they really should have told the one caller that made it through to mute his TV.
but anyway, I tried calling in for the entirety of the show to no avail, with 1 specific point I wanted to make, complemented by a 2nd point. as as I watched the entire show, everyone made comments about it, with opposing views. but any logical person can consider both sides and know they are all reasons to agree with the following, my point (I'm expanding greatly here in the thread, it would have been short and sweet on the phone):
limiting the capacity of magazines to 10: criminals will still always have higher capacity magazines and/or multiple weapons and/or multiple magazines ready to go and accessible quickly. criminals often act in numbers [when referencing the more common types of violent crime]. creating a law that restricts law abiding citizens to 10-rounds max per magazine (no matter what type of weapon is in question) is absurd! As mentioned on the show, in the case of home invasions; often times it is multiple intruders working together, and typically they all have guns. And also bringing up the point of training and accuracy in a high stress event like a homeowner possessing a gun for self defense while his home is broken into by gun-toting criminals. Law abiding citizens should have as much firepower available to them as possible! statistics and common knowledge show time and time again that 1 handgun round or even 2 handgun rounds will rarely stop an intruder, and thats only considering the rounds that actually hit the target (the intruder). add the factor of accuracy during an event like this. If 3 men break into a home with guns, a homeowner with only 10 rounds only has 3 bullets per intruder and 1 extra. The chances of every round fired by the citizen hitting their intended target are slim to none. Theoretical guess of 33% of the bullets fired landing on their target, that means each of the 3 intruders will only get hit once. That probably will NOT stop the intrusion, it will just piss off the intruders and make them act even more violently, more likely to kill the citizen or one of their family members. a higher capacity magazine in the hands of the citizen will highly increase the chances of the intruders being stopped.
when in a situation like this, there's no time to aim perfectly, only time to decide and react. and knowing accuracy is the lowest possibility, increasing the number of rounds fired by the law abiding citizen defending whatever he's defending will highly increase the chance of the intruders being stopped before they can cause further harm.
the concept of "lethality" being in question? thats even dumber! If a criminal threatens to kill me or attempts to kill me, he may or may not actually have initial intentions of doing so. but if he has something highly capable of lethality, I definitely don't want to just injure him while leaving him still mostly or fully functional but now in a rage against me, and I definitely don't want him to be capable of escaping and attempting the same crime against someone less capable of defending themself. armed citizens have every right of having the MOST LETHAL weapons of self defense possible, capable of stopping the criminal as quickly as possible, and preventing that criminal from ever committing an act of extreme violence against anyone else. and a positive side effect; a dead murderer (or potential murderer) will not be occupying jail space and using up taxpayers' money. and another side effect; the weapon originally possessed by the criminal will not make it into the hands of another criminal, it will be seized by law enforcement; 1 more illegal gun off the streets.
^which circles back to high powered high capacity semi-automatic rifles. a weapon of this type will stop a criminal MUCH faster than a handgun, assuming the shots are accurately placed, which then also circles back to magazine capacity and the obvious concept of the law abiding citizen wanting the best chances possible of stopping the criminal before the criminal stop/kill/maim/injure the law abiding citizen and/or any friends or family members or other innocent people.
as stated repeatedly during the show; accessibility to guns is the issue. guns themselves are NOT the issue, only the accessibility by criminals. restricting what weapons law abiding citizens can possess, and/or restricting magazine capacity, will have ZERO effect on reducing crime. focus NEEDS to be turned AWAY FROM laws applying to law abiding citizens, and aimed more directly at the CRIMINALS who would use guns, and also aimed at factors that make ANY type of gun accessible to a criminal.
limiting magazine capacity, and limiting what characteristics a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen can have, will have little to no effect on crime, it will only leave the law abiding citizen less capable of proper defense. how to address the accessibility by criminals factor? I don't know for certain, but I do have ideas that are MUCH MORE REASONABLE than restricting magazines and weapon types. storage laws come to mind. Enforcement of storage laws would be near impossible, but think about what is being referenced in this entire national idea: criminals and law abiding citizens. criminals don't follow laws, duuuh, that's specifically what makes them criminals. restricting weapons will have zero effect on criminal activity. but encorporating storage laws... law abiding citizens are called just that because they DO follow laws. if only ONE law were passed; a law regarding storage of firearms, we would follow it in high percentages, DRASTICALLY reducing the accessibility of firearms to criminals. which very specifically I personally think would have the highest effect on the overall issue, over any other possible law or combination of laws. and it covers every aspect of gun violence; handgun, shotgun, rifle, ammo, pre-planned or spontaneous, local or distant, etc etc: it prevents the criminals from getting the guns before anything can even occur
think about it: if adam lanza's mother had a fixed lockable container of some sort for her weapons; she would still be alive and adam would not have been capable of taking her firearms; gun massacre averted.
some may like this idea, some might not. but it is the most reasonable idea I've heard yet, but problem being I haven't heard anyone mention it anywhere yet. specifically: make it federal law that a weapon can not be left in a vehicle unless someone legally authorised to possess said weapon is in the vehicle. if said person must leave the vehicle for any period of time, make a maximum time limit, and make some form of list of security measure that must be encorporated to secure the weapon in the vehicle. IE: any weapon left in an unattended vehicle must not be left unattended for more than 20 minutes, and must have some form of lock attached deeming the weapon non-functional while said lock is in place, AND a second form of lock securely attaching the weapon to the vehicle itsself (ie: a trigger lock and a cable lock). and for storage at home: any weapon left in a home while noone legally authorised to possess said weapon is currently in the home must be stored in a locked container permanently affixed to a structural part of the home, only accessible by those legally authorised to individually posses/carry said weapon. IE: any type of gun safe composed of metal bolted to a wall or floor.
if every legal gun owner followed this above policy, it would be near impossible for criminals to get their hands on guns. then the only remaining problem would be the one that no law could ever solve: the illegal guns currently on the street. but that number would drop more and more over time, as criminals commit crimes and either get caught by LEO's or get shot/stopped by a law abiding citizen
is a federal law requiring specific storage traits out of line? some may think so. but no matter what anyone thinks, I'm sure everyone could agree that a storage law is MUCH more reasonable than a set of laws imposing major restrictions on weapons/ammo themselves
