Posted on 07/19/2014 12:45:23 PM PDT by richardb72
CPRC’s op-ed in the Star-Ledger (the largest paper in New Jersey) starts this way: ut there is a reason that gun control supporters, such as Malloy, don’t provide evidence that Christie is factually in the wrong. There have been plenty of studies on assault weapon bans by criminologists and economists alike, but there isn’t any evidence that limiting magazine size helps fight crime.
Take the work of two criminology professors, Chris Koper and Jeff Roth. They were hired by the Clinton administration to evaluate the original assault weapons ban, which limited magazines to 10 bullets. They found: “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”
At the time, Koper and Roth suggested that after the ban had been in effect for more years, it might be possible to find a benefit. Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
My own work with University of Chicago professor Bill Landes looked at mass shootings and the federal and state assault weapon magazine limits had no impact on either the number or lethality of mass shootings.
Malloy justifies the 10-bullet limit saying: “a shooter must pause to reload three times more than a shooter with a 30-round magazine. ... We’ve seen time and time again how those precious few seconds with an empty magazine have the potential to save lives.” But he is clearly wrong. Ironically, his first example illustrates the opposite is true. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at crimepreventionresearchcenter.org ...
Because sometimes 10 just don’t get the job done.
I know that you don’t participate here or respond to posts, and that you like to post articles from that blog, but why not post the link to the actual article rather than to a link that only mentions it and links to it?
First explain why limiting magazines to 10 round is safe. He who wants to make a rule must explain the rule.
What do the words “ . . . shall not be infringed.” mean?
Because not all people are accurate shooters
Because if you need 11 and have 10, you’re dead.
“Because not all people are accurate shooters”
Particularly the cops. I mean the sheriff’s deputy in Santa Rosa, CA who shot the 13 year old with the fake AK-47 used up 8 of the 17 rounds in his Glock to “completely” kill the kid. The problem with the cops is that they usually “hunt” in packs, so that 17 round Glock is backed up by two or three more 17 round Glocks in the hands of his “wingmen.” Personally, I’d like to see cops have to go back to wheel guns and have to reload after six. Maybe then, the dying would equalize and a few more dogs would be able to escape execution.
I’m sure that I’m a much better shot than just about any beat police officer except maybe SWAT cops. I say this only because I shoot regularly, at no small expense, to maintain shooting muscle memory. I don’t think most PO’s do.
Think I’ll order another 10 Magpul 40 rounders.
Protecting their own from the resistance is number one in the progressive politicians’ minds, so the rabble must not have equal firepower!
“Think I’ll order another 10 Magpul 40 rounders.”
I prefer the 30s, but thanks for reminding me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.