On 2012-12-22, at 12:24 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>> Lanza's mother, for example, might still have been able to obtain
>> the Buckmaster AR-15 in Canada after more intensive screening, but
>> her son would not have been able to fire hundreds of uninterrupted
>> rounds as in Newtown since the gun can only be sold here with a five
>> shot magazine which requires frequent reloading.
>
> Rubbish. You can, with very little practice, kill as many unarmed children as you want to, with any gun you want. There's nothing about the AR-15 that makes it any more likely that Adam Lanza would have accomplished his goal. The multiplier in his case was whether he went to a second classroom for more victims, not whether he didn't have to reload. He fired, if the reports can be believed, "hundreds of rounds" -- many into bodies that were long-since dead. I've said before that efficiency doesn't appear to have been on his mind thatmorning. If he would have gone to a third room -- which he apparently clearly could have -- the number would be different, but the tragedy would be the same: a troubled man went to a school and killed some children and adults.
Ok. Believe what you like. Next, you'll be telling us it wouldn't have mattered much if Lanza had used a knife like his counterpart in China the same day. Technology has nothing to do with killing efficiency, neither at home in the US or abroad as it is employed by the US armed forces.
Jared Lee Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds because he was armed with a high-capacity magazine. The shooting stopped only when he had to reload and was wrestled him to the ground. Testimony at his trial indicated that victims 11 through 31 might have been spared had his weapon been equipped with a standard magazine. Similarly, the gun dealer at the trial of Major Nidal Hasam, the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 and wounded 34, testified that Hasam had asked for high capacity clips because he "didn't like spending time reloading magazines". There was evidently a reason why high-capacity magazines were prohibited when the assault weapons ban was in place between 1994-2004, on the recommendation of those more expert than you or me.
Anyway, I'm done with this wearying dialogue of the deaf. Let others carry on if they wish. Meantime, here's a different slant on the issue by Yves Smith on her Naked Capitalism blog:
"Externalities and the Dubious Defences of Gun Enthusiasts"