Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

A law for 10 round limit on magazines?

33 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#31

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:37 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Wednesday, May 1 2013, 08:17)
Basically speaking, no amount of new firearm legislation is really going to make a dent in the amount of criminals carrying firearms unless the justice system actually enforces stricter sentencing guidelines.  The penalties and restrictions are already harsh enough as it is, it's the sentencing and conviction of these crimes and criminals that falls short in creating a larger deterrence.  Simply creating newer laws is not going to change anything if people do not fear or respect the laws on the book already.

I agree entirely. It is partially the severe mandatory penalties for firearm possession and use in the UK which work as an effective deterrent. Similar penalties exist elsewhere in Europe where the banning on handguns and semi-automatic rifles is not absolute. I feel that it is these nations, who have relatively liberal attitudes to firearm ownership but have due process for recording and assessing merit in possession which nations should ape- not the draconian approach of the UK which as much penalises the law-abiding citizen who may want to shoot for sport as it does anyone else.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Wednesday, May 1 2013, 08:17)
Meanwhile, the talk about UK knife crime...  It often seems like there is an attempt to trivialize the matter of knife crime in the UK by comparing it to the overall crime rate of the U.S.  However I think that detracts from the very evident knife crime problem that there really is in the UK.  Knife crime accounts for 30% of homicide in the UK, and the number at which hospital visits resulting from "assault with a sharp object" are rising steadily.

The problem with the knife crime statistics is that they don't just include knifes- they include all stabbing incidents using pointed or bladed weapons. You are right, though- as a common weapon used in violent events, they do represent the largest pool of offensive weapon use in the UK. However, as far as I'm aware, recent statistics for their use in violent crime show that proportionally they aren't used much, if at all, more frequently in terms of events per 100,000 population than they are in the US, once you discount the various aspects of knife crime in the UK which aren't treated as violent crime in the 'states.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Wednesday, May 1 2013, 08:17)
With this data I think a stronger case could be made that the 1997 Firearms Act ( which is what effectively banned handguns in the UK if I'm not mistaken ) actually lead to a decrease in violent crimes involving knives.  But as the page points out itself, there is some trouble getting accurate reports on the frequency of knife crimes due to a lack of reporting.

Which tallies up with various statistics reporting quite dramatic decreases in violent crime in recent years. The public perception of crime hasn't changed, but the actual figures for it have, quite dramatically. It's true that knives represent an increasing proportion of all violent acts with an offensive weapon; however, their proportional use is rising far slower than the overall statistics are falling.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Wednesday, May 1 2013, 08:17)
However that being said, crimes of passion, vengeance, extortion/intimidation, if we did not have a wide access to firearms, I do feel that these crimes would just be committed with other weapons.  Knife crime isn't exactly a small issue in the U.S. as it stands, and I can definitely see a dynamic unfolding where it increases as restrictions on firearms increase.

Can you, given that the same societal forces are at work in the UK and US, and yet the opposite occurred after firearms were more intensively regulated in the UK?

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Wednesday, May 1 2013, 08:17)
Pulling this straight out of my behind, I'd wager that for every one person a gun law actually saves, there's at least a hundred people whose rights it infringes.

What gun law, though? A complete ban on firearms? Sure, but only if you treat firearm ownership as a right, which I think the vast majority of the world would fundamentally disagree with. I don't think firearm licensing would infringe on the fundamental right to own firearms at all, personally speaking. All it would have to entail is a demonstration of a reasonable understanding of safety, a criminal records check and the serial number and name of the owner being logged. How would that constitute an infringement on a right to own firearms, given that all but the former effectively takes place anyway?

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#32

Posted 01 May 2013 - 04:06 PM

I think it would differ in the U.S. in the UK because prior to the Firearms Act of 1997, the UK already had legislation in place that addressed knives as weapons in ways that most legislation in the U.S. doesn't. There are differences in certain municipalities and counties, but for the most part U.S. policy on knives is far more permissive than in the UK. Of course this is what lead me to my blathering about this ultimately leading to Americans adopting harsher restrictions against knives. The difference I see is that we will adopt these changes after-the-fact, whereas the UK was already pretty much on top of the ball at the same time they were reforming firearm laws.

Well, for example of which gun laws, specifically the ones that preclude people of questionable mental health from purchasing a firearm. It's one of those things that sounds great on paper, but under practice does little to actually effectively curb violence, and instead precludes people from owning a firearm for no real good reason. These are the laws that were ushered in by the Jim Brady campaign against gun violence in response to the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. As I pointed out, this law did not stop the VT massacre.

The problem I think does lie in trying to treat it as a "right" to bear firearms, and at the same time enacting meaningful legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of those who should not possess them. For example, if one were to be required to pass a psychiatric evaluation before acquiring a firearm, that would immediately create an avenue for those who are prohibited to own a firearm because of ridiculous reasons like misdemeanor drug possession or past issues with depression. The problem is, the people who believe a few small arms in the hands of people is somehow crucial to fighting "tyranny" will see this as attacking that "right".

Personally I've always been very on the fence about whether the ability to own firearms should be a privilege or a right in the U.S. One can become embroiled in many arguments, that often times verge on being philosophical. One thing that's probably exceedingly obvious, is that Americans don't really concern themselves with what the rest of the world has decided to be the best course of action so to suggest that we don't need the rights to bear arms because other countries do not have them is never going to be a convincing argument.

I believe the real problem when it comes to enacting meaningful, effective gun legislation and reform in America is that any voice of reason, balance and compromise is immediately muffled by the extremists from each end of the spectrum. You have the Brady Bunch goons and college kids who think any gun at all should be banned and that they're not good, and then you have the NRA looney toons who believe that every child above 5 should have a firearm--and yes I'm intentionally attributing the most ridiculous and exaggerated views I can to each group. My point is just that with these two groups being the only people really vocal, it's just going to be a constant head-butting match.

In the meantime, I think most Americans could happily agree on a person being required to be licensed to purchase and own a firearm. Not to mention, that if such a system were in place, then the possibility of people being prohibited from owning a firearm because of past skirmishes on their record would be a resolved issue as well. However, between the far right who is convinced that "they just wanna take our guns" and the far left that's convinced every gun is just waiting to shoot itself and kill some poor kid, there can be no meaningful discourse. I guess it's the old saying of "An empty can rattles the most".

Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#33

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:56 PM

Ok, I am STRONGLY apposed to any of these pointless firearm based restrictions.

It is only just a kneejerk reaction to a tradgedy resulted from their emotions towards it, don't react to it based off your own bias or emotion. Restricting a magazine will never stop people killing eachother. They will keep wanting to restrict them till all that is left are single shot muskets.

Sure you could attack more people than you could with a smaller magazine, but the whole point is redundant. I can change a magazine within a second and if someone really wanted to cause harm they could. On the same day of the Sandy Hook shooting, a guy in China attacked 24 children at a school with a knife. This shows regardless of the weapon, this type of event still occurs. What we need to do is assess and figure out what it is that drives people to do this, and to stop it.

Don't ask us "why do you need that many rounds in a magazine", you can say the same about cars, why do people need really really fast sports cars that their top speed is WAY over the limit of any road in the world. It is because if you have proven that you can be trusted with a car/firearm/explosives, that you can enjoy them safely at your lesuire.

There is no actual reason for making a pointless restriction, as it will not effect anything other than penalizing people who enjoy a sport that has been around twice as long as the invention of the car or many other consumer or collectors products, yet people cannot see why people desire them.

By saying "We have to restrict your magazine size" they are saying they do not trust ANYONE from not going around killing people. Why even allow us to have the guns in the first place.

I understand, restrict fully automatic weapons, though millions of people would love to own them, I can see why this may be a little excessive at least without specialist licenses. But placing pointless restrictions that will not make the slightest difference. Horrific events will still happen and people will still go into schools and shoot students even if they have to do it with 100 year old weaponry.

It is only ever about the individual and though it is too late and would be too expensive to implement licensing systems in the US like the UK has, any security based legislation to help stop mentally ill or otherwise people from obtaining firearms we would all totally agree with. But it has to be a one off thing for each person, do not constantly restrict our ability to enjoy our hobby.

We don't mind taking a safety and mental test to obtain a lifelong firearm license, but do not make us have to renew it every year or have to wait a month to buy any firearm and other bullsh*t, it does not help anyone.

The system actually worked for Sandy Hook, the kid was denied from purchasing a gun at a store. What failed was the lack of responsibility his mother had and allowed him to gain access to her weapons. This is something that can't ever be stopped.

Sadly the only way forward is to research the minds of these people, otherwise it will just keep happening, and the more they restrict our guns there may be a time where someone may be firing at you and you will not have anything to defend yourself.

nlitement
  • nlitement

    Pare mou mia pipa

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 May 2005

#34

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:30 PM

A magazine ban is ridiculous. It's one of those actions politicians pursue to get the 5-second approval they need from the people who don't pay proper attention to their politicians. "Yeah, SOUNDS like a good idea, thumbs up to this Feinstein guy.. I guess he'll get my vote"

Since they're treating this as a way to curb would-be mass killers from killing too many people, we have to analyze the potential effects from that perspective. Reloading a rifle like the AR-15 takes a very insignificant amount of time. And all for what? To maybe, in some absurd scenario, to save an extra life, at the expense of legitimate gun-owners and to give anti-gun constituents some disingenuous lip service?

If you were rational, that is, wanted to actually set a goal like "we want to reduce mass shooting fatalities" and reach that goal instead of taking arbitrary, knee-jerk, irrational actions, you would do something different. For example, how about mandating that legal guns be kept in a securely locked safe, so an incident like the Newton shooting would be less likely to occur (the assailant shot with weapons that were lying around his mother's house)? It's not necessarily a rule that I might advocate, but it sure as hell is more in-line with "let's set ourselves a goal, and make a logical, well thought decision based on it."

And all of this legislation is already being rendered useless anyway by the fact that less than a decade, people will be using 3D printers to produce magazines of whatever capacity they wish (it's already being done, but 3D printers just aren't that ubiquitous yet).




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users