Joe Biden proposals for banning some firearms, high capacity magazines, immunity changes

[stevil]

Is this where you're going to make the "One is too many" argument? It's the same argument our own politicians make when they want to show why we should ban all guns.

I haven't seen any USA politicians proposing for a ban on all guns.
Do you have any links?

As for the "slippery slope" you don't like people to bring up, what do you want to call it when high capacity mags are banned and then a shooter goes out and shoots 12 people with a pair of revolvers, and then politicians start talking about banning those as well because a dozen people were shot?
Of course, if ONE is too many, then what prevents any type of gun from being banned?

I personally don't think people should be carrying handguns in public. But that is another topic entirely and in USA you guys think guns are for protection against other people. So that would be a much tougher thing to try to ban.

But here I am discussing high capacity magazines their utility and the effectiveness a ban might have in reducing body count in mass shootings.

I note- that you didn't answer my question "How many mass shootings should we endure before we decide to do something about it?"
Instead you deflected and started talking about slippery slope and handguns.

 

[stevil]

And by definition, only the criminals do. As a result, if one of them decides to start shooting random people, the only ones who would be able to stop him would be another criminal with a gun. But if everyone in the area is law-abiding, they can't stop the shooter. The only thing anyone can do against the armed individual is call the police and wait, and wait, and wait.

And yet, since NZ haven't opened that can of worms whereby lots of people are walking around with guns, we have a very, very, very low gun homicide rate in comparison to USA.

Statistically speaking, with our approach vs that of USA, people are safer in NZ.
We are saving lives by not letting everyone carry weapons in public.

 

[Aldebaran]

And yet, since NZ haven't opened that can of worms whereby lots of people are walking around with guns, we have a very, very, very low gun homicide rate in comparison to USA.

Statistically speaking, with our approach vs that of USA, people are safer in NZ.
We are saving lives by not letting everyone carry weapons in public.

Are you sure?
"But Radio New Zealand reported on Monday that the reform “has had no impact on a rise in gun crime and violence”, pointing to police statistics that show charges reached a new peak in 2020. Nearly 2,400 people were charged with 4,542 firearms-related offences, nearly double that of a decade earlier, while 1,862 firearms were seized under the Search and Surveillance Act, compared with 860 10 years ago."
New Zealand: Ardern flags further gun control reforms after firearms charges peak

Still think the "slippery slope" argument is silly?

 

[Aldebaran]

But here I am discussing high capacity magazines their utility and the effectiveness a ban might have in reducing body count in mass shootings.

What is "high capacity" in your opinion?
Standard capacity for a 9mm pistol right now is 15 to 17 rounds in a full sized pistol. Suppose it were lowered to 10, even though tens of millions of standard capacity mags are already owned by people. A mass shooter kills 10 people with the new standard in mass shooting prevention. Would that be good enough to satisfy you?

I note- that you didn't answer my question "How many mass shootings should we endure before we decide to do something about it?"
Instead you deflected and started talking about slippery slope and handguns.

We've endured many, and have background check laws that make sure people with a criminal record can't buy a gun. What other "do something" would you like?

 

[Speedwell]

We've endured many, and have background check laws that make sure people with a criminal record can't buy a gun. What other "do something" would you like?

Require it for all gun sales.

 

[Aldebaran]

Require it for all gun sales.

What good what that do when you consider that nearly every gun purchased by mass shooters was done with a background check already?
Oh, I know! Ban "ghost guns!"

 

[BNR32FAN]

I absolutely agree that most husbands and most boyfriends don't murder their wives or girlfriends or mistresses.

But what statistics do show is that if there is a gun in the home then the women are 3 to 5 times more likely to be murdered than if there isn't a gun in the home.

So giving them a gun or encouraging them to have a gun for "self protection" statistically speaking is increasing their chances of being murdered rather than protecting them from murder.
So if your goal is to increase the chances of them living, you would be better off encouraging them not to have a gun in their home. Statistically speaking, of course.

What’s your source, because that doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[Belk]

If the Amendment is removed, then it would no longer be a right recognized by government.

That does not answer the question I asked though. If we no longer need a militia does the right go away? This is why I find claiming a single reason problematic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm here on this website talking with many pro-gun folk and asking this question. but I am yet to hear any pro-gun person say that they would be willing to compromise on anything. It seems to me that even if they don't need or want a high capacity magazine for their own use they still are unwilling to entertain the idea of a restriction in any way on this. For reasons of "slippery slope" or "it wouldn't make a difference" or just the idea that they should be absolutely free to choose any gun related weapon of their choice without any restriction whatsoever - even if it may save lives across the country.

Actually, if you review my previous posts on the topic, I'm actually a pro-gun person (I own several, from basic .22 plinking guns all the way up to the dreaded AR-15, as well as being a carry permit holder), but have voiced my position on several instances here on CF saying that I advocate for the Czech Republic model of gun control.

In fact, if you search for the word "Czech" and put my username in the filter in the search features, you'll see 10+ pages worth of results.

The Czech model allows for people to still carry for defense, and own the types of guns they want to own, but they have a more robust upstream screening process in order to become a licensed gun owner including mandatory testing, and mental health screening that has to be renewed ever 2-3 years.

The view I've espoused before, is that a nation with an affinity for guns and gun culture, can't easily overlay the policies of another country that doesn't have those two attributes...when attempted, it's destined for years of legal battles and red tape. You have to find another country that has the same cultural aspect, and explore how they manage to maintain both a permissive gun culture, while still boasting a low murder and mass shooting rate.

As a hypothetical analogy...

France has a wine culture. If France hypothetically had a uniquely high level of drunk driving accidents compared to other developed countries...sure, one could say "Why don't they just ban alcohol like Libya or Sudan or Yemen, they made alcohol illegal and they don't have these problems?", but that's unlikely to get much traction.

It would make more sense to say "Well, Italy also has wine culture, but they don't seem to be having this same problem...let's take a look at what they're doing"

I'm trying to go for the goal of reducing the average body count in the event of mass shootings

Even if you just confine the scenario to mass shootings, magazine capacities seem to be far less impactful when compared to how much ammo the person had on them at the time...even if it's split out into more smaller magazines.

For instance, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32, and wounded another 23 armed with only two handguns...but having nineteen 10-round magazines.

Even when looking at aggregated data, handguns are more commonly used in mass shooting than any type of rifle.

These two items are the trade off. How much of a sacrifice is it for people to not have these and will anyone at all be saved if this restriction were put in place?

It is a trade-off, but as I noted before, I don't know that it's a good one based on the data we have available.

Noone has yet explained to me why civilians need or want high capacity magazines.
What do they use them for?
How much of an inconvenience will it be if they don't have them?

The "what does a person actually need that for?" rationale is a bad precedent.

There's a lot of things that people technically don't "need", and that come with a certain level of risk.

Nobody needs a Corvette

Nobody needs to get a 24oz porterhouse for dinner

If we start restricting what a person can have based on what a person technically "needs", that's going to make for a pretty mundane existence.

 

[Aldebaran]

That does not answer the question I asked though. Is we no longer need a militia does the right go away? This is why I find claiming a single reason problematic.

The only reason to no longer need a militia is if all threats magically went away.
You could just as well ask if the right to own guns went away if people were no longer able to kill each other, or even wanted to. When Christ returns, this will be the case. Would that eliminate the "right" to own guns? I don't know. But it would eliminate the need.

 

[Belk]

The only reason to no longer need a militia is if all threats magically went away.

Or if we had a standing army. Or other possible scenarios.

You could just as well ask if the right to own guns went away if people were no longer able to kill each other, or even wanted to. When Christ returns, this will be the case. Would that eliminate the "right" to own guns? I don't know. But it would eliminate the need.

Yet you still did not answer the question.

 

[stevil]

What’s your source, because that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Guns and Violence Against Women: America’s Uniquely Lethal Intimate Partner Violence Problem | Everytown Research & Policy
Intimate partner violence and gun violence in the US are inextricably linked, impacting millions of women, families, and communities across the country. Abusers with firearms are five times more likely to kill their victims, and guns further exacerbate the power and control dynamic used by abusers to inflict emotional abuse and exert coercive control over their victims.

Every month, an average of 53 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. Nearly 1 million women alive today have reported being shot or shot at by intimate partners, and 4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

92% of all women killed with guns in high-income countries in 2015 were from the US.

Over the ten-year period between 2008 and 2017, there was a reduction in intimate partner homicides of women involving weapons—except homicides by guns, which increased by 15 percent.

women in the US are 21 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than women in peer nations
Nearly half of female firearm homicide victims were killed by a current or former intimate partner

Public health researchers have established that in relationships where violence is present, abusers’ access to a gun significantly increases the risk of death for women. Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that the abusive partner will kill his female victim

Women
Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths
Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicides, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.


https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4a54bc4012.pdf
Two recent studies from the USA show that:
- several factors affect a woman’s chances of being killed by her husband or boyfriend, but access to a gun increases the risk five-fold;19
- having a gun in the home increased the overall risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41 per cent; but for women in particular the risk was nearly tripled (an increase of 272 per cent).

Gun ownership linked to greater incidence of domestic homicides
A new study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published by Elsevier, reveals a unique and strong association between firearm ownership and the risk of domestic homicides. For each 10 percent increase in household gun ownership rates, the findings show a significant 13 percent increased incidence of domestic firearm homicide. The homicide risk differed across victim-offender relationships, with nondomestic firearm homicide rising only 2 percent among firearm owners.

"While personal protection is a commonly cited reason for owning a gun, our research shows that firearm ownership also confers significant risks to loved ones, as they are more likely to be killed if there is a gun in the household," said lead investigator Aaron J. Kivisto, PhD, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA. "Our findings highlight the importance of firearm removal in protecting victims of domestic violence, the majority of whom are women."

 

[Aldebaran]

Yet you still did not answer the question.

I answered it. You just didn't bother to read it.

 

[Belk]

I answered it. You just didn't bother to read it.

I did read it. However it seems to me you are claiming that the question is not possible and then stopped. Am I missing something else in your answer?

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's what anti-gunners often say about self defense, but there is plenty of evidence that people who are armed can defend themselves, and do so about 1 million times each year, usually without having to fire a shot.

Here are a couple of examples, and a link to many more:

Armed Citizen® Today

A man in Massapequa, N.Y., defended himself and a bystander from a knife-wielding robber in the early morning hours of March 6, 2021.

The armed citizen noticed another man being stopped by a robber who demanded the man's cash and keys around 5:25 a.m. that Saturday morning. The man walked over and attempted to assist the victim, but the would-be robber turned his attention to him and pulled out a knife. The robber then walked toward the man, knife in hand.

Fearing for his own safety, the man produced his handgun and shot the armed robber in the leg. The wounded robber then fled the scene. Police found him a short time later, after which he was taken to a hospital for treatment and then placed under arrest. The robber is charged with two counts of first-degree attempted robbery, two counts of second-degree menacing and fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon. (patch.com, New York, N.Y.., 03/08/2021)

From the Armed Citizen® Archives October 1991

Describing her attacker as a man who had once been "one of the family," Juliette Blackmon, 81, of Kansas City, Mo., was forced to take action when he tried to rob them. After asking to use the bathroom, the man instead grabbed a knife from the kitchen and threatened her and her husband, Elliot.

Elliot picked up a pistol from the bedroom, however, and passed it to his wife. Firing twice, she killed the man. "I had to do it," she said. "I'm a Christian woman, but we have to have protection." (The Star, Kansas City, Kans.)

The Armed Citizen®

Ok so your claim here is not supported by the study you’ve provided.

But what statistics do show is that if there is a gun in the home then the women are 3 to 5 times more likely to be murdered than if there isn't a gun in the home.

This is not what that statistic shows at all. The statistic is showing the likeliness of murder by firearm due to “Intimate Partner Violence” not an overall chance of murder due to owning a firearm. This only pertains to people who experience intimate partner violence. So your statement above is not supported by this statistic. Only those who experience intimate parter violence have a higher chance of being murdered if a firearm is present in the home. So in reality the average number of women who are murdered by firearm by their intimate partner is around 53 per year out of 63,000,000 women in intimate relationships so we’re actually talking about .000084%. So in reality you’d have a much better chance at winning the lottery than being killed by your intimate partner with a firearm.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Philippines has a higher murder rate than the US. 6.4 per 100,000 vs 5 per 100,000.

She lived in Bohol in the mountains far from any metropolitan areas.

 

[Aldebaran]

I did read it. However it seems to me you are claiming that the question is not possible and then stopped. Am I missing something else in your answer?

That was my answer.

 

[stevil]

The "what does a person actually need that for?" rationale is a bad precedent.

There's a lot of things that people technically don't "need", and that come with a certain level of risk.

Nobody needs a Corvette

Nobody needs to get a 24oz porterhouse for dinner

If we start restricting what a person can have based on what a person technically "needs", that's going to make for a pretty mundane existence.

It's about trade offs. The idea is to restrict high capacity magazines because they hold lots of ammo and allow a person to shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot for a very long time and this would be useful if a person where shooting at other people before they could either shoot back or run away.
The high capacity magazines come with a level of risk, but it seems that no civilian actually needs them anyway.

Is a Corvette more risky than other cars?
Is a large steak more risking than smaller steaks?

 

[Aldebaran]

It's about trade offs. The idea is to restrict high capacity magazines because they hold lots of ammo and allow a person to shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot for a very long time and this would be useful if a person where shooting at other people before they could either shoot back or run away.
The high capacity magazines come with a level of risk, but it seems that no civilian actually needs them anyway.

A higher capacity magazine also gives a home defender the ability to shoot as many times as it takes to stop whoever is breaking into his house. It could be several gang members breaking in, and handguns aren't very powerful to stop people as rifles are.

Is a Corvette more risky than other cars?

Much faster, so yes. So why not ask, "Why does a person need a car that can go so fast if you're only allowed to go up to 70MPH at most on the interstate?"

Is a large steak more risking than smaller steaks?

A large steak is the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere, according to the climate change panic crowd. "Nobody needs a large steak in order to live!"

 

[Semper-Fi]

edit