Diana Degette explanation on why a ban for high capacity mags

[brianut]

Absurd to think a ban will stop someone intent on doing harm.

Maybe we need more signage that states no firearms are allowed, it was obvious he didn't see the sign, otherwise he would have gone somewhere else so he wouldn't be breaking the rules/law.

On a related note, when we write to these polititians and give them our opinions and stress that we will use our voting right to speak loudly, do they even see these? Do they even care?

as an example I work at a medical facility and you as a patient have the ability to "email your doctor" the docs typically never see that, it all gets filtered by a nurse or admin type person with nursing background.

I would have to assume nobody even see's them, they probably go straight to a trash file.

[flan7211]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

Understanding its still sarcasm.

Never! Its all or nothing from here for us. Gun owners have been violated enough. They won't trade favors. Give these mice a cookie and we'll wind up with nothing. These military guns do have a purpose to protect the people from these morons. One person is to blame James Holmes. Blame and punish him. I will not be giving up anything.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

Arm more citizen and allow them to be armed in public places - that will prevent massacre of unarmed citizen. All of massacre occurred in gun free zone.

And it's a magazine, dweeb!!!

[jake]

Arm more citizen and allow them to be armed in public places - that will prevent massacre of unarmed citizen. All of massacre occurred in gun free zone.

And it's a magazine, dweeb!!!

Hmm, I wonder if that was the joke!

[airborneranger]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

Sarcasm - I like it.

[kanekutter05]

I just sent this:

"Ms DeGette,
I'm not an owner of an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic military style weapon, but I used to be. I'm a military veteran and an active shooter, and tend to vote Democratic about 99% of the time. I, like other gun owners, are as equally horrified by the tragedy in Aurora as you are, but I'd like to address your recent statement with regards to high-capacity magazines. I didn't own one when I was an AR-15 owner, mainly due to cost: the magazine itself is expensive and it would encourage me to shoot more ammo at my paper targets, and ammo is expensive. However, I don't feel that banning a magazine based on size is going to get you to the goal you evidently seek, of making the public safer.
The military uses standard 30 round magazines in their selective fire weapons, and if the 100 round magazines were more "dangerous", don't you think they would use them? Sure, the government might not pay for them, but our individual soldiers has a strong sense of self-preservation and have shown that they don't mind spending their own money in that goal.
Secondly, many of the victims were killed or wounded by the shooter's other two weapons, neither of which held more than 17 rounds. Without knowing the full details of which weapons inflicted what damage, I think you're being a bit dishonest in pointing out the high-capacity magazine as the chief enabler. When more details are forthcoming, try to validate with an expert the difference in suffering we would have seen between the actual weapons and magazines used compared to the buckshot-laden shotgun, an AR with say 3 30 round magazines and the .40 cal Glock pistol. I'll bet that you'll find very little difference, and in fact a true expert will likely find that less suffering was inflicted by the shooter using the 100rd magazine than could have been, as it jammed during the shooting, as they are known for doing.
Lastly, your expert will likely tell you that most murders and assaults in this country are caused by criminals using illegal handguns, most of which hold between 6 and 17 cartridges. Why don't you focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals if maximizing public safety is your goal? Eliminating high capacity magazines has been shown in the past to have no discernible effect on crime, and since any law that might pass will in all probability have a grandfather clause, what really will you have accomplished?"

Can I email her and go "Yeah...what that guy said +1"?

[Whistler]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

No compromise. In every documented historical case so-called "common sense" restrictions to gun ownership ultimately result in gun confiscation and a virtually complete ban on firearms as well as elimination of self-defense as justification for firearm ownership resulting in substantial increases in violent crime.

"This is America, that can't happen here. All we are saying is let's use common sense to keep our children safe!"

Ask the Brits or the Australians or Mexico and numerous other countries how those "common sense" gun laws worked out for them.

[Ronin13]

We need to get this asshole out of office:

"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.

Never have I wanted to see someone out of a job so badly in my entire life, and I've had some pretty terrible fellow employees in the last 13 years of my life that I've been employed.

[10mm-man]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

UMMMM....NO!

[kanekutter05]

We need to get this asshole out of office:

Never have I wanted to see someone out of a job so badly in my entire life, and I've had some pretty terrible fellow employees in the last 13 years of my life that I've been employed.

Hahahahaha...I had no idea that Barack Hussein translated to "fuckface" in english