The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and ten round magazines.
Now the politicians want all magazines to be ten rounds. If they get it, soon it will be 8, then 5 then 3. Hide and watch!
Every citizen who goes out in public armed realizes the odds are getting better and better that we’re going to find ourselves involved in a serious shooting sooner or later. It might be a good time to think about the responsibility of carrying a firearm and ask yourself some questions: do I have the right firearm? Ayoob says the right gun is the one you’ll actually carry, regardless of time, place, weather and occasion. Having said that, consider the high likelihood that you will be outgunned. No matter what you have seen on tv, a handgun against a shoulder weapon is not a fair fight. Your little five shot with a 2 inch barrel is going to feel pretty impotent, and might even convince you, and rightfully so, not to engage. I offer no answers; just food for thought.
Two basic methods:
H=Most of the mass shooters are either schizophrenics (we need better mental health protocols). Trump tried implement that, but it never went anywhere.
Or they are some kind of exhibitionists who want to make the news. It is so sad, that in our society, the easiest way to become “famous” is to get a gun and shoot few innocents. Not publishing any detail of shooters will take care about that!
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, yet I would bet on this upcoming weekend nearly as many will be killed in Chicago as were in the Texas school shooting.
Based on what? All the "success stories" where laws have prevented such acts? Here's a common theme for this whole discussion: laws only deter the law-abiding. Criminals will continue to commit criminal acts.
Cuomo mentioned a federal "assault weapon" ban...
Bzzzzt. We tried that, for 10 years. It had no effect on violence or crimes committed with firearms. So if it is demonstrably ineffective, why propose it again? Sure, hit your thumb with the hammer, no, I'm sure this time it won't hurt...
...calling for expanded background checks...
Why? The latest perpetrator passed a background check. Criminals who cannot pass a background check have many other avenues to obtain firearms. Don't bother trying to legislate those away - they are already illegal. Making them "more illegal" isn't going to change a {expletive} thing.
...more aggressive enforcement of "red flag" laws that aim to disarm dangerous people...
These laws are also at best extremely questionable in terms of violating the Constitution. They are also ripe for abuse. An attempt at "more aggressive" enforcement will have negative unintended consequences across the board.
...those policies are fundamentally ill-suited to stopping would-be mass murderers from carrying out their plans.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Exactly right.
The shooter easily reversed that modification so the gun could accept detachable magazines, and he reportedly used magazines that exceeded New York's 10-round limit.
Wait, what!? You mean the criminal broke multiple laws! I'm shocked, shocked I say! ;-/ But gosh yes, in light of that more laws are obviously what we need... :-/
...none of the military-style features that New York prohibits (such as a pistol grip, a threaded barrel or a bayonet mount), it is not an "assault weapon,"...
Would the presence or absence of any combination of those features have had any impact, positive or negative, on the outcome here? No, of course not. So one wonders why the {expletive} they bother with such a distinction - they are functionally and fundamentally irrelevant.
That is the basic problem with "assault weapon" bans: They define the category based on functionally unimportant features,
Ding ding ding. Another winner. So, you support repeal of such obviously stupid and in-effective laws, right? I won't hold my breath.
...leaving mass shooters with plenty of equally lethal alternatives, including the handguns they overwhelmingly prefer...
So you admit handguns are used in crimes more than rifles by an "overwhelming" margin. Yet so much time and effort is put into bans on "assault weapons" and rifles. Why is that? Seems like a terrible waste of resources to go after something admittedly used in a fraction of crimes. You could be forgiving for concluding the bans on "assault weapons" weren't about safety at all, but something else entirely.
Cuomo thinks a federal ban could be effective if it also covered "large capacity" magazines, which come standard with many guns, millions of such magazines would remain in circulation.
They are not "large capacity" they are standard capacity, by your own admission - they come standard with many rifles. Duh! Also, please point to any evidence that even suggests magazine capacity limits have had a positive effect. Then point to any evidence that even suggests criminals would obey such laws. In this latest case, the criminal already violated existing magazine related laws. To believe more magazine related laws wouldn't be violated by such criminals is pure fantasy.
The Buffalo shooter passed a background check when he bought his rifle...
Ah, so obviously what we need are more (aka "universal") background checks. ;-/ Yeah, that'll stop this kind of thing, even though they didn't stop this kind of thing.
I have one simple question, and I want an honest answer... Someone has to know...
Did this gunman force his way into that school?????
If not, how the hell did he get in?
I have not been to any school, ANY SCHOOL in well over a decade where I had to be let in...
Can someone, anyone tell me if this guy forced his way into the school or not.. and if not, how the hell he got in?
The parents of the Buffalo shooter, and now this Uvalde maniac would have been much more likely to prevent these attacks if they had been more pro-active in raising their sons.