Many Democratic lawmakers want to consider new laws restricting high-volume magazines, many of which currently allow gun owners to fire 30 rounds without reloading. Some Republicans agree, as does the American mainstream. What's more, limits on the size of clips are entirely constitutional.
Any chance this might be the sort of common-sense proposal the NRA can live with? Apparently not.
David Gregory presented Wayne LaPierre with a compelling quote from Larry Alan Burns, federal district judge of San Diego who sentenced Jared Loughner. Burns, a gun owner and NRA supporter, was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, so it stood out when he wrote:
"Bystanders got to Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 30 round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose his primary weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater a magazine, it's a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire? I get it. Someone bent on mass murder, who has only a ten-round magazine or a revolver at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the 'mass' out of 'mass shooting,' or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder."
But LaPierre refuses to even consider the possibility that smaller clips might -- might -- save American lives.
In LaPierre's mind, it's possible armed guards at elementary schools can save lives, so Americans owe it to themselves to try, but since, as he sees it, it's not possible limits on high-capacity clips can save lives, such an idea must be taken off the table.
I'm beginning to think the NRA isn't prepared for a grown-up conversation. Perhaps the political world should evaluate the group's credibility accordingly.
Leave a Comment:
The NTA does not care what you want!
It's not just high capacity but high rates of fire. After these first measures are put in place, I fear we will lose interest in maintaining the pressure, because even using 19th century guns designed for military use, a person can maintain very high rates of fire. It is not difficult to get up to 4 shots per second with a revolver and champions can get up to 8 per second. Speed reloads are also not difficult with these weapons, so such speed load ammo should be banned as well. (Those unfamiliar with guns may recall how Dirty Harry reloaded his gun not bullet by bullet but with a ring of shells slipped in all at once. Ejecting spent casings and reload can be accomplished in seconds.
Of course the NRA really doesn't even care about constitutional arguments either if they do not benefit the gun manufactures. They are all too eager to press against the rights of chinese manufacturers to provide guns in our market. Anyway- the NYTimes piece linked to above focuses on the Heller case which affirms the right to own guns for home defense. Putting aside the point that Heller is weak due to its being narrowly decided, let us for the moment the principle is solid and was decided 7-2.
At which point is a weapon no longer legitimate for home defense? In the civil war, the Henry repeater and efficient revolvers increased the rate of fire dramatically. The rifle made famous at the beginning scene of the series "The rifleman" was a military style weapon- with a very high rate of fire (youtube). It's not just high capacity weapons that must be eliminated, but those with rates of fire that have no sensible utility for home defense.
So what is reasonable? Why should I need a faster rate of fire than that possible with a bolt action civil war rifle? If it would stop a confederate soldier charging, why do I need more? Am I expecting home defense against a platoon of assailants simultaneously rushing me?
So if the NRA fears that banning high capacity clips is just the beginning, I for one pray they are correct.
I believe a key difference between a traditional deer hunting rifle (such as an '03 Springfield) and a semi-automatic (such as an AR-15) is the charge used to propel a the bullets. Semi-automatics use a lesser amount of propellant, which cuts back their range and decreases the amount of heat generated by the gun.
A long gun using traditional rifle ammo can be fired quickly but would be prone to overheat and jam if fired too quickly for too long. Semi-automatics generally can fire faster and longer before heat is an issue.
Another key issue is that semi-automatics require far less training to sustain a relatively high rate of fire.
I believe both reasons would make it reasonable to require semi-automatic long guns to be stored in a well-regulated gun range.
THAT TAKES SKILL AND PRACTICE!!!
Boy, there are things I don't like talking about ...
If the Tucson Shooter practiced changing magazines and counted his shots he could have swapped mags before anyone realized he was out. Slide locking back / bolt locking open is the wrong way to know the weapon is empty.
If a Magic Fairy made all the high cap mags disappear today and no more manufactured high cap mags would be back. Just need to take a couple magazines and cobble them together. But that takes time, talent and skill. Which means most gun nuts and loons wouldn't have high cap mags
I'm all for banning high capacity magazines. To those serious about their weapons the ban would make little if any difference in personal capability. But it will make a large difference to the snappish loony.
... because I really don't need be giving people ideas or having a Law Enforcement Agency knocking on my door.
What happened in CT is an absolute tragedy, innocent lives were lost and let's not lose sight of that. The reason average civilians need access to AR15's with 30 round
magazines is the government has access to them...it has nothing to do
with home protection or hunting. The spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and quite frankly
the entire US Constitution, is the balance of power between the
government and the people. Once the people have a substantial
disadvantage in their ability to defend themselves against any
government foreign or domestic, they are no longer free. The situation
that would require average civilians to take up such arms against a
government has not been experienced by the United
States....and let's hope it never comes to fruition. If all this sounds wacky to you.....I'd bet 6 million European Jews in the 1930s and 1940's would've liked access to assault
rifles with 30 round magazines who in the 1920's probably wouldn't have believed the Holocaust was possible....
I'm sorry @Charlie, but there are just so many of you that are confused about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the references "right to bear arms" and "militia".
The founders meant for no descrimination (class) as to who could serve in the protection of our union as called upon from state enlisted militias as was necessary in the early days of our country, much as the National Guard of today. There is no better example of clarification as who served their country legitimately under of the 2nd amendment.
The Second Amendment as a Case Study in Constitutional Interpretation; Yale Law School; http://is.gd/XgsOei
Private militias that fantasize about assaulting our union by attacking uniformed and civil service members are examples of what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect us from.
"I looked within, and saw my enemy."
"It's your classical Slippery Slope", La Pierre said, unaware that he was being recorded by a cell phone.
"First they come for your clips and magazines, followed by your cop killer bullets, finally going after your gun itself. Then it is too late, and you stand by, helpless, as they force your innocent teenage daughter to register as a DEMOCRAT!"
Let's put LaPierre in a fenced area about an acre in size. Give him a few trees and boulders to run around and hide behind. Then let's put a shooter up on a perch nearby, tasked with shooting at LaPierre as he tries to survive.
Now give LaPierre the choice between a 10-round clip, 30-round magazine and a 100-round drum for the shooter to use. What's your pick, Wayne, and why?
I remember the debates we had after Tuscon with the gun nuts. One dude actually went "carpel-tunnel" on me, claiming changing clips would injure him. I say we should have a contest for the most absurd argument for large magazines. There are some doozies...
This has nothing to do with guns or ammunition, except as they are a way to get very rich. It's all about the money. Pretending that it isn't plays right into their game.
Unlike the Wall Street bankers who could publicly claim to want responsible financial reforms while doing all they could to lobby against those reforms, the NRA is unable to disingenuously agree that there should be responsible gun laws. They have invested so much in stoking the fears of gun owners and in portraying themselves as the sole defenders of Second Amendment rights that they can't even give responsible gun legislation the typical political lip service.
Ironically, David Gregory is now in trouble for possessing an illegal magazine...
Am I just imagining things, or is Wayne LaPierre foaming at the mouth in this photo?
I still like the suggestion from one of the other posters that we should flood the NRA with memberships of regular people who are reasonable about gun ownership and then fire this guy. Whether you call him evil or vile, it's only where you put the 'e' and he doesn't represent responsible gun owners anyhow.
That's not foam; that's just a another little speck of stupid falling out of his mouth.
In theory I like the idea of flooding NRA membership with reasonable people. If only I could join without having to give them a dime with which to lobby before we can vote Wayne out...
So, according to the NRA, the Second Amendment guarantees that all Americans, including small children, must run the risk of being murdered in public places so that a small minority of gun-obsessed fanatics can live out their sick fantasies with unlimited real firepower. Does that about cover it?
There have been some notorious political scoundrels that have graduated from my Alma mater Boston College, LaPierre is the lowest of the bunch.
LaPierre and his ilk apparently live in a world inhabited only by bad guys, good guys and monsters.
On my planet, those kinds of worlds were created in stories - they only existed as fantasy and fiction. They are Fairy Tales, deliberately designed to frighten children and the ignorant into unquestioning compliance with some nebulous, unnamed, benevolent authority.
For way too many decades, the NRA has been working hard to make sure those worlds are as real as possible.
Read any Brothers Grimm lately? Other than the latest headlines, I mean.
Look at the news, sensationalizing every shooting.
Ever been to Detroit? Chicago?
There are firearms restrictions in both of those places, but no ones covering how people are offing each other in record numbers with handguns that hold 10 rounds or less. Its not the amount of guns, the size of the magazine, or the amount of ammo you can get. Its the people that have them.
If the quantity of weapons and ammo, and the size of magazines decided how many people died there wouldnt be a single person left in my little town of 1000 people.
You people are using the deaths of the poor little kids to further your own agendas.
local firearms restrictions are limited in effect because it is easy to cross borders to get guns. the size of a magazine determines hpw many people can be killed at once. the equation that gun ownership equals liberty should mean the sudan, syria and mexican gun cartels are bastions of liberty. liberty is dependent on a truly representative central government uncaptured by the other power centers (military, ideological, economic). while we argue over guns the undue influence of wealth on our government goes unaddressed.
Hey liberty, how does life in your world smell, with your head permanently up your ass? Do you have that confused with Chanel No. 5?
The problem is that while the NRA as an organization is nuts (as in completely whacko), the average member (some of whom I know and they aren't whacko, other than on this one topic) will actually vote on this one issue alone. For a politician, a single-issue voter who is seriously committed (as in these folks) is a political problem because - unlike dealing with the rest of us who understand you can't have everything - the single-issue voter will vote on that, regardless of anything else the candidate may have done, even when the candidate really represents well the other issues that voter might want to pay attention to. And in a congressional election, even a few hundred voters in a district who will vote like that can tip the difference.
As too many politicians I have known over the years have accurately pointed out, the pro-gun people will vote single-issue, while the rest of us don't. In fact, the rest of us would not vote for a pro-control candidate unless we agreed with him on a whole host of other issues. This makes being for gun control a losing proposition, because your opponents will target you and those who agree with you won't necessarily support you.
And this is why an organization run by crazy people (and several of my friends who are in the NRA have told me there are a lot of people who wish LaPierre and his faction were not in control) can be powerful like this.
In case you wonder how the organization that campaigned for the banning of privately-owned full-auto guns in 1934 became the organization that will vote against a politician who won't pass a law allowing drunk rednecks to carry guns into bars, it happened the same way that the Bolsheviks took over the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1905: the radicals sat in the meeting and pushed petty procedural issue after petty procedural issue until the real social democrats left in exasperation. As soon as the minority became a temporary majority, they called for the real votes and won, thus allowing them to take control. The extreme gun nuts used this same Stalinist tactic in the mid-1970s to take over the NRA after they claimed the organization hadn't fought the federal gun control laws passed after RFK's assassination hard enough.
I often think the only way to stop the NRA would be to bring back Timothy McVeigh and get him to see who the real enemy is.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone would oppose limiting magazine size. It is a reasonable regulation that is perfectly constitutional.
Totally agree with you. If the NRA doesn't agree to limiting magazine size then they will wind up with a ban on their assault rifles. Then the ban will create a black market for those weapons. It's a total disgrace on the NRA's part not to try to find some sort of common ground.
The NRA is waiting for our issue attention span to run out on the Sandy Hook massacre. It won't take much more than a month according to statistics shown on NOW this morning. The media can be a powerful tool for not allowing our attention to wane on gun control issues. I am strongly suggesting that the media hold our attention vigilantly on this issue by listing every victim of every death by gun violence every day. Just as we have posted the deaths of individual soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This should allow the public's awareness to stay focused on the terrible truth of our violent society and possibly lead us from helplessness against the gun manufacturers and the NRA that they support to the creation of laws that are successful. How about it Rachel?
Not going to happen this time. Senator Feinstein is going to hold actual hearings, and the Newtown parents are coming to testify.
Geez, you guys are gun haters for sure! The thing is, if you do even a little bit of research on gun control, you will find that every nation that has ever instituted strong gun control ends up having a higher crime rate. Citizens become helpless to criminals, who do not care about gun laws. Guns are not just expensive toys for gun nuts! They are a fundamental part of the stability of our nation! Mexico has strong gun laws, but do the cartels care? No, and gun violence is rampant. Citizens cannot defend themselves against criminals. So stop and think before you say that no normal person needs a gun!
You and your gun confiscation strawman are safe, but your magazines and AR's are in some trouble. The amount of foot dragging you folks do will determine the political fallout and damage. If the Republicans stonewall the Newtown parents, they will sink even further away from popular opinion. And be aware that Immigration is also coming, with similar circumstances regarding public opinion.
Many of us do not want gun control to the point of trying to stop anyone from having a gun. But NOBODY other than a soldier needs an assault rifle. Nobody other than a soldier needs ammo that is designed to splinter and do maximum damage once it enters its target.
Normal, rational people should be allowed to have guns for hunting, sport, even self defense if trained correctly. But nobody needs the power and capacity to kill the way these weapons and ammo can.
The Founding Fathers never conceived of such firepower when the Second Amendment was written; assault weapons weren't around until 160 years later. Try writing a law right now that will make sense to society in the year 2172 and still another 70 years after that.
Actually, normal guy, even a little bit of actual research, not just a random web search, will show that a causal relationship between gun control and crime rates has never really been established one way or the other.
factcheck.org has a good article: http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
You want to hunt? We have plenty of fine sporting rifles for that.
You want self-defense? Any shotgun will do.
You want military assault weapons and ammo? Join the Marines.
Hey moron: check the crime rates in Canada and Australia. They have guns and gun control, and a crime rate about half to a third of ours.
And after you do so, go stick your head back up your ignorant redneck ass, you worthless idiot. Why am I unsurprised you think of yourself as a "normal" Southerner, down in the land of cotton where "normal" is crazy?
There is a war against the citizens of our country that is being fought in our homes and our streets. It is time for the names of the victims of gun violence to be posted daily just as we did for the Iraq war. No comment necessary just some somber music. We need to keep the issue alive. The NRA is just waiting for public outrage to fade. We can't let that happen. Rachel - you have served as a powerful voice for common sense and decency please use your platform to uphold this most decent of causes.
Sent from my iPad
Geez, you guys are gun haters for sure! The thing is, if you do even a little bit of research on gun control, you will find that every nation that has ever instituted strong gun control ends up having a higher crime rate. Citizens become helpless to criminals, who do not care about gun laws. Guns are not just expensive toys for gun nuts! They are a fundamental part of the stability of our nation! Mexico has strong gun laws, but do the cartels care? No, and gun violence is rampant. Citizens cannot defend themselves against criminals. So stop and think before you say that no normal person needs a gun!
congratulations. you have strengthened your argument by repeatedly posting it. actually, not really.
you have obviously never met a real "gun hater" in your lifetime. the various people commenting on this blog have stated rational arguments for stricter controls on specific types of guns, ammunition and magazines. very few, if any, could be pointed out as "gun haters." nobody has stated that all guns should be banned. most here seem to think that there are legitimate uses for guns from hunting to personal protection.
you state that with strict gun regulations there is a rise in crime. prove it. cite your sources. we'll wait.
meanwhile the rational people will try to ban high capacity clips, normalize gun laws nationwide and regulate private sales to prevent guns from being purchased in states with lax gun regulations and transported to other states.
paranoia is a powerful motivator for people who have been indoctrinated to think that just about every night there is a platoon of heavily armed "monsters" eager to attack your house and kill your family. be alert, be safe and if you must, keep a shotgun at home to protect your loved ones. you don't need an AK47 or AR15 with a 100 round drum to defend your family. and, there is no reason to use deadly force to protect your "stuff." that's why god invented insurance.
Normal Guy in NC,
It just seems to me that people like you don't seem to care when someone else family member gets killed in one of these mass murders. You always use the logic, if some people in the area had guns this tragedy would have be minimized. I just wonder how you would feel if it was one of your own that was killed. I'm not wishing that on you and I truly hope it doesn't happen. Minimize magazine size is part of the solution.
Limiting magazine size?
Will that protect my children when they go back to school after the break?
If it was law today for only 1 round magazines, would that make my child any safer in a completely unprotected school?
You only talk about how whacko the NRA is and nothing about a solution to protecting our children.
Why are we focusing on guns? Could not someone just wait until children were crossing at a crosswalk, then run them over? Couldnt someone throw a firebomb in a school just the same? Come to think of it, there are alot of ways to perform mass killings without an assault rifle..... Are you going to ban all dangerous things?
The point is that guns dont kill people, People Kill People. I agree that there is no need to have semi-automatic assault rifles for the average person. But guns are not the problem, its the people who seek infamy by committing horrible acts.
Yes, obviously magazine restrictions make people safer when confronted with a shooter. The way you use "your children" as a gun strawman is craven...
LD
I believe it was your Messiah that was out in public right off the bat, disposing of any kind of compassion, spewing Agenda propaganda at the expense of a grieving nation.
I want my children safe from Criminals, killers and lunatics. Whether its a man with an automatic weapon or a knife.
When you want to actually address THAT, let me know.
The two of you can go back to the land of cotton and practice your crazy religions of guns and snakes. You both prove what ten generations of southern "inbreeding" produces.
I didnt think i would get an intelligent response.
Really: Yes indeed, using your "children" as a gun wedge issue is craven, even for internet comment boards (very low bar). As a gun nut you are fully aware of the absurdity to propose an armed guard is either a good idea for elementry schools, or a deterrant. A body armor wearing nutjob with an assault rifle and more importantly the jump, would kill or disable the guard in a second. Ask any cop. The only reason a law enforcement officer would take that job is the hope an attack never happens. So one is left with your true motive, the NRA everything reasonable is an attack on my falsely stated rights stance. Your days enjoying that absurd canard are numbered...
Using my kids? haha, nice try libtard.
Now back to reality. Nobody but the Aroura shooter wore body armor. A platoon of infantry may not be able to stop the type of thing your talking about. Buts thats clearly very rare.
I have asked may cops BTW, they all agree, there needs to be much more done about school security starting with armed guards. They also agree thats an immediate need, but with sensible scrutiny of people entering school grounds from the staff on duty that it could also be slowly withdrawn over time.
Your hypocrisy on issues is what is really absurd. Do you think guns aren't manufactured in Mexico? Do you think criminals wouldn't bring them across the border and use them on your now unarmed society? My guess is you already think were to hard on immigration as it is. My guess is you dont believe that guns could be brought here just as easy as the hundreds of thousands of drugs that come across every day. Only it wont be the law abiding citizens buying those guns.
It entertains me that you call me all kinds of names like gun nut, etc. I do not own an assault rifle or any hi-cap mags. But i do own guns and no matter what tyranny you might be able to get away with i always will. And they will never be used for any thing other than there intended purpose unless someone threatens my life.
Its called freedom stupid. You don't care about yours but i fought for it and still believe in it and will always fight for it. The constitution is still the law of the land no matter how many times you curse it.
You don't think its bad that the liberal left want to strip us of our rights because you are one. And unarming is a good first step.
So i say it is your ideology that is in danger, the Citizens of the USA have grown quite fond of there Freedom. We will not lay down for you or your extremist movement. Ever!
No one wants to stop and think about one simple fact: Many Criminals will not break into your home while you are there, simply because it is possible that you will be ready with a shotgun pointing at them. Now, lets say that the criminal KNOWS that you will not point a shotgun at him when he breaks into your house. Suddenly, the rules change, and the average gun carrying criminal is almost like a God! The possibility of a civilian being armed must exist, to reduce crime.
Look, I have a shotgun. It is a double-barrelled gun with external hammers, two triggers. With dove load, I could stop an intruder to my home without endangering the lives of my neighbors. But I don't have a sign on my door that says that. How would any prospective intruder know whether or not I had a gun in the house right now? Is that going to change? No. You come across as very paranoid. Please get treatment for that.
And let's just say that the criminal KNOWS that you have an armory full of military-style weapons and ammo. You are just setting yourself up to be robbed.
The possibility of a civilian being armed must exist, to reduce crime. No, no one knows if you have a gun or not. Thats the point! If they know you DONT have a gun, then they KNOW they can rob you. If they dont know, then they will have to risk possibly getting shot. The possibility is a deturrant for some criminals.
Dude, what you are missing here is that this recent crop of crazy people DON'T CARE IF THEY GET SHOT. They are suicidal maniacs with the intent of mass murder. The whole point of this article is to accept that people with guns will kill people, but crazy people with fewer options will kill less people.
I guess it is "normal" for a redneck moron in North Carolina to have no brain. That way you can be a "good Republican."
Dude, Im a Republican. Why is everyone so vicious? I dont attack anyone, I merely state an opinion, supported by logic, then everyone wants to attack me. Have I attacked anyone? No, because that is a fallacy. Try to argue without committing a fallacy!
Im a Democrat. sorry for the typo
It is fine for normal people to have guns. No one needs a killing machine. Democracy is dependent on strong laws and a government strong enough and clean enough to to hold its citizens accountable. Mexico fails the second criteria. Australia has imposed strict limits and mass killings have ceased.
Austrailan mass killings have ceased? Ceased? Wow!
There was an elementary school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, in which a madman armed with 4, legally purchased handguns, killed sixteen 5-6-year olds, their teacher and himself. He attempted to kill many, many other children, wounding 15 in the process.
After that, the government banned all cartridge-loading handguns (with minor exceptions). Hasn't been a school shooting - or any similar type of mass shooting - in the UK since.
Per capita gun deaths in the UK is a tiny, tiny fraction of the rate in the US.
I do not believe that these things are coincidental.
As a matter of fact, idiot (I know, being a crazy Republican gun moron requires making up your own "facts") but there have been no mass killings in Australia since they banned semiautomatic rifles and bought back those that were out there. As a gun-owning Australian friend of mine just commented the other day, the shooters were upset when the law was passed, but even the Australian equivalent of the NRA now sees it as a good thing.
Another thing they did was require that if you own guns, you be a member of a gun club. That way, the people who really are "responsible gun owners" keep the nutcases under control themselves. That, of course, would keep redneck morons like you gunless.
I will agree that no one needs hi capacity magazine for assault rifles. Drums - Get Rid of em, Long Mags - ban but dont confiscate, regular mags (15 rounds or less) are fine.
Welcome to the debate. There are bans on certain types of weaponry already, so this isn't about usurping the 2nd amendment, this is about where to draw the line.
A total gun ban is not on anyone's agenda and could not be further from the ability or will of Congress to impose. A return to the ban on assault weapons and banana clips - as supported by President Reagan - is being considered as an immediate "no brainer" item of legislation.
After that, I hope they look at closing all the secondary market loopholes (gun shows, internet, private sales) through which guns can be purchased without a background check.
After that, who knows? But the NRA's self-serving, gun-industry-serving, dug-in-heels routine is not helpful or healthy to the debate.
Are you such a bad shot it takes you 15 rounds to kill your deer? Good luck with that, the meat is so full of adrenaline from the fear of the wounded animal that it's inedible.
I dont deer hunt. You do know that North Carolina has Cities, right? Did you also know that hunting laws limit your deer hunting rifle to 5 shots in a magazine? Nevermind, just assume you know everything and claim I am an idiot. It makes you feel better. Let the anonymity of the internet empower you to be hateful to others.
To really think a civil war era black powder musket is enough to protect your family from several intruders breaking into your house, then i honestly feal sorry for you.
If there is a greater than 1 in 10,000 chance for several intruders to break into your house while it is occupied, forget the guns and move!
"Heavy is good. If it doesn't work, you can always hit him with it."
- Boris the Blade
I wonder if there is a specific number of people that have to die in one shooting rampage for good ol' wayne to think about these gun control ideas.
And if so, are they equal? Are 20 kids greater than, equal to, or less tan 20 adults? Where do 20 people at a school rate as opposed to 20 people at a mall?
For me, one person being shot is bad enough. Ask Abe Lincoln.
The question we should be asking is "Will limiting the size of magazines save lives?"
California is the only state that limits magazine capacities of firearms.
The result? California has the 4th highest firearm homicide rate.
I don't think it's working, folks.
When was the last time there was a mass shooting in California, moron?
There is a difference between correlation and causation. A correlation between stronger gun laws and more homicides is a correlation but there is no reason to believe stronger laws cause increased homicides. But, there is good reason to believe stronger laws that limit magazine size will limit casualties. By the way I do not believe name calling adds to the quality of a discussion but rather it hardens positions. I respect your right to disagree.
There is a difference between correlation and causation. A correlation between stronger gun laws and more homicides is a correlation but there is no reason to believe stronger laws cause increased homicides. But, there is good reason to believe stronger laws that limit magazine size will limit casualties. By the way I do not believe name calling adds to the quality of a discussion but rather it hardens positions. I respect your right to disagree.
And Vermont has the lowest. Check out their gun laws.