Tuscon incident and gun control discussion

[Thanas]

Today, the typical German family does not have guns. How was this accomplished? The Nazis feared an armed uprising and limited gun ownership. The basic core of this law is still used today and is one example of how enforcement and fines can reduce gun ownership rates.

No offense, Thanas, but while I can applaud the successful disarming of the German population and its resulting much lower rates of gun crime and accidents, I'm hoping we won't require the equivalent of Nazis and/or WWII to achieve similar goals in the US.

What now? They used the legal system to enforce this goal, no thuggery involved.

The rest of your post is pretty much "American attitudes and society are so starkly different from anywhere else and any other situation in history that any attempt at reform will fail". Which is an argument that is just hilarious. You think Prussia of all states was less militant than the USA? This was a populace that elected the freaking Nazis not once, but three times. You think France, which was the first country to have the concept of an armed citizen and a country that was entirely founded on private citizens and not the state alone bearing arms was any less found of its guns? Where do you think the word National Guard comes from? Heck, one of the most notable events of their history involves armed citizens massacring the soldiers of the King.

If there is a problem of enforcement than your bureaucracy and police force is hilariously incompetent. If there is a problem of attitude, that can be fixed if enough effort is applied to it. But currently there is no effort of any worth at all. At best you get a few token laws or a few token speeches and that is it.

Fact of the matter is that the US lacks political will and moral fiber to do anything about it.

Guess what other principle was at times heavily entrenched, had powerful lobbies and massive popular support? And guess what changed that political situation?

[Broomstick]

Yes, at which point sheer stupidity founding father worship comes into play.

Agreed.

Although the really stupid thing is “founding father worship” is like bigots selectively quoting Bible passages, they only mentioned what conveniently backs up their own notions of how things should be and just skip over anything contradictory.

The founding fathers very clearly intended the amendment process to be used to alter the governmental framework in order to deal with things they did not anticipate and keep up with changing circumstances. The constitution was not intended to be an inviolate and holy thing such as some people regard it today.

Though one could theoretically argue that militia does not mean "private guns".

That very argument has been attempted for well over a century now...

Though honestly, it should happen. That law serves no purpose nowadays and it is not as if changing or removing an amendment is a totally unheard of thing. (Prohibition repeal, anybody?)

Prohibition is the ONLY one every repealed, and no part of the original Bill of Rights (where the gun thing is the second amendment) has ever been seriously suggested as repeal. I won't say it's impossible, but it's about as likely as repealing free speech or freedom of religion.

Sure, which is why you have to either take the plunge and hope the Supreme Court follows your arguments or take other measures.

The Supreme Court only just last year handed down a decision that said the second amendment allowed private citizens to own guns, that could not be taken away by state or local laws, and overturned a bunch of the stricter gun control laws across the nation. Unless the constitution is changed the Supreme Court is just not going to be of help in this matter. It's not even the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter. Their verdict is clear: the second amendment allows gun ownership by private citizens. Such ownership can be subjected to regulation but, outside of barring ownership by convicted felons or incompetent persons laws preventing citizens from owning firearms are unconstitutional, that is, in conflict with the basic framework of the nation's government that applies at all levels.

Tax them into oblivion or make the licensing process much harder.

Realistically, these are the potential options.

Taxing, however, bumps into the “no new taxes” hysteria, and runs afoul of the current class warfare (one side going “you're taking self defense away form the poor!” and another going “Yes! Good! Poor people don't deserve guns!”)

Making licensing harder is, as I see, the only practical approach. However, reasonable measures such as mandatory training or classroom time starts to run afoul of the American anti-education sentiments.

I find it funny that you can get a gun much easier in the USA than you can get a Driver's license in Germany.

It's actually quite sad. We need to upgrade our licensing requirements for both guns and drivers if you ask me (which no one ever does).

[Alyeska]

So a relatively small amount of fatalities aren't worth the inconvenience of restricting extended magazines? I know you're not actually saying that, but look at your own statement. Yes, it will be small. But I consider removing extended magazines worth some lives. I'm certain you can, when you are looking at it directly, see that I'm not that crazy here.

Its a ballance between rights and safety. Always has been. Restricting the rights of millions to save a few lives? Is it worth it? My honest answer to this particular case is, no, its not worth it. You could attain more through other courses of action.

And yes, the mental health system in Arizona failed. The background check system failed. These must be actually used properly. But still, is 'it's a relatively small' number of people really amount to a rebuttal to the idea of restricting magazine size? I'm sorry to belabor it, but it smacks very.. Distorted.

Yes, its a perfectly acceptable rebuttal. We knowlingly live in a society that ballances rights and safety. We have cars, and we have alcohol. We have guns, and we have restrictions on gun ownership.

Your argument can be taken the next step. "Think of the children". We must ban pornography. We have to restrict the Internet. Surely the restrictions are worthy saving a few.

If it we are truly about saving lives by an absolute, we should ban guns all together. Anything less is pointless.

[gizmojumpjet]

A tax specifically on guns would very likely be ruled unconstitutional, in much the same way that poll taxes were. You can't use taxes to prevent people from exercising rights you don't think they should have.

[General Zod]

A tax specifically on guns would very likely be ruled unconstitutional, in much the same way that poll taxes were. You can't use taxes to prevent people from exercising rights you don't think they should have.

They've tried introducing taxes on handguns before, back in 2000, but it died a quiet death in Senate without getting to so much as a subcommittee vote.

[Alyeska]

Courts have also ruled that prohibitive taxes are de-facto bans and are unconstitutional.

[Broomstick]

Today, the typical German family does not have guns. How was this accomplished? The Nazis feared an armed uprising and limited gun ownership. The basic core of this law is still used today and is one example of how enforcement and fines can reduce gun ownership rates.

No offense, Thanas, but while I can applaud the successful disarming of the German population and its resulting much lower rates of gun crime and accidents, I'm hoping we won't require the equivalent of Nazis and/or WWII to achieve similar goals in the US.

What now? They used the legal system to enforce this goal, no thuggery involved.

I'll take your word on that, as I've already disavowed knowledge of the specifics, but saying “the Nazis managed to do it” isn't necessarily the strongest selling point whether they did it nicely or via “thuggery”. Frankly, I doubt very much hunting rifles or sidearms would have prevented a Nazi rise to power, or allowed a successful uprising against them, as the disparity of capability between a WWII era army and gun-owning civilians was already too great. Which is yet another reason I roll my eyes when the locals here trot that out as a support for letting people build their own arsenals - it's nonsensical when you look at the facts.

Which applies even more so today – militia groups who think their current stashes would have any significant impact against a genuinely oppressive US government are laughable. If the Federals decided to launch the US military against them they're fucked, plain and simple. So the notion that a “well armed militia” would be able to overthrow an oppresive or corrupt government has been roundly defeated by advancing technology.

The rest of your post is pretty much "American attitudes and society are so starkly different from anywhere else and any other situation in history that any attempt at reform will fail". Which is an argument that is just hilarious.

I think I rather plainly stated that I had no knowledge of how many of those factors were in existence elsewhere. I was speaking ONLY of the US, and I was NOT comparing it to elsewhere. Maybe, instead of another “hrurr, hurr, Americans sure are fucked up” post you might counter those points with how such factors were dealt with in other locations.

You think Prussia of all states was less militant than the USA?

Frankly, I have no real knowledge of Prussia other than as one of the Germanic states that later coalesced into Germany as whole. I wouldn't presume to know the culture and laws or detailed history of Prussia. There is a meme in the US that all the various stripes of German are more militant than the US, or prone to it but frankly I don't believe in that sort of ethnic determinism.

I'm not sure why you think I should be as conversant with German history as you yourself are. It might be wonderful if I was, but I can't possibly know everything about everything. I thought I made it plain in my prior post that I didn't know much German history.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how the Prussians electing Nazis to power is relevant to their willingness to give up their guns. Did they do that because there were in favor of and trusted the Nazis, or because they were big on maintaining public order and thought gun control would further that end without it being relevant to their favoring of the Nazis, or something else?

If there is a problem of enforcement than your bureaucracy and police force is hilariously incompetent.

I'll have to agree with that, especially after living in/near Chicago most of my life. The existence of an inept police force, however, is another reason Americans want to keep their guns. There are inner cities where you can't trust the police to show up in less than 15-20 minutes on a good night to stop that person breaking into your house while you sit watching TV, so of course people want a means to defend themselves and their families independent of that “hilariously incompetent” police force. This is definitely a concern of those inside of large cities who are in favor of lax gun laws. The attitude is much rarer in municipalities with a competent police force. If Germany does not suffer from such islands of festering decay that's wonderful for Germany but it doesn't solve the problem in the US where we do have such problems.

Really, at that point the argument becomes one for rooting out corruption and incompetence in the police, and funding truly effective law enforcement. While it won't convert the zealots it would remove one of the concerns that keeps otherwise pro-control people in the "I need a gun for myself camp". Remove one of the social factors - incompetent police - that feed the perceived need for guns and you reduce the need. With reduced need the argument for rational gun control becomes more powerful.

Cure some of the social problems in this nation and imposing reasonable regulations becomes easier. But I realize that's not quite as simple as yelling "ban the guns!"

If there is a problem of attitude, that can be fixed if enough effort is applied to it.

Would you be so generous as to propose possible ways to fix such attitudes?

Guess what other principle was at times heavily entrenched, had powerful lobbies and massive popular support? And guess what changed that political situation?

If you're referring to slave ownership it required a 4 year war that, arguably, resulted in more dead Americans than the death toll from all other conflicts the US has participated in combined. It also resulted in such charming devices being either invented or refined as the concentration camp and the land mine. Pardon me if I find such extreme measures unpalatable.

I agree that the current US death toll from guns is unacceptable, however, forcible removal of guns from the populace will, under present circumstances, result in armed resistance. This will result in an even greater death toll. I'd really rather look at other ways to deal with the problem. No doubt that is because I am much more likely to be caught in the crossfire than you are, Thanas.

[MKSheppard]

Ban the extended clip he used?

Great job; you've made the gun smaller and more concealable. In fact that's exactly what the Clinton AWB on magazines over x rounds did -- opened up a whole new avenue for gunmakers to make -- supercompact pistols.

Also, back under Clinton, there was no real ban on magazines over x rounds -- you could still buy and sell them. You just couldn't get them from the factory new.

In any case it doesn't really matter.

Back when the 20th Century was new or was just around the corner; there was a courthouse shooting in the Mid-Atlantic region.

The shooter had a single .45 Long Colt Peacemaker SAA and once he had fired it empty, he dropped it and did a New York Reload, grabbing .45 Long Colt derringers from a sack he was carrying.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ban the extended clip he used?

Great job; you've made the gun smaller and more concealable. In fact that's exactly what the Clinton AWB on magazines over x rounds did -- opened up a whole new avenue for gunmakers to make -- supercompact pistols.

Uh dude, with or without banning 100000 round magazines people can always get concealable guns. I can get a TINY .38 special for concealability's sake to sneak around with or without a giant magazine ban. Over here, there's no law banning me from possessing a 50 round magazine for my Sig MP-310 submachine gun, or a similarly-sized magazine for our Galil. But I still have a Walther PPK under my drawer, and a .38 Special on the bedside table, and an even smaller five round .38 in my dresser under the socks.

The banning or non-banning of extended clips won't have any bearing on the proliferation of concealable pistols.

EDIT:

If you ban people from owning hueg mags that carry many bullets, it doesn't automatically follow that they will shift to TINY mags that have little bullets, particularly when they wanted MOAR bullets in their magazines in the first place!

[Alyeska]

Uh dude, with or without banning 100000 round magazines people can always get concealable guns. I can get a TINY .38 special for concealability's sake to sneak around with or without a giant magazine ban. Over here, there's no law banning me from possessing a 50 round magazine for my Sig MP-310 submachine gun, or a similarly-sized magazine for our Galil. But I still have a Walther PPK under my drawer, and a .38 Special on the bedside table, and an even smaller five round .38 in my dresser under the socks.

The banning or non-banning of extended clips won't have any bearing on the proliferation of concealable pistols.

EDIT:

If you ban people from owning hueg mags that carry many bullets, it doesn't automatically follow that they will shift to TINY mags that have little bullets, particularly when they wanted MOAR bullets in their magazines in the first place!

Actually, thats exactly what happened after the Assault Weapon Ban took effect. Gun manufactuers had little incentive to work on larger pistols because they were restricted in magazine capacity to the general market. Law Enforcement and Military noted that the relative selection of pistols was pretty bad in the late 90s because the civilian market wasn't driving the designs forward.

On the flip side a new market was created. The smallest possible pistol that can hold maximum capacity of 10 rounds. Before the AWB, sub-compact pistols were not very popular. There were some on the market, but they were single stack magazines. Thanks to the AWB, pistol manufacturers had a new market. Glock was one of the first with the Glock-26. One of the smallest 9mm pistols in existence with a double stack 10 round magazine. Absurdly small pistol for its time while retaining large capacity for its size.

[MKSheppard]

On the flip side a new market was created. The smallest possible pistol that can hold maximum capacity of 10 rounds. Before the AWB, sub-compact pistols were not very popular. There were some on the market, but they were single stack magazines.

A simple comparison between Shroom's PPK and a G26:

Walther PPK? 600-700 gram pistol about 170mm long, 110~ mm high and 25mm wide with 8+1 rounds in .32 ACP with 120~ J of energy per round at the muzzle.

Glock 26? 560 gram pistol about 160mm long, 106mm high and 30mm wide with 10+1 rounds of 9mm Parabellum with 640~ J of energy per round at the muzzle.

[Mr. Coffee]

Ok, tossing my two cents into the ring...

What the hell would legislation on magazine capacity accomplish? Even a half assed shooter can perform a magazine change in less than 4 seconds. It's not going to prevent any crimes and it won't stop a determined shooter from killing people. All you've done is restrict my rights for no goddamned reason at all. It's just another dumbass "Look, we're doing something" knee-jerk reaction, same as happens pretty much any time there's a high profile shooting in the US.


P.S. Just to be a dick I ordered four KCI 27rnd magazines for my Glock 21.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ban the extended clip he used?

Great job; you've made the gun smaller and more concealable. In fact that's exactly what the Clinton AWB on magazines over x rounds did -- opened up a whole new avenue for gunmakers to make -- supercompact pistols.

Ahahaha . . . not quite.

Super-compact pistols have existed almost since there was such a thing as a handgun, as there has always been a desire among people to have a deep-concealment weapon. The first Smith and Wesson cartridge arms were compact revolvers chambered in .22 Short. Abe Lincoln was killed with a single-shot derringer. Tech-savvy outlaws in the old West could carry the Colt 1877 "Lightning" double-action revolver in .38 Long Colt, which is about the size and weight of the modern snub-nosed Ruger SP101. William McKinley was assassinated using a compact Iver Johnson .32 caliber revolver. The Colt 1908 semi-automatic in .32 ACP is much more compact than the M1911A1, and Browning sold a huge number of the "Baby" semi-automatic in .25 ACP. In the 1980s, Louis Seecamp came out with the LWS .25, and the LWS .32 semi-autos.

[Edi]

This thread is being watched. If it devolves to the same kind of rehashing of the same shit as previous gun control threads have done, I will shut it down without ceremony. It's not there yet, mainly due to the informative posts by Broomstick and Thanas. Similar compliments cannot be applied to some other people in this thread.

[Mr. Coffee]

On the flip side a new market was created. The smallest possible pistol that can hold maximum capacity of 10 rounds. Before the AWB, sub-compact pistols were not very popular. There were some on the market, but they were single stack magazines.

A simple comparison between Shroom's PPK and a G26:

Walther PPK? 600-700 gram pistol about 170mm long, 110~ mm high and 25mm wide with 8+1 rounds in .32 ACP with 120~ J of energy per round at the muzzle.

Glock 26? 560 gram pistol about 160mm long, 106mm high and 30mm wide with 10+1 rounds of 9mm Parabellum with 640~ J of energy per round at the muzzle.

Or how about a Para-Ord P10 .45ACP? 680 gram pistol about 165mm long, 114mm high and 35mm wide with 10+1 rounds of .45ACP with 704 J of energy.

[MKSheppard]

Today, the typical German family does not have guns. How was this accomplished? The Nazis feared an armed uprising and limited gun ownership.

Thank you for stating that even a fascist dictatorship with near total control still fears weapons in the hands of random rabble.

Out of curiosity, what excuse did they use to ban them? Fear of a Communist/Spartakist uprising?

[Samuel]

Today, the typical German family does not have guns. How was this accomplished? The Nazis feared an armed uprising and limited gun ownership.

Thank you for stating that even a fascist dictatorship with near total control still fears weapons in the hands of random rabble.

Out of curiosity, what excuse did they use to ban them? Fear of a Communist/Spartakist uprising?

There was a 1928 gun law in Germany to try to control the reds and browns. The 1938 law was to disarm unreliable individuals.

Of course totalitarian states and dictatorships have managed fine without gun control- Iraq and the Soviet Union spring to mind. Didn't Stas say much of the population had war rifles and the government didn't bother collecting them all?

[SirNitram]

So a relatively small amount of fatalities aren't worth the inconvenience of restricting extended magazines? I know you're not actually saying that, but look at your own statement. Yes, it will be small. But I consider removing extended magazines worth some lives. I'm certain you can, when you are looking at it directly, see that I'm not that crazy here.

Its a ballance between rights and safety. Always has been. Restricting the rights of millions to save a few lives? Is it worth it? My honest answer to this particular case is, no, its not worth it. You could attain more through other courses of action.

Pardon me. I didn't realize the 2nd Amendment included a clause saying 'And whatever the hell modifications someone might make'. Oh wait, it doesn't. There's no 'right' to an expanded clip.

[Thanas]

Today, the typical German family does not have guns. How was this accomplished? The Nazis feared an armed uprising and limited gun ownership.

Thank you for stating that even a fascist dictatorship with near total control still fears weapons in the hands of random rabble.

They just felt it would make it easier to arrest people, but it is not as if they feared some giant uprising. Oh, and near total control was far from being certain. BTW, it can easily be argued that the weapons ban of 1928 saved Democracy for a while as it helped prevent the Reds to try and do something. So don't try to turn this into firearms deter dictators. You know how many political assassinations we had since WWII? None. USA? I am sure you know the answer to that one.

Frankly, I have no real knowledge of Prussia other than as one of the Germanic states that later coalesced into Germany as whole. I wouldn't presume to know the culture and laws or detailed history of Prussia. There is a meme in the US that all the various stripes of German are more militant than the US, or prone to it but frankly I don't believe in that sort of ethnic determinism.

I'm not sure why you think I should be as conversant with German history as you yourself are. It might be wonderful if I was, but I can't possibly know everything about everything. I thought I made it plain in my prior post that I didn't know much German history.

It was more to bring up a counter to your argument that the USA is so very special in having a militant populace, being a right-wing country and having large groups of people owning guns privately, with the civilian market being important as well.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how the Prussians electing Nazis to power is relevant to their willingness to give up their guns. Did they do that because there were in favor of and trusted the Nazis, or because they were big on maintaining public order and thought gun control would further that end without it being relevant to their favoring of the Nazis, or something else?

Militarism and revanchism played a large part in electing the Nazis.

Really, at that point the argument becomes one for rooting out corruption and incompetence in the police, and funding truly effective law enforcement.

Sure.

Would you be so generous as to propose possible ways to fix such attitudes?

Have public leaders continue to speak out against gun possession, fund massive ad campaigns against gun ownership, tax guns heavily, restrict ammunition production, tax ammunition, enforce (stricter) license laws, enforce standards in video games, TV and movies (the idea that killing people left and right is great but a naked breast is automatically an R rating is one of the most stupidly offensive rules ever). Teach kids properly. Have gun owners pay an annual gun tax. Destroy all illegal weapons confiscated. Force every gun owner to attend regularly mandatory safety courses. Try and reduce the image of owning a gun = tough, cool.

But if the President won't even make a speech about gun control without first pussyfooting around the problem by offering plenty of caveats about how he respects people's right to own a deadly weapon for no other reason than personal pleasure...then that is a problem right here. I am not talking about reenactors or people who collect historical muskets, no I am talking about handguns, assault rifles and machineguns. Yes, private citizens own machineguns. Legally.

If you're referring to slave ownership it required a 4 year war that, arguably, resulted in more dead Americans than the death toll from all other conflicts the US has participated in combined. It also resulted in such charming devices being either invented or refined as the concentration camp and the land mine. Pardon me if I find such extreme measures unpalatable.

I was refering more to the changes of attitude that went on in the North, however I should have expected you to immediately latch on to war. I am not going to argue for a war to be started to reclaim firearms, no I am arguing that through decades of debate, opinion in the North slowly changed from pro-slavery to anti-slavery. But today, no anti-gun politician will ever get airtime, unlike in the days of old when abolitionist were highly visible and even respectable presidential contenders.

I agree that the current US death toll from guns is unacceptable, however, forcible removal of guns from the populace will, under present circumstances, result in armed resistance. This will result in an even greater death toll. I'd really rather look at other ways to deal with the problem.

Eventually, if society manages to turn around, it is going to come down to a situation like in Germany - a few people paying high fees, undergoing strict backup checks and having to jump through a lot of legal hoops to own a weapon. At that point, let the people who have shown that they are capable own guns.

Children's education is the key here. If you teach children that guns are bad, then you get a good result in the end.

No doubt that is because I am much more likely to be caught in the crossfire than you are, Thanas.

Oh please. When has the US populace ever responded to the Government oppressing them with violence in the last few generations?

[Mr. Coffee]

So a relatively small amount of fatalities aren't worth the inconvenience of restricting extended magazines? I know you're not actually saying that, but look at your own statement. Yes, it will be small. But I consider removing extended magazines worth some lives. I'm certain you can, when you are looking at it directly, see that I'm not that crazy here.

Its a ballance between rights and safety. Always has been. Restricting the rights of millions to save a few lives? Is it worth it? My honest answer to this particular case is, no, its not worth it. You could attain more through other courses of action.

Pardon me. I didn't realize the 2nd Amendment included a clause saying 'And whatever the hell modifications someone might make'. Oh wait, it doesn't. There's no 'right' to an expanded clip.

The pistol the used in the Tucson shootings, the Glock 19, comes with a 15 round magazine as standard. So banning the 33rnd magazine would have just meant the kid would have to pause about 1.5 to 4 seconds to reload (depending on how compitent a shooter he was). So what exactly would banning that hi-cap magazine accomplish? Not a damned thing is the correct answer (Ignore the right-wing rhetorical jackassery and pay attention to the shooting).

[[R_H]]

A thirty-round pistol magazine confers no competitive advantage in shooting sports (no, drunkenly shooting watermelons out in the back-country doesn't count as a shooting sport) . . . if anything, that big hunk of plastic hampers your mobility.

IPSC (open division more than the others, which only require that the pistol has to fit in a 225mm x 150mm x 45mm box), USPSA Open Division (limits mag length to 170mm), Bianchi Cup (4 stage à 48 rounds each).

[eion]

The pistol the used in the Tucson shootings, the Glock 19, comes with a 15 round magazine as standard. So banning the 33rnd magazine would have just meant the kid would have to pause about 1.5 to 4 seconds to reload (depending on how compitent a shooter he was). So what exactly would banning that hi-cap magazine accomplish? Not a damned thing is the correct answer (Ignore the right-wing rhetorical jackassery and pay attention to the shooting).

He was tackled while reloading, is it not fair to assume that had he been limited to a 15 round magazine he would still have been tackled while reloading, leading to a potential halving of the casualties?

[Mr. Coffee]

The pistol the used in the Tucson shootings, the Glock 19, comes with a 15 round magazine as standard. So banning the 33rnd magazine would have just meant the kid would have to pause about 1.5 to 4 seconds to reload (depending on how compitent a shooter he was). So what exactly would banning that hi-cap magazine accomplish? Not a damned thing is the correct answer (Ignore the right-wing rhetorical jackassery and pay attention to the shooting).

He was tackled while reloading, is it not fair to assume that had he been limited to a 15 round magazine he would still have been tackled while reloading, leading to a potential halving of the casualties?

Actually, limiting him to a lighter, smaller capacity magazine would have made it easier for him to reload (i.e. faster), so the potential tacklers could have ended up as victims themselves. Even then, what the hell would this actually accomplish other than restricting law abiding citizens? Magazine capacity isn't going to stop someone who's determined to kill people from killing people, and incidents where extended capacity magazines played a role in a shooting are so few and far between that it's really just pointless fucking knee-jerking to make laws restricting magazine capacity.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The pistol the used in the Tucson shootings, the Glock 19, comes with a 15 round magazine as standard. So banning the 33rnd magazine would have just meant the kid would have to pause about 1.5 to 4 seconds to reload (depending on how compitent a shooter he was). So what exactly would banning that hi-cap magazine accomplish? Not a damned thing is the correct answer (Ignore the right-wing rhetorical jackassery and pay attention to the shooting).

He was tackled while reloading, is it not fair to assume that had he been limited to a 15 round magazine he would still have been tackled while reloading, leading to a potential halving of the casualties?

That's an almost impossible to consider factor. How many people will bumrush an armed man in broad daylight with no cover? What if he'd been smart enough to fire five times, pause like he was reloading (lots of guns have smaller magazines), then the brave people get up and he guns them down again and then reloads? Only really poor shots are close enough to their victims to make rushing them viable anyway, can you count on that? What if smaller magazines had just motivated him to buy more guns and do a New York reload like Shep's example? What if he had just taped two magazines together to quick reload? While it notionally would help in some very limited situations, it wold not remotely prevent any deaths in the vast majority of even the very limited number of mass killings in the US, and tends to lead to the manufacture of more compact weapons.

[Mr. Coffee]

Just to further point out how hilariously retarded the whole "reduce magazine capacities" argument is...

Anyone remember the Virginia Tech shootings back in 2007? One of the weapons used by Seung-Hui Cho was a Glock 19, the exact same gun the Tucson shooter used, only Cho was using the stand factory 15 round magazines and despite supposedly being handicapped by a smaller magazine capacity he managed to kill 33 people to the Tucson shooter's 6.