Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3

I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military
assault weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic
market.

There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market
now. Military weapons are automatic weapons. The so-called
"assault weapons" available on the market are semi- automatic
-- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters,
and, apparently, on you also.


Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic
market, and it is perfectly legal to own them.

Point taken. I should have said "There are hardly any ... on the
domestic market now".

You have to pay a $200 federal
licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted
to own, say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto
M16a, you certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask,
since such automatic weapons are actually legal and available
for private ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes?
My guess is just about never. In other words, despite their
legality there is no evidence to support an argument that
banning them would make society safer.

And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If
large capacity magazines are banned, the bad guys will use more
small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more ammunition, two
30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any
idea how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and
insert another? What will banning 30- round magazines do,
except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
Be specific.

Exactly. And if all removable magazines were banned, the bad
guys could carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders
were banned, they could carry 4 loaded revolvers.