What is the logic behind a magazine restriction?

True, however the vast majority of the time the criminal was deterred by the mere presence of a firearm. How many stories you heard that was the case with tasers and mace?

 

It would be if guns were less available

 

We don't decide laws by popular vote at the national level, and they still have to be Constitutional. I'm merely refuting your claim that the Great Unwashed Anti-Gun Masses have any idea what would be involved in a reasonable gun law. Heck, the Democrat's presidential candidate is for another ineffective AWB and overturning the PLCAA. That's evidence enough right there.

 

Ok fine. It will be politicians that do it then

 

CDC studies show that alcohol is responsible for almost 90,000 deaths per year. Why not make it less available?

 

If that can be REASONABLY done then do it. It was tried and failed so I do not believe it can

 

Politicians aren't any smarter. Nearly all House Democrats are calling for another "assault weapons" ban, despite the evidence that the first one had no effect on crime, that the vast majority of mass shooters use just handguns and failing to include in their ban the very weapon that a shooter in Norway used to kill almost 70 people with.

- - - Updated - - -

It was completely banned. Didn't that work?

 

I am against a assault weapon ban.

Clearly not

 

Hence the suggestion of the federal government simply stepping back on the matter of illicit substances such as heroin and other prohibited narcotics, and simply allow nature to take its course. Once the bodies of the addicted begin to pile up on sidewalks and public streets as the addicted die off in large numbers, left to rot and decay where they fall, the societal cost of such substances will be so substantial, no one will be able to deny it any longer, and no one will ever wish to consider their use any further.

 

There is no evidence to suggest this has worked anywhere but it is a fascinating ....if incredibly coldhearted....theory

 

That is because no government has actually attempted such an approach. There is no monetary gain to be had from neither fining, nor incarcerating, hundreds of thousands of individuals for drug-related offenses. It has been stated multiple times that the war on drugs is big business, and one is inclined to agree with this assessment of the situation.

If individuals with to knowingly engage in reckless and criminal behavior, they will suffer the consequences of their actions one way or another. They are obviously being done no favors by their government fighting to hard to keep them alive through prohibitions and regulations, so perhaps it is time for a change of pace, and the consequences of their decisions made as plain as day. When children have to see their parents, siblings, and friends laying dead in the streets and on sidewalks as their bodies decompose while others have to walk over them, they will understand the true societal cost of the use of illicit substances. They will no longer question what is wrong with the recreational use of illicit substances, as they will understand why such narcotics were prohibited in the first place.

If the public does not wish to accept that there are certain substances that should not be used, then allowing them to experience the folly of their decisions is the most logical course of action. The more the matter is resisted and fought, the more they are glamorized and desired by the public. It would be the most logical course of action to engage in, seeing as how everything else has failed.

 

Its a fascinating theory. Of course if you are wrong millions of people may have died during this experiment. Seems a tad risky. LOL

 

Not true.

 

Does not reflect gun deaths

 

I thought you would throw that out there, which is why I got a chart that deals only in firearm deaths.

Please look in the bottom left hand of the chart, and read what the key for the blue color represents.

Then come back with an attempt to deflect like I know you will.

 

Uh....it says homicides....not total gun deaths. LOL

 

Uh....it says homicides by firearm rate per 100k population.....which is total gun deaths. LOL

 

Suicides and accidents by guns are not gun deaths? LOL

 

It does not include suicides.
This is relevant because, as we all know, a ban on hi-cap magazines will have an effect of suicide rates.

 

And there's the deflection, right on time. Thanks for being predictable.

Why are you concerned about suicides, are you afraid someone might suicide you against your will?

Our gun death accidents are equal to death by rolling out of bed. Bicycles cause more deaths.

Please elaborate on your original point that "more guns is moar death", because that obviously isn't true.

Let's take a look at 3 islands.

What does this tell you?



- - - Updated - - -

We have a rash of people going full-auto on suicides apparently.

The ridiculousness that comes out of the mouths of people with an agenda when they are caught with their pants down is pretty funny though.

 

Same for people who exist only to troll.

 

I'm fine but thanks for your concern. I'd say my mood is leaning towards amused more than anything.

You want to take a swing at arguing the inarguable, or have you bitten off more than you can chew here?

 

Sure. I am very concerned about suicide because it is a national tragedy. I guess you think it is no big deal

 

Please explain how measures taken to address violent crime with guns in any way addresses the problems of suicide.

Suicide is a global problem, and is far less of a problem here than many places, despite guns. In fact, the top 20 countries where suicide is highest have strict gun ownership laws, and low per capita gun ownership. Rope is, by FAR, the primary tool of suicide globally.

Please explain how smaller magazines, more training, and UBC addresses suicide.

That's right. You can't.

 

Incidentally, since you're claiming that guns cause more suicide, here's another little chart for your refrigerator.