banning a certain size magazine will stop an insance person from doing insane things? Or that it it will make it any more difficult for them?

Are you working on banning Chevy rental vans like McVeigh used in OK city?

[SecularMotion]

14. From the editorial -

"A Glock 19 usually holds 15 bullets. Mr. Loughner used an oversize clip allowing him to fire as many as 33 bullets before pausing to reload. It was at that point that he was tackled and restrained."

So your argument is that since there are guns that have higher capacity than the oversize clips, then it is futile to restrict the oversize clips?

[Glassunion]

18. I personally feel that it is just futile to restrict oversized (sic)clips.

I cannot see how it would have changed the outcome at all. Not without a bunch of "what if" statements. Laws should be practical and enforceable and not focus entirely on the hypethetical.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Yes, it is futile. A mag can be changed in a second or less.

So the crazy guy can start his rampage with some extra mags, just like the Virgina Tech shooter did. Cho used standard mags.

[aikoaiko]

19. The case can be made that cilivians should be able to defend themsevles with the same tools ....

...as civilian law enforcement because criminals that the police engage are almost always engaging the public.

One of the problems is where gun controllers want to set the bar. During the last ban it was set at 10 when that was often less than the standard magazine capacity of many pistols. My 2009 Springfield XDM was made to hold 19+1 rounds of 9mm ammunition without protruding from the grip. Rep McCarthy's proposed legislation would set it at 10.

Police could use the standard magazine to defend themselves, but not me. That just doesn't make any sense.

[Glassunion]

16. This article was an assault on my eyes.

The first paragraph was fine.

"The ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country almost certainly made the Tucson tragedy worse." By "ludicrously thin" did the author mean the 93,354 words of federal law controlling firearms? Or the thousands of state laws controlling firearms in regards to Child Access Prevention laws, Concealed weapon laws, Regulation of private sales, Sales to minors, Regulating secondary market sales, Ban on "assault" weapons, "One handgun a month" laws, Ban on "Saturday Night Specials" and other "junk guns", Waiting periods, Preemption, etc... etc...

"they should realize that they have the power to reduce the number of these sorts of horrors, and their lethality." Do they? Really? How? I like how a journalist will lay a claim as if it is gospel, however fail to back up the claim at all.

"To do so, they will need to stand up to the National Rifle Association and its allies, whose lobbying power continues to grow despite the visceral evidence that the groups have made the country a far more dangerous place." By "far more dangerous place" does the author mean a place where violent crime has been on a steady decline for well over a decade?

"the gun lobby is striving for new heights of lunacy, waging a campaign to legalize the possession of a gun in schools, bars, parks, offices, and churches, even by teenagers." I like the choice of words... by "schools" the author means college campuses, and by "teenagers" the author means voting aged adults.

"It reflexively opposes even mild, sensible restrictions" By whose standard would one measure what is "mild" or "sensible"

"Is there anyone, even the most die-hard gun lobbyist, who wants to argue that a disturbed man should be able to easily and legally buy a Glock to shoot a congresswoman, a judge, a 9-year-old girl?" I have a crisp $5 bill to wager that you will not find anyone at the NRA exposing this sentiment. I have to admit it does make for nice propaganda on the author's part.

"One of the first things Congress can do is to take up a bill proposed by Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat of Long Island, that would ban the extended ammunition clip used by the Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner." Yes... Let's do it!!! Let's all jump on board with a bill no one has seen yet. Personally I would like to see the bill first, before I jump on board. Is that stoopid?

"Between 1994 and 2004, it was illegal to manufacture or import the extended clips as part of the ban on assault weapons. But the ban was never renewed because of the fierce opposition of the N.R.A. At least six states, including California and New York, ban extended clips, which serve absolutely no legitimate purpose outside of military or law enforcement use. At a minimum, that ban should be extended nationwide, and should prohibit possession, not just manufacture." I love it... "clips" *snort*. Anyhoo, "because of the fierce opposition of the N.R.A", how about the ban accomplished nothing at all. "ban extended clips, which serve absolutely no legitimate purpose outside of military or law enforcement use" I would ask why? Why would something be good for a police officer, and not for the general public? I would also like this author's definition of an extended (sic)clip. Note the author's injection also that possession should also be illegal. Meaning I may wake up a criminal tomorrow for a future crime that will never happen because I own something that some nut job used in the past. Amazing...

"Why can’t Congress require a background check — without loopholes for gun shows or private sales — that would detect this sort of history?" I whole heartedly agree. This one single phrase all on its own could have been the entire article. This by itself could have had more of an effect on the shooting than any of the bans on any firearm accessory that people are focusing all of their energy on.

"At least two members of Congress say they will start to carry weapons to district meetings, the worst possible response." The worst possible response? Really? I wonder why the author would make a statement like that and fail to explain why. I have my opinions as to why, but that would be speculation.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. 258 Members of the House AGREE with the NRA.

They view themselves as standing up to the gun-banners. 258 Members of the House have an NRA "A" rating. IOW - The NRA owns the House.

[spin]

25. Good. Those 258 members of the House may serve as a barrier to foolish "feel good" laws ...

pushed by people with little knowledge of firearms.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. I am pretty sure they will. N/T

[lawodevolution]

23. Let's see, the long term goal of the ruling class is to ban gun ownership by the common people

In other words the .gov wants to ban guns and the government regulated news media produces almost only anti gun propaganda like this junk news. No surprise.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. Just a few quibbles

"Why can’t Congress require a background check — without loopholes for gun shows or private sales — that would detect this sort of history?"

There was no loophole real or imagined, here. This was not a gunshow or private sale. What history was there to detect?

"The U.S. Army confirmed that Loughner had been rejected as "unqualified" from the service in 2008 for failing a drug screening."

I'd argue anyone showing up for pre-employment screening, knowing they are going to be tested, that still 'pisses hot' is too stupid to hire doing anything! Nothing there that disqualifies him under any present law.

There was minor arrest, reportedly over graffiti. He had been busted once on a minor drug charge. An argument could be made that he probably perjured himself when buying the gun. His drug use appears to be anything BUT lawful.

Form 4473, Question 11(e)

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Anyway, back to reading all the punditry from those with the "crystal clear clairvoyance of hindsight" about all the clues this latest loser whack job left on his quest for notoriety that "someone" should have stopped him long before this...

Now that this miscreant had made himself notorious former class mates are saying he was odd. Professors are saying he clearly had mental problems. Apparently at the time none of these thing caused enough concern that any concrete steps were taken to either get him into treatment or off the street.

You argue that the law failed because to those in daily contact with him did see his mental state as severe enough to lock him up, before he bought a gun. You see the law as a failure because his apparently low-level drug use didn't stop him. You don't see the irony of a loser stupid enough to fail a drug test he KNEW he was going to undergo, still being smart enough not to admit to being a drug user on the 4473.

[Remmah2]

35. They are part plastic junk.

They meet minimum specification for purchase by government agencies.

They are the low bidder.