http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/08/demand-a-plan Comments On: Demand a Plan by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss "California has very strict laws for illegal possession but it hasn't reduce their firearm homicide rate much."

I think that is (as you have noted) because of the characteristics of the majority of the crimes committed with guns.
If the crime can be committed with a cheap hand gun and a 10 round magazine then banning 30 round magazines is not going to reduce that crime at all.
There MIGHT (but very unlikely) be fewer injuries/deaths AND the actual crime would still have been committed.

But that is just more reason for The Stranger to keep a running list of any and all gun-related incidents in Seattle.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:03:04 -0800 The Stranger
@26, to be fair, just imprisoning people who are arrested for illegal possession doesn't dramatically reduce the amount of firearm violence. California has very strict laws for illegal possession but it hasn't reduce their firearm homicide rate much. Massachusetts saw little change in firearm violence after instituting mandatory prison terms for illegal possession.

Massachusetts was able to dramatically reduce homicides and violent crime through Operation Ceasefire and Operation Homefront, which are two anti-gang initiatives:

http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/about…

(Neither of which had a significant impact on millions, or even hundreds, of law-abiding citizens).

Also, even more important than prosecuting for illegal possession, in my opinion, is prosecuting people for illegal sales and straw purchases. If gang members had to pay a thousand dollars for a "Saturday Night Special" instead of $50-100, they'd probably knife people instead of shooting them, just like they do in the UK..

Currently making a straw purchase has the potential for a $250k fine and 10 years of prison. In reality, most straw purchasers aren't even prosecuted. As Operation Fast and Furious demonstrated, Federal Prosecutors aren't interested. The largest source of criminal firearms, other than friends/family, is corrupt, licensed dealers selling off book and illegal (non-licensed) dealers who purchase from pawn shops and so on.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…

Also - gun-control-nuts, I'm still hoping for a real answer as to the rational for supporting an "assault weapons ban".
Posted by randoma]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:00:13 -0800 The Stranger
Makes one wonder why anyone would feel that they one day may need to fight tyranny?

How about we enforce current laws on those who are arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, or violent crimes rather than slapping those wrist and cutting them loose due to their "difficult upbringing."
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:47:38 -0800 The Stranger "It's not about ending crime."

And that is the core problem with getting such a law passed.

"Make buying and selling them a federal crime, then."

So you want to add an additional category of crime for something which is 100% legal today and you admit that it will not prevent other crimes.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:05:49 -0800 The Stranger
the GOP didn't change a whit in 2012, and neither did the DINOs.

the Status Quo wins.
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:23:35 -0800 The Stranger
Make buying and selling them a federal crime, then. There aren't many people who would risk jail time to sell a magazine to some yahoo they don't even know, especially if they seem off. I'm certain one can buy a machine gun even today. But it takes more than a browser and a credit card, because it's illegal.

It's not about ending crime. It's about taking an advantage away from a shooter on a rampage. Reloading creates a moment of vulnerability, and better for that to occur every 10 rounds than every 30.
Posted by Free Lunch]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:54:26 -0800 The Stranger Might. Even that's iffy.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:41:58 -0800 The Stranger "Or, explaining how 30-round magazines are needed for self defense/hunting."

I think you've been skipping some of the comments here.
Banning 30 round magazines WITHOUT confiscation will only result in the price of 30 round magazines going up.
If you cannot pass a ban AND confiscation then the next best option is a ban AND a requirement that "post-ban" guns be designed to be incompatible with existing magazines.

The PROBLEM is that most of the shootings (someone wounded and/or someone killed) happen with hand guns with "lower capacity" magazines.
So a ban like that will have almost no impact on crime.

"Cede to the gun nuts scary-looking guns with limited capacity."

Those "gun nuts" are the ones explaining the facts to you.
Reducing CRIME is not the same as banning 30 round magazines.
BANNING 30 round magazines is not the same as reducing crime.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:29:49 -0800 The Stranger
It polls far worse than the things that stand a good chance of passing (limited magazines, universal background checks, crackdown on traffickers) and as @1 points out, it's a small part of the problem.

Limiting an assault weapon to 10 rounds is good enough for me. Without the advantage of larger capacity, who would opt for a rifle over a handgun in a close-quarters scenario like Sandy Hook or Aurora? With a rifle, it's far easier for someone to disarm you by charging you, since you can't shoot them once they are closer to you than the tip of the gun, and it's way harder to conceal.

Cede to the gun nuts scary-looking guns with limited capacity. Then all they've got left in this gun debate are dead-on-arrival positions. E.g., explaining why universal background checks or increased punishment for traffickers are bad ideas. Or, explaining how 30-round magazines are needed for self defense/hunting. (Or even better, how they're needed for shooting our boys in blue and the fine men and women of our military.)
Posted by Free Lunch]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:41:59 -0800 The Stranger
@18, Make some laws, that are actually enforced, that make people liable for accidental/unauthorized firearm use. Either gun owners will A) be more careful, B) be bankrupted, or C) there will suddenly be a whole new world of insurance to sell. Or some combination thereof.
Posted by randoma]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:28:32 -0800 The Stranger
Most of the shootings in this country do not involve death. They involve injury, and somebody has to pay for that. A large number of injuries are entirely unintentional, too. Seems like an area where insurance would be important.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:22:36 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Frank Blethen's vodka distiller]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:41:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by biffp]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:42:51 -0800 The Stranger "If assault weapon bans are useless because they only affect cosmetic details that are easy to circumvent, then why are the gun lovers' panties in such a twist?"

The best part of that "logic" is that you will be one of the first to post about how dumb the gun nuts are when they buy up all the soon-to-be-banned "assault weapons" should that become law.

Meanwhile, the "gun nuts" here keep telling you that banning cosmetic features will do NOTHING to change the functionality of the gun.
All that banning them will do is drive up the price of those guns.

So go ahead and support a ban on them.
But do not try to pretend that you are doing anything to reduce crime or shootings.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:54:35 -0800 The Stranger
1) pull $10B out of TSA and the Pentagon budget for suicide prevention,

2) pull another $10B out of the DEA budget that currently goes to shoot and incarcerate people who grow unapproved plants and use it for school safety (maybe, I don't know, some locks, safety glass and cameras?), and

3) enforce with malice a few of the dozens of existing laws on the books against violent criminals owning or attempting to purchase guns?

Stuff that might, you know, change the actual numbers of people getting killed and injured, starting tomorrow?
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:54:30 -0800 The Stranger
Just like their al-Qaeda brethren.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:53:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by randoma]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:50:14 -0800 The Stranger http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2… Do you?
Posted by Lumpmoose]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:42:09 -0800 The Stranger
@9, So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the rational behind the new "assault weapons" ban is to punish manufacturers?
Posted by randoma]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:32:18 -0800 The Stranger Posted by biffp]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:29:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by merry]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:27:37 -0800 The Stranger
Regardless, my question was, what is the rational behind banning them when they're mostly irrelevant to firearm violence.
Posted by randoma]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:25:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lumpmoose]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:25:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Joe Glibmoron]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:17:27 -0800 The Stranger
Or are all the gun lovers just against taking any action, reasonable or not?
Posted by Dr_Awesome]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:14:27 -0800 The Stranger