On 2012-12-22, at 2:06 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Marv writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> So the answer to my question (would it matter if it were 10 instead of 20?) is: yes.
>
> Good luck focussing on this noble effort of attempting to turn a one-in-a-million mass shooting incident into only half of one.
Well, at its most basic, it matters to those who have been permanently disabled and the families of those who were killed.
But I'm genuinely curious as to why you are so seized by this issue, which by your own admission is a relatively lesser one, affecting far fewer individuals than the wider jobs, income, and housing crises and threatened attack on social programs. I can't recall such a steady stream of posts from you on any other subject.
What possible harm can result from renewed efforts to restrict the supply of high-powered assault weapons - the course and outcome of which, as in all attempts at reform, cannot, to repeat, be predicted in advance?
I'm with Wojtek here: I support the progressive and minority communities who are pushing gun control against the mainly white reactionaries who are most resistant to it, quite apart from whether their demands are realizable or practicable, which in my case I think they mostly are. And even if they prove not to be, I'm glad to see some mobilization around the issue. It's not the first time I'll have backed an effort to change things for the better which has come up short. Of course, the only problem you see here is the very attempt at reform, to restrict the market for these weapons, which is why we're at an impasse.