Mass killings are occurring more often in "gun free zones"

When mass killings occur, they more often occur in "gun free zones" than not.


The composition and size of the US, as well as our failed war on drugs, demonstrates that there is no possible way to keep guns out of the USA. Removing the second amendment is very unlikely, and having an all out ban on guns is simply impossible.


When they hit their target, rifles are much more deadly than handguns. The few differences between a so-called "assault weapon" and a rifle do not actually make them much more deadly or concealable. This is why both neither party really pushed the assault weapons ban again - studies showed about the only thing the ban did was encourage manufacturers to make more of them before the ban, and purchasers to stockpile them. It didn't decrease gun violence.


Fully automatic weapons are tightly regulated in the US. You cannot buy, sell, or own one without a permit from the ATF, which is difficult to get. These shoot more than one bullet per trigger pull.


Semi automatic weapons are the norm. These shoot only once per trigger pull, but do not require a manual effort to eject the cartridge, load the next cartridge, and set the firing pin. One can fire bullets as fast as they can pull the trigger.


All other guns require manual action between each shot before another shot can be fired.


A well trained gunman can change a clip or magazine in about a second. The only difference between large capacity magazines and small capacity magazines is this short window of opportunity - and that's only useful if you recognize it, and have the ability to return fire. The recent school shooting and the theater shooting are both instances where having three ten round magazines instead of one thirty round magazine wouldn't have made a difference. In fact Jared Laugner's high capacity magazine jammed, and the Aurora shooter's magazine jammed. If anything, high capacity magazines are a liability for the shooter, and forcing them to use more dependable smaller clips will only make their spree a little more deadly. They will then have to think about taking cover, and planning for magazine changes rather than assuming the large clips will work correctly. One second isn't going to provide much of an advantage until police are on site - until then changing magazines is simply not a problem. Therefore I don't believe reducing access to high capacity magazines is worthwhile. The aurora shooting is very interesting in that he obviously planned and practiced. If he had instead practiced changing magazines in a dark room with a mask on, he would have been a significantly more deadly shooter than he was. Small mags would have forced him to do so.


Mental health checks, and closing the gun show loophole would probably be a little effective, but it would only scratch the surface.


In order to close the gun show loophole, though, you have to either alter the second amendment (hard) or alter citizen's rights to free trade (hard). The only reason the Brady bill works with the background check is due to tax rules and the ATF. Since private sellers are not required to deal with taxes, they are not beholden to these laws.


In other words, the reason the conversation has not moved forward much in nearly 20 years is because the changes proposed (assault weapons - which did cover large capacity magazines) don't work, or can't be enacted without much more sweeping changes to our constitution or rights as citizens of the US.


It would be nice to reduce gun violence. I haven't yet seen a way to do that which would be effective. Even if we repeal the second amendment and restrict all guns as heavily as we restrict automatic weapons, all it will do is make guns more expensive, and make sure that only criminals have and use them.


Photo by RyanMcGuire

Comments

  1. "The only difference between large capacity magazines and small capacity magazines"

    What exactly are we talking about here? Can you clarify specifically what you mean by these terms?

    I would prefer if rifles intended for hunting and "protection" were limited to bolt-action only. I can't see any reason a hunter would need more than a shot or two, maybe three, to take out a giant deer. And that's if they suck.

    This is important because rifles are an order of magnitude more lethal than pistols. If you can fire 31 assault rifle shots as fast as you can pull the trigger, you are delivering a massive amount of lethality in a very short amount of time.

    Compare, for example, the wounded vs fatality count from Columbine -- where only small caliber weapons were used, no rifles -- with those of Sandy Hook. If the shooter had been equipped with only pistols, would there have been more survivors? Given the same number of shots, the physics say yes. And the physics are quite scary.

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

    Note that several teachers were killed trying to shield their students from bullets, because the massive force of assault rifle bullets easily pass through one human being.

    "A well trained gunman can change a clip or magazine in about a second"

    Would you characterize the shooters in these incidents as "well trained gunmen"?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

TedJonesWeb.blogspot.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com

Popular posts from this blog

This is why "Credible friends app" is bad - don't use it

Brexit will make Bitcoin more popular

When you print important crypto stuff (private keys) make sure you use a proper font and don't leave traces on your printer's hard drive and your computer's hard drive

"I'm earning 15k and my friends earn 80k", "I feel like I want to end my life."

"The Uncensored Hidden Wiki" fake replica!