After California residents voted to increase taxes via Proposition 30, state revenues have decreased, and residents and businesses are leaving to avoid burdensome taxes and regulations.
- Breitbart
Thursday, January 24, 2013
I'm not one for schadenfreude, but...
...HA! HA! HA! HA!
Anti-Gun People are Intentionally Ignorant About Guns
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons...are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.quote found here
- Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby
Many of us who like guns are very eager to explain guns to people who don't know. The fact that the average people don't know anything about guns is the reason ant-gun people oppse "assault weapons."
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles"...
- Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson
With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!Anti-gun people gain their support through ignorance about guns.
-Jason Ross
The more we tell the public about guns, the more support that we'll have.
This is a good start.
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
Huffington Post Comments, 1/23/2013
This week I ask what the democratic plan to balance the budget is. Do you suppose that I got an answer?
Rosalee Harris
***
Phed Up
zogimperator
demorick2
SpringBranchConservative
[copy and paste error: I cannot find the page again, I'm not getting email notifications about comment replies, and many of mine were moderated into oblivion.]
***
I remember why I stopped doing this for a while: copy there, paste here, copy, paste, copy, paste, accidentally close a window, lose work, swear, wait for my comments to be moderated, notice that many disappear despite them being the same as those above, etc.
***
In any case, I asked about a half dozen people what the democratic plan to balance the budget and the only things approximating a response were:
"I already answered that." and "Tax the Rich of course!"
Does anyone have any idea about what the democratic plan is?
If we only tax the rich more, then the rate at which they must be taxed to balance the budget is greater than 100%.
Rosalee Harris
The GOP IS Ridiculous ergo anything that comes from them will be ridiculouselTim164
You wouldn't be one of those that first claims that everything your opponents say is ridiculous, and then complains about partisanship and gridlock, would you?
***
Phed Up
No surprise here...the GOP doesn't believe in math, science or education!elTim164
It sure is fun to insult your political opponents!Phed Up
BTW, what's the democratic plan to balance the budget?
Tax the Rich of course! What's the GOP plan? Starve Grandma and the poor?elTim164
[my reply was moderated into oblivion, I responded that spending on entitlements is more than total revenues and gave the whitehouse's stats to prove it. And I noted that you would need to double all taxes paid to balance the budget.]***
zogimperator
The thing is, Republicans aren't really serious about these cuts. I mean they say they are, and some of the Tea Party types might even think they are, but they don't generally mean it.elTim164
If these guys didn't like it this way, the government would be smaller. There would be less spending.
But when you hear a career politician telling you government is the problem, obviously he's lying. That's like a shoe salesman telling you not to wear shoes.
So what's actually going on?
A long time ago, Republicans decided to flog Democrats as big-spending, big-government types. Largely because they didn't have anything else to complain about. This has gone on for decades, and now it's reached such a pitch that they almost have to do something about it for real.
But they know perfectly well what a disaster it would be if spending actually decreased. They know in addition what would happen to their big defense, energy, and similar contractors.
So instead we're seeing this weird strategic retreat. Republicans will back up a few yards from the precipice, then we'll see this entire kabuki played over again as they pretend-rush to the edge once more.
But they don't intend to go over.
BTW, what's the democratic plan for balancing the budget?zogimperator
As far as I'm aware, they're more interested in getting the economy growing again.elTim164
How do they plan to do that? With more subsidies to green energy companies that proceed to go bankrupt? Or by taxing the only people capable of hiring more?zogimperator
At least you admit that they are not interested in balancing the budget.
Why are you asking me these rhetorical questions? You already have the answers lined up.
Or rather the angry declamations, which is what passes for an argument in your head.elTim164
So we've come to name calling and insults have we?zogimperator
"How do the democrats plan to grow the economy," was not rhetorical.
Is there an answer?
I already answered that.elTim164
But it's not even the important question. It's just the one you think is important.
What matters now is growth. If we stall the economy, the only way we can pay off our debts is by selling off our patrimony, as in Greece or Ireland. Those countries may need another thirty years to recover.
We have the largest economy in the world. We have a massive production capacity, if we choose to put it to work. If we use the government to create the economic activity we need, as we have often done, or we can pretend it's never been done successfully before.
I'd rather repeat the approach that has led to our success in the past, than try what recently brought several European nations to ruin.
"I already answered that."***
Where?
I agree that growth is important, but we've tried stimulus, and we've tried cash for clunkers, and we've tried bailouts for GM, Chrysler and Wall Street. And all we have in return is at least 8% unemployment and pitiful growth.
I'll admit that the democratic policies have worked if by 2016 unemployment is less than, say, 6% and we haven't defaulted.
Will you admit that democratic policies haven't worked if unemployment is still over 7% in 2016 or we default?
demorick2
For the thousandth time...We spend 41% of the world's defense expenditures, more than the next 10 countries combined. If we cut the defense budget by 50%, we'd still outspend everyone. We could take those savings, invest them in our decrepit infrastructure, and create new jobs.elTim164
National defense spending is $700 billion per year.***
The smallest budget deficit under Obama was in 2010 at $1.293 trillion.
The biggest deficit under W was in 2008 at about $450 billion.
We could eliminate 100% of defense spending and the deficit would still be bigger than any of the deficits under W.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals tables 1.1 and 3.1
SpringBranchConservative
So what's the democrats plan, they haven't had one in almost 4 years. At least the Republicans are trying. You can't believe the do nothing democrats.Why Does it Seem So Hard
Deflection is an interesting way to defend the GOPelTim164
The article in question says the republican plan is bad, so where's the democratic alternative?Why Does it Seem So Hard
Whenever the republicans come up with a plan the democrats attack it and insult republicans for not spending more.
Where is the democratic plan? At least the republicans have a plan.
The articvle is about the GOP planning to do in 10 years what Ryan could not do in 30 years.elTim164
An article about the DEMs would be about the DEMs. Or is it important that you ignore the topic and change it to discuss another point?
I suppose it must be really difficult to defend the GOP 'fantasy' and so what else can you do but deflect?
I did notice you suggested that a plan that is mathematically impossible is still a plan but I would hardly call that a compelling endorsement of an impossibility.
BTW are you suggesting that Ryan's budget(s) that increase taxes on the middle class, give tax cuts to the wealthy and increase the debt is something the DEMs would consider? The Senate told the House before they submitted those budgets that it would not pass. But the GOP was more than happy to spend tax payer money so that you would have a nice talking point today! THank the GOP for spending the tax payer money just so you could make your point today.
[copy and paste error: I cannot find the page again, I'm not getting email notifications about comment replies, and many of mine were moderated into oblivion.]
***
I remember why I stopped doing this for a while: copy there, paste here, copy, paste, copy, paste, accidentally close a window, lose work, swear, wait for my comments to be moderated, notice that many disappear despite them being the same as those above, etc.
***
In any case, I asked about a half dozen people what the democratic plan to balance the budget and the only things approximating a response were:
"I already answered that." and "Tax the Rich of course!"
Does anyone have any idea about what the democratic plan is?
If we only tax the rich more, then the rate at which they must be taxed to balance the budget is greater than 100%.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Long Term Plans
I read the following sentence in an article titles Deficit Dreams, and then quit reading it.
"America’s massive deficits and debt are terribly inconvenient for the Left."
If this is the case, then were are the liberal solutions to the debt and deficit? Can you find one article that outlines what liberals' plan is, or what a liberal things the plan should be?
Liberal websites, where such an article might be found (if it exists):
Find me an article that outlines a democratic plan to balance the budget, or stop repeatedly claiming that the debt and deficit is something that the democrats are concerned about.
(There are articles on those websites that criticize republican ideas about the deficit, but zero about democratic ideas.)
Liberals and democrats don't care about the debt and deficit. Some, like Paul Krugman and Barack Obama, advocate making it bigger with more stimulus spending. They are not in the least concerned with the debt and deficit.
I think that I understand why democratic politicians and some big businesses, who get rich while in Washington and lobbying in Washington, support no action to reduce the debt or deficit. But to those of you average democratic voters, what do you think is going to happen in the long term with trillion dollar deficits and a debt that is over $16 trillion? Can you explain how anything good is going to happen? Do you think that trillion dollar deficits can continue forever? You must support annual trillion dollar budget deficits (and no budget at all) because Obama was re-elected and the deficit has not been less than $1 trillion in any year that he has been president (highest budget deficit was around $400 billion under W). table 1
Would one of you explain your long term economic plan to me? Because I don't understand how spending one and a half times federal revenue each year will turn out well.
One last question: who's going to care about the racial disposition of Obama's cabinet, or gay marriage, or abortion, or healthcare if the government goes bankrupt and nobody has a job?
***
I did find this article about Republican tax and budget ideas. My favorite line:
"Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is flirting with a 2016 presidential run, recently proposed scrapping Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes."
Eliminating taxes?
Did I, or did I not, recently point out that Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker are my preferred 2016 Republican presidential candidates?
*Feel free to call me a racist because half of my preferred 2016 republican presidential nominees is a white guy.
"America’s massive deficits and debt are terribly inconvenient for the Left."
If this is the case, then were are the liberal solutions to the debt and deficit? Can you find one article that outlines what liberals' plan is, or what a liberal things the plan should be?
Liberal websites, where such an article might be found (if it exists):
Find me an article that outlines a democratic plan to balance the budget, or stop repeatedly claiming that the debt and deficit is something that the democrats are concerned about.
(There are articles on those websites that criticize republican ideas about the deficit, but zero about democratic ideas.)
Liberals and democrats don't care about the debt and deficit. Some, like Paul Krugman and Barack Obama, advocate making it bigger with more stimulus spending. They are not in the least concerned with the debt and deficit.
I think that I understand why democratic politicians and some big businesses, who get rich while in Washington and lobbying in Washington, support no action to reduce the debt or deficit. But to those of you average democratic voters, what do you think is going to happen in the long term with trillion dollar deficits and a debt that is over $16 trillion? Can you explain how anything good is going to happen? Do you think that trillion dollar deficits can continue forever? You must support annual trillion dollar budget deficits (and no budget at all) because Obama was re-elected and the deficit has not been less than $1 trillion in any year that he has been president (highest budget deficit was around $400 billion under W). table 1
Would one of you explain your long term economic plan to me? Because I don't understand how spending one and a half times federal revenue each year will turn out well.
One last question: who's going to care about the racial disposition of Obama's cabinet, or gay marriage, or abortion, or healthcare if the government goes bankrupt and nobody has a job?
***
I did find this article about Republican tax and budget ideas. My favorite line:
"Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is flirting with a 2016 presidential run, recently proposed scrapping Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes."
Eliminating taxes?
Did I, or did I not, recently point out that Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker are my preferred 2016 Republican presidential candidates?
*Feel free to call me a racist because half of my preferred 2016 republican presidential nominees is a white guy.
Literary Kicks
I've recently added a link to a blog called Literary Kicks. Its written by a liberal. I have been wondering if there were any good places of liberal thought that are not full of name calling and insults, and I'm going to look at this one.
I found it thanks to the blog author's book (which I haven't read, and probably never will) Why Ayn Rand is Wrong (and Why It Matters).
Levi Ashur seems like a reasonable liberal, even if he is still, generally, wrong. I too oppose paywalls.
I found it thanks to the blog author's book (which I haven't read, and probably never will) Why Ayn Rand is Wrong (and Why It Matters).
Levi Ashur seems like a reasonable liberal, even if he is still, generally, wrong. I too oppose paywalls.
A Brief Summary of The Federal Budget
If we want to balance the budget by raising taxes alone, then we need to double all taxes paid to the federal government.
2011 revenues: $2,303,466,000,000
2011 expenditures: $3,603,061,000,000
2011 budget deficit: $1,326,948,000,000
Federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, and Obamacare alone exceeds all federal revenues.
2011 Total revenues: $2,303,466,000,000
2011 Human resources expenditures (Obamacare yet to come): $2,414,738,000,000
Multiply the amount of money you pay to the government by 1.5 and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare and then we could have a responsible balanced budget.
That's a 50/50 raise revenues/ cut spending plan. Noting short of that will be meaningful.
Prepare for the bills to come due.
BTW, the "fiscal cliff" negotiations did not result in doubling all taxes paid or reducing Social Security, etc spending and were therefore meaningless.
Next time the politicians start talking about "fiscal cliffs" or "debt ceilings" understand that they are doing nothing, even if either side got all of what they want.
2011 revenues: $2,303,466,000,000
2011 expenditures: $3,603,061,000,000
2011 budget deficit: $1,326,948,000,000
Federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, and Obamacare alone exceeds all federal revenues.
2011 Total revenues: $2,303,466,000,000
2011 Human resources expenditures (Obamacare yet to come): $2,414,738,000,000
Multiply the amount of money you pay to the government by 1.5 and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare and then we could have a responsible balanced budget.
That's a 50/50 raise revenues/ cut spending plan. Noting short of that will be meaningful.
Prepare for the bills to come due.
BTW, the "fiscal cliff" negotiations did not result in doubling all taxes paid or reducing Social Security, etc spending and were therefore meaningless.
Next time the politicians start talking about "fiscal cliffs" or "debt ceilings" understand that they are doing nothing, even if either side got all of what they want.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
To save lives, shrink gun magazines
I found an exceptionally bad article about gun control at the Washington Post.
Let's take a look (his writing is italicized, mine is not):
To save lives, shrink gun magazines
by Jason Ross
With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!
Do you see why the anti gun people invented the term "assault weapon"?
Which of these questions is more likely to get the answer anti-gun people want:
The gun that wounded that guy was designed to kill people, but it didn't. In any case let's compare his stats to mine:
guns bad: 0 killed, 1 wounded (P. Caputo)
guns good: 734 lived saved in U.S. since 8/30/11
Indeed. But AK-47s and AR-15s are hardly alone in that regard. The technology of firearms owes its existence to man’s desire to kill other men. For many years, combat guns and hunting guns were one and the same.
...and still are, for the most part. Hunting weapons have followed the history of the weapons of war. Since 1934 however, civilians have not been allowed to buy the fully automatic weapons that our military uses.
That changed after World War II with the creation of the assault rifle. But the breakthrough innovation of these guns — their use of medium-powered cartridges — actually makes them less lethal than many other rifles. In fact, their civilian variants typically bear just one indisputably sinister element: high-capacity magazines.
Look at his link, read it and ask yourself, "what is an 'assault rifle'? What is its definition? The article gives what it thinks is the first "assault rifle." But how is it different from any similar gun, for purposes of banning?
"indisputably sinister" I don't know about that. If anything is indisputable, then its the fact that having the government ban some, or any guns, is tyranny.
A more aggressive approach is also gaining steam among the left: banning all semiautomatic weapons, the large group to which assault-style rifles belong. This century-old technology allows guns to be cocked only once, thereafter firing a single shot for every pull of the trigger. Is such rapid-fire capability too great to allow in civilian hands? Perhaps. But, then, what should we do about manually actuated weapons that shoot almost as fast? Remington offers a black, pump-action .223-caliber rifle to police departments. Anyone looking at it — or being shot at by it — could be excused for mistaking it for an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
There are two options when considering banning all semi automatics.
The problem with #2 is that many people may keep their banned guns. The U.S. already has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other country, what good will it do to create more criminals out of currently law abiding citizens?
The difference in the firing rate between a pump and a semi-automatic is negligible. Therefore, a criminal can use a different gun, with essentially the same firepower, and still own a legal gun. So what good is a semi-automatic ban?
All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.
Unfortunately, by targeting guns’ form rather than their function, the efficacy of type-specific gun bans is questionable. The enforcement prospects, though, are downright frightening. There are probably at least 3 million assault-style weapons in American hands. As for semiautomatics in general — shotguns, rifles, pistols — the number is many times that. Buying them back would cost billions. Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies.
"Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies."
:)
I propose that anyone who supports gun control be personally responsible for confiscating any banned gun from their neighbors.
The country needs a solution that limits the killing power of civilian weapons across the board — regardless of action type — while keeping enforcement costs and social unrest to a minimum. Luckily, we already have it: magazine control.
I like how he writes: "The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun" as if he knew what that meant.
If there is such thing as a "standard magazine for a semi automatic handgun," then it is known as a Colt 1911.
Why do you suppose he picked his idea of a standard 9mm handgun rather than a standard semiautomatic handgun? My guess is that he is armed with the information from a 5min google search.
BTW, some magazines are removed from the gun by a button and some by use of a lever.
Why would anyone care that "Those magazines drop out at the press of a button,"? My guess remains: he has a small amount of information and he wants to show it off.
Let’s replace them with smaller ones. Lower-capacity magazines will fundamentally transform the character of these guns. Put a five-round magazine in an AR-15 and you no longer have an assault-style weapon. You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle. A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter, capable of holding a burglar at bay but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage.
"You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle." For some reason, he sure wants to show that he has a very small amount of gun knowledge.
"A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter" Glocks aren't made out of plastic. Even if a few parts are, then parts that do the work (the barrel, etc) are made out of metal. He has a small amount of knowledge and he wants to show it off.
"...but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage."
"At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho once again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre." - The Truth About Assault Weapons
So he thinks he knows what is best to hold off a burglar, but does not know anything about his own example.
Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected, as they typically hold five rounds or fewer. Some existing guns with firmly attached magazines exceeding the limit could be exempted without creating a loophole for new guns. Others would need to be modified by gunsmiths to remain legal.
"Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected" How does he know that?
How nice of him to say, "Go get your gun 'fixed' or go to jail." That's lots better than just banning all guns outright.
The federal assault-weapons ban passed in the 1990s capped the magazines of some guns but not others — an inevitable result of focusing on gun types rather than gun capabilities. The poor results gave Congress cover to let the law expire in 2004. Today, just six states limit magazines in some way.
He admits that the last ban did nothing and yet wants to try again. Maybe we should admire his dedication...before seeing if he wants to personally take our guns.
He doesn't say, and his link doesn't say which those 6 states are. My guess is Illinois is one of them. What's Chicago's murder count up to so far this year? The link does say 6 states and D.C. Washington D.C. does have the highest murder rate per capita in the country.
Perhaps: magazine size limits = more murders?
The politics of passing such a law are uncertain. What’s clear is that a limit on magazine capacity undercuts the hardest punch of the pro-gun side — “They’re taking away your guns!” — and leaves most hunters unmolested. Can New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) say the same about his proposal to ban assault weapons?
He admits that some guns will be banned, but says banning only some guns isn't banning guns.
And he admits that the new New York gun ban won't be effictive.
In fact, the biggest threat to magazine control might be from my allies in this fight: liberals. Few of my Wilco-listening brethren own guns. Many don’t understand how they work, and some actively loathe them. Will they see magazine control as a half-measure to be spurned? Or will they realize that the most effective assault-weapons law might be the one that melts down a grand total of zero assault weapons?
According to the government how effective was the last magazine band?
2004 Department of Justice study
"[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."
That's what the government said. When he says "most effective" what is he basing that on?
Let's take a look (his writing is italicized, mine is not):
To save lives, shrink gun magazines
by Jason Ross
With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!
Do you see why the anti gun people invented the term "assault weapon"?
Which of these questions is more likely to get the answer anti-gun people want:
- Do you want to ban "assault weapons"?
- Do you want to ban deer rifles and duck guns?
The gun that wounded that guy was designed to kill people, but it didn't. In any case let's compare his stats to mine:
guns bad: 0 killed, 1 wounded (P. Caputo)
guns good: 734 lived saved in U.S. since 8/30/11
Indeed. But AK-47s and AR-15s are hardly alone in that regard. The technology of firearms owes its existence to man’s desire to kill other men. For many years, combat guns and hunting guns were one and the same.
...and still are, for the most part. Hunting weapons have followed the history of the weapons of war. Since 1934 however, civilians have not been allowed to buy the fully automatic weapons that our military uses.
That changed after World War II with the creation of the assault rifle. But the breakthrough innovation of these guns — their use of medium-powered cartridges — actually makes them less lethal than many other rifles. In fact, their civilian variants typically bear just one indisputably sinister element: high-capacity magazines.
Look at his link, read it and ask yourself, "what is an 'assault rifle'? What is its definition? The article gives what it thinks is the first "assault rifle." But how is it different from any similar gun, for purposes of banning?
"indisputably sinister" I don't know about that. If anything is indisputable, then its the fact that having the government ban some, or any guns, is tyranny.
A more aggressive approach is also gaining steam among the left: banning all semiautomatic weapons, the large group to which assault-style rifles belong. This century-old technology allows guns to be cocked only once, thereafter firing a single shot for every pull of the trigger. Is such rapid-fire capability too great to allow in civilian hands? Perhaps. But, then, what should we do about manually actuated weapons that shoot almost as fast? Remington offers a black, pump-action .223-caliber rifle to police departments. Anyone looking at it — or being shot at by it — could be excused for mistaking it for an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
There are two options when considering banning all semi automatics.
- Grandfather those already owned past the law (those that already exist will stay legal)
- Ban all ownership
The problem with #2 is that many people may keep their banned guns. The U.S. already has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other country, what good will it do to create more criminals out of currently law abiding citizens?
The difference in the firing rate between a pump and a semi-automatic is negligible. Therefore, a criminal can use a different gun, with essentially the same firepower, and still own a legal gun. So what good is a semi-automatic ban?
All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.
Unfortunately, by targeting guns’ form rather than their function, the efficacy of type-specific gun bans is questionable. The enforcement prospects, though, are downright frightening. There are probably at least 3 million assault-style weapons in American hands. As for semiautomatics in general — shotguns, rifles, pistols — the number is many times that. Buying them back would cost billions. Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies.
"Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies."
:)
I propose that anyone who supports gun control be personally responsible for confiscating any banned gun from their neighbors.
The country needs a solution that limits the killing power of civilian weapons across the board — regardless of action type — while keeping enforcement costs and social unrest to a minimum. Luckily, we already have it: magazine control.
In the "probably useless" realm is a ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which was part of the 1994 assault weapons ban. A mass shooter can overcome the restriction by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns—as many of them do anyway. The notion that an attacker can be subdued when he stops to reload works better in movies than in real life, where it is virtually unknown.The magazine is the part of the gun that holds the cartridges. The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun holds 17 rounds. Assault-weapon magazines typically carry 30. Those magazines drop out at the press of a button, to be replaced by fresh ones.
-Reason
I like how he writes: "The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun" as if he knew what that meant.
If there is such thing as a "standard magazine for a semi automatic handgun," then it is known as a Colt 1911.
Why do you suppose he picked his idea of a standard 9mm handgun rather than a standard semiautomatic handgun? My guess is that he is armed with the information from a 5min google search.
BTW, some magazines are removed from the gun by a button and some by use of a lever.
Why would anyone care that "Those magazines drop out at the press of a button,"? My guess remains: he has a small amount of information and he wants to show it off.
Let’s replace them with smaller ones. Lower-capacity magazines will fundamentally transform the character of these guns. Put a five-round magazine in an AR-15 and you no longer have an assault-style weapon. You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle. A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter, capable of holding a burglar at bay but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage.
"You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle." For some reason, he sure wants to show that he has a very small amount of gun knowledge.
"A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter" Glocks aren't made out of plastic. Even if a few parts are, then parts that do the work (the barrel, etc) are made out of metal. He has a small amount of knowledge and he wants to show it off.
"...but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage."
"At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho once again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre." - The Truth About Assault Weapons
So he thinks he knows what is best to hold off a burglar, but does not know anything about his own example.
Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected, as they typically hold five rounds or fewer. Some existing guns with firmly attached magazines exceeding the limit could be exempted without creating a loophole for new guns. Others would need to be modified by gunsmiths to remain legal.
"Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected" How does he know that?
How nice of him to say, "Go get your gun 'fixed' or go to jail." That's lots better than just banning all guns outright.
The federal assault-weapons ban passed in the 1990s capped the magazines of some guns but not others — an inevitable result of focusing on gun types rather than gun capabilities. The poor results gave Congress cover to let the law expire in 2004. Today, just six states limit magazines in some way.
He admits that the last ban did nothing and yet wants to try again. Maybe we should admire his dedication...before seeing if he wants to personally take our guns.
He doesn't say, and his link doesn't say which those 6 states are. My guess is Illinois is one of them. What's Chicago's murder count up to so far this year? The link does say 6 states and D.C. Washington D.C. does have the highest murder rate per capita in the country.
Perhaps: magazine size limits = more murders?
The politics of passing such a law are uncertain. What’s clear is that a limit on magazine capacity undercuts the hardest punch of the pro-gun side — “They’re taking away your guns!” — and leaves most hunters unmolested. Can New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) say the same about his proposal to ban assault weapons?
He admits that some guns will be banned, but says banning only some guns isn't banning guns.
And he admits that the new New York gun ban won't be effictive.
In fact, the biggest threat to magazine control might be from my allies in this fight: liberals. Few of my Wilco-listening brethren own guns. Many don’t understand how they work, and some actively loathe them. Will they see magazine control as a half-measure to be spurned? Or will they realize that the most effective assault-weapons law might be the one that melts down a grand total of zero assault weapons?
According to the government how effective was the last magazine band?
2004 Department of Justice study
"[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."
That's what the government said. When he says "most effective" what is he basing that on?
According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year.
But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.This represents a decrease in murders from so-called assault weapons compared to the decade when the AWB was in effect, even though such weapons are more common today.
Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
- The Truth about Assault WeaponsBring on the hammer/club/knife bans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)