Wouldn't be the first time, noitall. Wouldn't be the first time.
Yet there is no evidence that it would have any effect. It isn't even measurable.
The AWB under Clinton did nothing to reduce violent crime. Even Biden admitted that stricter gun control laws would make no difference.
it's fairly obvious that most of the people commenting here didn't even bother to read Ms. Grigson's blog. In fact, I don't think Betsy even read it that closely. First, it was obviously written with tongue-in-cheek. Second, if you examine the criteria used, it's fairly obvious why Atlanta is number one and Nashville is number four on this list. I'm fairly certain that most of the stats are not for "cities" but rather for metro areas, since that is the standard geographic area that the government uses for this type of data. If you go outside the confines of the Nashville metro area's core county (Davidson) and one or two contiguous (Williamson, possibly Rutherford) counties to the other 8 or so counties encompassing our metropolitan statistical area, I think you'll find an overabundance of just the kind of folks that those of us who live in the city of Nashville think we're not. And Atlanta's metro area is something like 15-20 counties, so their presence on this list is even more obvious. I think everyone, especially Ms. Phillips, is overreacting here and should lighten up.
Mass murderers are criminals until they start killing.
Reducing efficiencies, Zoombah, not eliminating all risk; that's what people are attempting to do.
No, because if magazine capacity is limited to 10, then the next time some nut goes on a rampage, and he kills 6 or 7 people with the first 10 rounds, then the gun control crowd will want to ban 10 round mags or semi-autos altogether. So then when the next murderer uses a revolver, and discharges 8 rounds killing 5 people or so, then they'll want to ban revolvers.
There's simply no end to it. Whatever you ban, the criminals will still get their hands on it. That's why the war on drugs has been such a success.
(It isn't false because you admitted it--it's not false because it's not false, plus, you showed why it's isn't false.)
No, it isn't false because you just admitted it--a loss of one to two seconds in the hands of someone who is proficient is significant (how long does it take you to get under your desk?).
But given that those mass murderers aren't proficient (right? because we're not talking about those of you who are "responsible gun owners," huh?) , then even more inefficiencies are brought in. Every time you have to change a magazine, you risk dropping it, for example.
Maximizing efficiencies was something I did professionally for a few years. It only takes very brief hiccups in a system to greatly impact those efficiencies.
That's simply a false assumption. You're talking about one or two seconds in the hands of someone who is proficient. Not enough time to take action.
Just wishful thinking coupled with the desire to penalize law-abiding citizens for the actions of a few nuts.
Well, except that every instance of changing out a magazine adds inefficiency to the murdering process, and that is what I think a great many people view as "reasonable."
"What's to stop someone from buying several 10 round mags and doing the same thing with them?"
Nothing. And nobody is claiming that it is.
What's to stop someone from buying several 10 round mags and doing the same thing with them?
Your "reasonable" restrictions won't do a damned thing, and you know it.
Are you incapable of logic, or is everything you think driven by emotion?
The guns were in Lanza's home legally. It only became illegal when he shot his mother in the face. Losers split hairs. Safe storage requirements might have saved his and his mother's and 26 other lives. Also, proper mental health intervention, obviously.
You say my argument is flawed, but you can only poke holes in one of four cases that I brought up.
The other three I mentioned, the shooters bought their guns, survived a flimsy background check and went on to infamy. These people didn't buy their guns on the street or break into a home to steal improperly secured unattended weapons. They walked into gun shops, put their money on the barrelhead and walked away with their guns and huge magazines. All legal, after the assault weapons band expired.
They didn't have to resort to illegal means to get these tools, zermberb. Therefore, it is impossible to guess whether they would have the knowledge, skill or connections to illegally obtain the guns and magazines.
It's like you're saying a criminal will just break in the back door, anyway, so why lock the front door? It doesn't make sense.
Way to generalize, Little Jimmy!!!
"See, kids, abortion does not, has never, could never, kill a baby. Murder kills a baby."
SCOTUS or no, abortion out of convenience = murder.
"The limits I just mentioned would have made a difference in each of these."
Did I miss something? Since when did criminals start following the law? And do you honestly believe that someone can't inflict the same level of destruction with several 10 round mags that they can with a 30 rounder? Puuuulllllleaaaazzzeeee.....
It's stupefying to me that you can't see the flaws in your argument.
And, BTW, Adam Lanza did NOT obtain his guns legally. He STOLE them.
Betsy,
Superb article.
Jim,
I think Betsy is correct about Gosnell being a serial killer. Capitalism does not play into his motivation.
"The single mom of two had seen her San Salvador neighborhood grow dangerous and crime-ridden. Gangs extracted protection money from business owners; many shops closed. She wondered whether her son, then 11, would one day fall in with the gangsters who lurked outside his school."
I know I should not respond to pathetic trolls like "bobsguns", but how can you read something like paragraph above and then compare them to child molesters? It's highly unlikely Bob even knows any immigrants, legal or otherwise, because if he did, he'd find out that most are sympathetic to the plight of the people mentioned in the article. Most people with real human emotions are. I know quite a few legal, naturalized immigrants and none think like Bob. Bob, just some advice: your commenting history makes you look like an angry person at best, at worst a sociopath. You might want to seek some help.
To declare Williamson County as redneck is an insult to good rednecks everywhere. I would label Williamson County as being populated by a disproportionate number of arrogant bastards in a Don Quixote inspired search of that Theocratic Plutocracy they so lust for!
See, kids, abortion does not, has never, could never, kill a baby. Murder kills a baby.
Re: “Kermit Gosnell Doesn't Prove Your Abortion Point. Yours Either.”
Still missing the point.