Quick question on gun confiscation.

[Autumnlicious]

I've always wondered why people spent so much political capital on magazine restrictions.  

---

not my favorite config, I prefer the side by side inversions, different strokes for different folks

---

The last several terrorist attacks in the US all were done with standard uncustomized weaponry.

Fact is, the terrorists and school shooters don't play the "tape ammo" trick. They simply buy another gun or higher capacity magazines.

I don't shape policy around ex-servicemen committing carefully planned assaults.

I shape it around that most criminals, from the lowlife robber to the committed San Bernardino shooters, will use ready made solutions as opposed to innovating around artificial restrictions like magazine limits.

Ammunition is always going to be needed for any gun use - controlling it therefore is the key to reducing unlawful gun use. After all, even gang members will empty their illegal firearm at least once and need more ammo.

Of course, a dedicated Unabomber-like fellow can just gather and repack ammo. But there's only one Unabomber. There's a lot more lowlifes and even most terrorists won't be deep thinkers.

Sooner or later, you'll find the illegal gun scofflaws, many of them criminals, by waiting for them to purchase more ammo.

[The Grand Nudger]

AR sport shooters are all in with that little gimmick now, and those are the guys whose guns are "borrowed" by their children to shoot up schools.  If they were ever unaware, they aren;t anymore...and as you said, it's not as if the "bring two guns" solution has ever escaped them.

That's kind of the point.  If we have the political capital to do something, what do we do with it?  Nominal legislation that provides nothing other than a "I worked for stricter gun control" to some politicians reelection campaign......or something that might actually, you know, stop some crime or do something?

[Autumnlicious]

That's a ridiculous argument. Look at national healthcare in other countries then compare that to the political meltdown we had over an overly conservative implementation by the conservative side.

We can extrapolate from that that the assumption you made above is trivial to dismiss.

Furthermore, carrying an extra gun is heavier than carrying what you need to reload. So in the cases where the criminal actually thought that through, they're capped by usually one or two more.

The Virginia Tech massacre hinged upon extra large magazines and two handguns. Fucker was eager enough to kill but lazy enough to not carry a lot of ammo - taping extra would've been easily accomplished.

The Sandy Hook shooter, like VTech, obsessed for months over killing those kids. He used the weapons his mother purchased for him to enact his attack. Again, no such innovation in carrying additional magazines.

These are two divergent attacks for completely different reasons where the perpetrator had time to make more damage yet opted for effectively a COTS solution.

Unfortunately, in the above cases, the right of the mentally ill to own guns or be placed into an environment where they can trivially access one was held absolute.

No law can solve a self inflicted absolute.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ammunition is always going to be needed for any gun use - controlling it therefore is the key to reducing unlawful gun use.

How about this then: Give a firearm to anyone who wants one - criminal record and mental health not withstanding. No age restrictions, no permitting needed, no limits on calibre or magazine capacity.

But price bullets at $5000 each. [full disclosure: that's a Chris Rock joke]

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a ridiculous argument.

-What- is a ridiculous argument?  I'm arguing that politicians waste their capital on ineffective legislation.

Do you disagree -with that-? 

That people might reject common sense or even ideologically aligned regulation can only strengthen my point on not wasting whatever political capital a person has.  

Look at national healthcare in other countries then compare that to the political meltdown we had over an overly conservative implementation by the conservative side.

We can extrapolate from that that the assumption you made above is trivial to dismiss.

.......?

Furthermore, carrying an extra gun is heavier than carrying what you need to reload. So in the cases where the criminal actually thought that through, they're capped by usually one or two more.

Heavier...heavier....?  Guns are rated in ounces now, they;re light as shit.  The wight of a gun never seems to dissuade shooters who carry multiple guns.  

The Virginia Tech massacre hinged upon extra large magazines and two handguns. Fucker was eager enough to kill but lazy enough to not carry a lot of ammo - taping extra would've been easily accomplished.

Taping mags together provides "extra large magazines" regardless of individual magazine size...that's kind of my point.  

The Sandy Hook shooter, like VTech, obsessed for months over killing those kids. He used the weapons his mother purchased for him to enact his attack. Again, no such innovation in carrying additional magazines.

There was no need...but if legislation creates such a need the solution is already within anyone's reach and well known.  Hence, legislation to that effect..is ineffective.

Let's consider an alternative.  If the political capital for vtech or sandy hook was spent strengthening laws and penalties for those who make straw purchases...as that shooters mother did, wouldn't that be more effective at stopping shootings which happen as a consequence of straw purchases?  Would that be a better expenditure -of- political capital...particular in comparison to a law which -tape- defeats, in your opinion?  I'm not criticising, directly, the value of mag size laws in and of themselves, but of the seeming lack of prioritization that the people who advocate for them consistently fall prey to.  Ban high cap mags, go ahead.  I understand that...but...maybe, do that after you do things which might have or at least be capable of having an effect.

Let me play devils advocate for a moment, and pretend to be a person who objects to regulation on firearms.  If you propose sweeping legislation, which contains a mag size provision...I;m going to try my hardest to block it, but also to -give- you mag size regs because I already know that they have no effect of anything, and this allows me to look like I've compromised..it allows me to paint -you- as an absolutist who won;t be satisfied with anything but the full seizure of my guns...and it also allows me to suggest, to you, that you can take this meaningless victory back to your base in order to save face - they don't know it's meaningless.  I know, full well, that if you win any victory, however empty, you'll have simultaneously emptied your anti-gun tank.  

In my opinion a better use of political capital is to paint the gun nutters into the corner that mag size regs have allowed them to paint anti-gun nutters into.  To, for example..remind people that straw purchases -are a felony-...and that any straw purchasers will and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  If momma buys the gun for her boy...she will be tried as a felon in connection to the shooting her son carries out as is already allowed under current and uncontroversial federal -and- state regulations.  Force the gun nutters argue against -that-...rather than a law made pointless by tape.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Besides, emptying a thirty round clip as fast as you can pull the trigger is an exercise in poor accuracy anyway

Not necessarily. How about 40 rounds in 6 seconds all on target?

The movie-type "spray and pray" doesn't care if you have a good weapon or not. I always liked to give a FNG a go at twin .50s, just so long as nobody else was around for five miles or so.