High Capacity Magazine Ban

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by Pughnose

I'll bite, though I can't imagine it'll help.

If I own a firearm for self defense, but in case of home invasion I can only stop one person who kindly moves slowly in good light, then advantage invaders, and frankly it's important to me to reduce their already-great advantage as much as possible. Personally, I don't need multiple guns, or a so-called "assault rifle" with a 30-round banana clip.

What I would like to be able to do is to buy a new Glock 19, for example, which comes standard in 9 mm with 15-round magazines. This will no longer be possible in Washington State, once the bill is signed.

Studies that show benefits to society of lower-capacity magazines in the hands of attackers are irrelevant to the needs of defenders, which describes me and probably most of the people with whom you're arguing.

I do find it interesting to hear why someone wants these high capacity guns for personal use.

Regarding your last statement about studies, this is not what they are about. They are about the laws affects on states and the nation as a whole to save lives. Laws cannot be written to only apply to good guys vs. bad guys. They apply to gun sales across the board. There is no other way to implement them. Of course, violent criminals with a history would have additional restrictions. But that has never been enough. What the evidence from the studies show is that reducing sales of LCM can saves lives. If limits on all sales saves lives, its worth it even if an inconvenience for some.

Regarding the evidence, there is a compelling amount including numerous studies by scientists and researchers who are very well respected within this area of criminology. Whether one chooses to believe the research is of course up to them. But there is enough to indicate it 'can' save lives. So, while many here will call it hogwash, it does not invalidate the studies nor the reduction of deaths to victims of mass shootings. If truly interested in the research you can learn more of the studies and associated evidence from our state's Attorney General.

"The evidence that this policy saves lives is overwhelming. The following are recent studies based on real world data coming from states that have banned the sale of magazines with the capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

A 2020 study published in Criminology and Public Policy, by a team headed by Daniel W. Webster of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that “LCM bans were associated with significant reductions in the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

A study published by the American Journal of Public Health in 2019 concluded that LCM bans save lives. The study found that “Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher.”

Another 2020 study found that “large-capacity magazine bans were associated with 38% fewer fatalities and 77% fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.” The primary author of that study, Michael Siegel, a community health science professor at Boston University, told CNN that whether a state allows large-capacity magazine sales is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rates in that state."

I honestly believe that most already have their minds made up and so regardless of all the research or amount of evidence, they simply don't care. But for those who do, its worth at least considering this could actually save lives. And if that's even a possibility, shouldn't it matter? That's the whole intent, not to limit your freedoms. You are not the victims nor the target though it might feel like it. If saving lives is the primary objective, that has to come first. Yes, even in America. The manner in which we do that is what I think most will disagree with. That comes down to personal opinion derived from many influences along with deep seated ideologies on these matters which I don't expect to change. But at least consider the other side before jumping to the conclusion that its all for nothing.

Derek

[Arcos]

This is a good reason why the gun lobby fights tooth and nail to prevent the US government from researching ways to reduce gun deaths… as long as they can prevent studies from building up a mountain of rather common sense evidence (that less guns and less gun accessories lead to lower gun violence), people can still, in good conscience, resist laws intended and designed to reduce gun violence.

[MtnSurfer]

Just a final update. This has now become WA law.

Governor signs into law 3 new bills that put restrictions on guns in WA

Derek

[Snowman05]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

I do find it interesting to hear why someone wants these high capacity guns for personal use.

Regarding your last statement about studies, this is not what they are about. They are about the laws affects on states and the nation as a whole to save lives. Laws cannot be written to only apply to good guys vs. bad guys. They apply to gun sales across the board. There is no other way to implement them. Of course, violent criminals with a history would have additional restrictions. But that has never been enough. What the evidence from the studies show is that reducing sales of LCM can saves lives. If limits on all sales saves lives, its worth it even if an inconvenience for some.

Regarding the evidence, there is a compelling amount including numerous studies by scientists and researchers who are very well respected within this area of criminology. Whether one chooses to believe the research is of course up to them. But there is enough to indicate it 'can' save lives. So, while many here will call it hogwash, it does not invalidate the studies nor the reduction of deaths to victims of mass shootings. If truly interested in the research you can learn more of the studies and associated evidence from our state's Attorney General.

"The evidence that this policy saves lives is overwhelming. The following are recent studies based on real world data coming from states that have banned the sale of magazines with the capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

A 2020 study published in Criminology and Public Policy, by a team headed by Daniel W. Webster of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that “LCM bans were associated with significant reductions in the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

A study published by the American Journal of Public Health in 2019 concluded that LCM bans save lives. The study found that “Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher.”

Another 2020 study found that “large-capacity magazine bans were associated with 38% fewer fatalities and 77% fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.” The primary author of that study, Michael Siegel, a community health science professor at Boston University, told CNN that whether a state allows large-capacity magazine sales is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rates in that state."

I honestly believe that most already have their minds made up and so regardless of all the research or amount of evidence, they simply don't care. But for those who do, its worth at least considering this could actually save lives. And if that's even a possibility, shouldn't it matter? That's the whole intent, not to limit your freedoms. You are not the victims nor the target though it might feel like it. If saving lives is the primary objective, that has to come first. Yes, even in America. The manner in which we do that is what I think most will disagree with. That comes down to personal opinion derived from many influences along with deep seated ideologies on these matters which I don't expect to change. But at least consider the other side before jumping to the conclusion that its all for nothing.

Derek

Why do women need 50 pairs of sandals? It's bad for the landfills and environment to consume so many shoes we don't need. Maybe the 25 pairs of underwear I own are too many considering I do my laundry every 14 days.