This is why we need to stop being such douchebags about gun violence research

[Berkut]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/health/gun-injuries-more-deadly/index.html

Executive summary: While the technical ability of doctors to treat gunshot wounds has never been greater, the fatality rate of gunshot victims is increasing year over year as we are seeing

1) Each wound being more lethal due to greater firepower and more deadly ammunition, and
2) the typical victim presenting with more wounds as weapons which can fire faster and longer become more and more common.

The reality is that control does matter, and in fact the loosening of gun control laws does have an effect, and it isn't positive. We could have reduced this increasing lethality had reasonable control measures been in place previously. I can't *prove* that though, because attempts to actually collect data in an organized and systemic manner are fought tooth and nail.

There is plenty that can be done that is measured, reasonable, and clearly no kind of attempt to challenge the Second Amendment. There is a reasonable middle ground, even if the NRA and their supporters pretend like there is not.

What is really frustrating is that at the same time the gun fanatics will argue that there isn't any "real data" about how laws effect outcomes, at the exact same time they also make it certain that the efforts to collect data will fail, even if the anecdotal data is clear, and demands more study.

How someone can argue that studying gun violence is an attack on individual rights is baffling.

[derspiess]

How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

[Berkut]

How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

Read the article.

[The Minsky Moment]

Facts are dangerous, they might lead to people changing their minds.

[derspiess]

In 2004, a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It had restricted the number of bullets that a magazine could legally carry to 10. Since then, more criminals have carried weapons that can shoot continuously and inflict even more damage, Spitzer said.

This is a bit misleading.  The AWB did not ban "large" capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to the ban.  And there was such a glut of magazines before the ban that you had no difficulty finding them for reasonable prices through 2004.  I would imagine if you were going to go shoot someone, a superficial 10 round magazine limit wasn't going to get in your way and you'd get a hold of higher capacity magazines pretty easily.  So I dispute the notion that the AWB had any practical limit on the number of shots fired.

[Berkut]

In 2004, a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It had restricted the number of bullets that a magazine could legally carry to 10. Since then, more criminals have carried weapons that can shoot continuously and inflict even more damage, Spitzer said.

This is a bit misleading.  The AWB did not ban "large" capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to the ban.  And there was such a glut of magazines before the ban that you had no difficulty finding them for reasonable prices through 2004.  I would imagine if you were going to go shoot someone, a superficial 10 round magazine limit wasn't going to get in your way and you'd get a hold of higher capacity magazines pretty easily.  So I dispute the notion that the AWB had any practical limit on the number of shots fired.

Of course - no matter what law is proposed, there is going to be an argument just like this for why it won't matter. If a law is passed, it can have no effect other than to restrict law abiding citizens. Since it is "pretty easy" to get a hold of large capacity magazines, then we should not restrict the availability, sale, and manufacture of large capacity magazines. The logic is crystal clear, like some good meth. I hear that is pretty easy to get a hold of, so why try to regulate it, amiright?

We don't know of course, because we are also against actual studies on the effectiveness of such laws. And study done ought to be ignored.

And yet...the fatality rate of gunshot victims continues to rise even as medical technology and responsiveness increases. It is such a mystery! How can it be that gunshot victims are showing up with more and larger holes in them?

Hard to say why, of course, since you and your NRA friends support the refusal to fund any study or systemic collection of data.

[DGuller]

All these "determined people will get guns/clips/ammo" arguments miss the fact that getting and possessing illegal items increases the risk one is caught before committing a crime.  And smart criminals actually do try to avoid getting up for some secondary shit.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Since it is "pretty easy" to get a hold of large capacity magazines

Well, it was just a matter of going online to....pretty much anywhere....and buying the magazines you want (those would be labeled with a bold "Pre-ban!1!" or something similar).  It was "pretty easy" in the sense that it was exactly the same as buying anything else online.

[Berkut]

Since it is "pretty easy" to get a hold of large capacity magazines

Well, it was just a matter of going online to....pretty much anywhere....and buying the magazines you want.  It was "pretty easy" in the sense that it was exactly the same as buying anything else online.

Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

The expiration of the ban didn't change how you buy them.  It just changed the way they were labeled.  It was stupid.

E:  Or maybe not: https://www.massfirearmsshop.com/preban-usgi-ar15-round-magazine-p-3925.html  They still list them as pre-ban even.

[Barrister]

Well the answer would seem to be that if you ban high capacity magazines, then you ban them completely (presumably with some kind of buy-back program).

Yes, I know, not everyone is going to turn in their high capacity magazines.  But it prevents them from being openly sold, and you prohibit the manufacture of new ones.  Over time it should reduce their availability.

[Berkut]

Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

The expiration of the ban didn't change how you buy them.  It just changed the way they were labeled.

Is there a point in here somewhere?

Are you claiming that ER doctors are lying, and that gunshot victims are not showing up with more holes poked in them?

Or are you claiming that access to high capacity magazines never changed at all as a result of the ban on them or the removal of said ban, and some other factor is what is causing people to shoot people more times per incident than magazine sizes or weapon capabilities?

Do you have some evidence to back that up? Did average prices remain constant? Availability?

Of course, data would be hard to find, since the NRA blocks any and all attempts for the federal government to actually quantify anything.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I found it pretty chilling that a fellow on a FBI watchlist, a wifebeater with a nutjob father, could legally buy a fairly impressive weapon so easily 

Even Trump seems to agree http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36540388

[MadBurgerMaker]

Berk, there's a link right there for you.  Pre-ban 30 round mags still in stock.  That's what Spiess was talking about.  It made no difference.  Click and buy just like everything else.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Well the answer would seem to be that if you ban high capacity magazines, then you ban them completely (presumably with some kind of buy-back program).

Yes, I know, not everyone is going to turn in their high capacity magazines.  But it prevents them from being openly sold, and you prohibit the manufacture of new ones.  Over time it should reduce their availability.

Yes, that would be the way you'd have to do it.