Thanks for your post but it does raise one obvious question.
If Ms. Lanza was unable to legally buy the military style AR15 semi-automatic rifle with large capacity clips, would the Newtown tragedy have occurred?
Hi Gordon-
I would say that, yes, the tragedy would still have occured. He also had with him his mother's Glock 10 mm and a Sig 9 mm handguns. Either of these two guns will fire just as fast as the AR15. The only advantage the rifle would have had, in close range shooting as it were, would have been a magazine holding more rounds. But we are talking a matter of 4-5 seconds for even a novice to change out an empty magazine and pop in another preloaded magazine. When you have children sitting at their desks or huddled in a corner, those couple of seconds wouldn't have mattered much. Also, I have read where he only used about half the rounds in his 30 round magazines before changing them out. My guess is that he took advantage of any lulls in his shooting, such as when walking from one room to another, to change out his magazines so he wouldn't be interrupted when actually firing. So while there is an advantage to having a 30 round magazine vs a 10 or 12 round magazine found in handguns, the advantage in this case, and in most of these mass shootings, wouldn't have been significant at all.
I don't like the argument of what a person 'needs' as being a measure of wether or not something should be lawful. I have a Ruger P95 9mm handgun that I purchased just for target shooting, and I guess it can double as home defense, although in most situations I would probably grab my shotgun instead. I know that there are plenty of people who don't think that I 'need' a 9mm semiautomatic pistol with a 12 round magazine, and would want to have it banned. And they would be correct..... I don't need it, I merely want it. People don't need cars that go 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, they want them. People don't need 8000 sq ft homes, with all the greater energy they consume, they just want them. The greater majority of the so called 'assault rifles' with the larger magazines will never be used by the owners to shoot a person, and in most situations when they are used in that manner, another gun would have worked just as well.
If a ban on the larger magazines will save lives, which I doubt, then I'm all for it just for the sake of the lives saved, not just that people don't 'need' them. But I really hope something more comprehensive is done that will actually be proven to make a difference, which would probably mean stricter criminal laws, easier forced treatment of the mentally ill, and better background checks. I don't think executive action by the president would be either wise or constitutional, expect to perhaps strengthen enforcement of already existing laws. Should he create new laws in this manner, it would really throw off the balance of the three government branches, as intended by our founders.
