[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Trama

!@#$%!

I understand that, and I'm sure there's a fair amount of mislabeling in the media, I'm not defending them.

High-capacity detachable magazines, would you consider that a military style feature or do you not?

Certainly you agree that they play a difference in the event of a mass shooting?

using a 30-round magazine (potentially illegal) is not much different than using three 10-round magazines (unaffected by the proposed law) though it confers an advantage in a gunfight-- e.g. 3 armed intruders vs. you, it's the difference between 3 or 10 bullets for each intruder before you take a second or two to swap magazines.

i just googled "home invasion" and this came at top-- "trio suspected..." etc. i had just made up the number 3 but there you go.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...nvasion-appear

these fuckers act in groups.

the mass shootings from the news aren't gunfights though-- and therefore the size of the magazine makes little difference there. these victims are generally unarmed people in "gun free zones" so changing magazines makes little difference because nobody can return fire to the shooter. it's like they say "shooting fish in a barrel".

which is why i think this is a waste of time and political capital from the democrats-- i voted for them and supported them with work and money, but i heard nothing about guns in the campaign.

10 rounds, 30 rounds, molotov cocktails, fertilizer trucks-- killers will kill with whatever they can.

i'd much rather we were focusing on rebuilding infrastructure and improving education and health care, which have a much greater chance to reduce social violence than randomly slapping at the symptoms with hysterical reactions.

now, i do agree 100% with universal background checks and penalizing straw purchases (that's when you buy a gun for someone who can't buy it themselves), and i'm for mandatory safety training even though people say "a right shouldn't be licensed" & so forth (still, felons are deprived from the right to vote in many states, and there are limits to free speech, etc).

ultimately gun control is about risk/reward for the individual and for society. and some times what's good for the individual is not good for society and viceversa, but the thing is that, in the u.s., minority and individual rights are traditionally more respected vs. society at large-- other countries have a tradition of more centralized control which is why people are more willing to accept government control, etc. plus there is a long tradition of guns that goes back to the first settlers (whereas in europe only nobles were allowed to carry weapons).

additionally, the media overlooks the benefit, and only looks at the cost, and it's hard to get real actionable data. nobody reports on "5 rapes and 12 robberies prevented by guns today" because it doesn't get high ratings on tv.

edit: but look at this for example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-says-yes.html (she's against home defense carbines though)

the reason i have come around to this side of the issue (i used to be heavily anti-gun) is because in this debate, when you remove the hysteria and paranoia on both sides (both sides have their fools and lunatics), the pro-gun people have made better rational arguments to me than the anti-gun people.