Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Catch .223: Newtown Parent Mark Mattioli Says Magazine Limits Won’t Work Without "Confiscation"
I thought there were some good points made here.
(snip)
Normally, this argument simply reeks of bad faith, but coming from someone like Mark Mattioli, its obvious that there are people who sincerely believe this fundamental misunderstanding of how laws work. There are no laws designed to eliminate all crime via voluntary surrender. We dont make laws against heroin because we think criminals will look up that law and surrender their drugs, we do it so that when the police do catch someone with heroin, they can take it away from them before it kills someone.
Similarly, if extended magazines are federally banned the way they now are in Connecticut, those already in circulation would need to be registered by the laws effective date. After that, with no new magazines being sold and manufactured, police could take them away from people who werent supposed to have them, eventually reducing the supply to those who had lawfully registered them.
We also make laws to adjust the behavior of law-abiding citizens. Regardless of the supply in circulation, theres every indication that Nancy Lanza was a law-abiding citizen, and would not have sought banned magazines for her weapons. As the Newtown parents in that 60 Minutes interview pointed out, smaller magazines could have provided more opportunities for children to escape, as 11 of them did on December 14 when the shooter was reloading.
Megyn Kelly asked Mattioli about that possibility. All right, so, again, Mattioli replied, false premise in that theyre not talking about confiscating the magazines, theyre out there. If we were starting out at point a and there were no magazines, but were not talking about that. There are millions, tens of millions out there, and criminals arent going to hand them back.
This is the circular nature of the NRAs argument in a nutshell, the Catch .223; they have constructed a political environment in which they lobby against any and all regulation, then when a compromise is offered, they argue that the proposed law isnt strict enough to do any good. Its true, a ban on high-capacity magazines would work best if all non-registered magazines were confiscated immediately, but even without that, as I explained earlier, police would be able to take them away from people as they encountered them, hopefully before theyre used to kill people.
Read More: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/catch-223-newtown-parent-mark-mattioli-says-magazine-limits-wont-work-without-confiscation/
Normally, this argument simply reeks of bad faith, but coming from someone like Mark Mattioli, its obvious that there are people who sincerely believe this fundamental misunderstanding of how laws work. There are no laws designed to eliminate all crime via voluntary surrender. We dont make laws against heroin because we think criminals will look up that law and surrender their drugs, we do it so that when the police do catch someone with heroin, they can take it away from them before it kills someone.
Similarly, if extended magazines are federally banned the way they now are in Connecticut, those already in circulation would need to be registered by the laws effective date. After that, with no new magazines being sold and manufactured, police could take them away from people who werent supposed to have them, eventually reducing the supply to those who had lawfully registered them.
We also make laws to adjust the behavior of law-abiding citizens. Regardless of the supply in circulation, theres every indication that Nancy Lanza was a law-abiding citizen, and would not have sought banned magazines for her weapons. As the Newtown parents in that 60 Minutes interview pointed out, smaller magazines could have provided more opportunities for children to escape, as 11 of them did on December 14 when the shooter was reloading.
Megyn Kelly asked Mattioli about that possibility. All right, so, again, Mattioli replied, false premise in that theyre not talking about confiscating the magazines, theyre out there. If we were starting out at point a and there were no magazines, but were not talking about that. There are millions, tens of millions out there, and criminals arent going to hand them back.
This is the circular nature of the NRAs argument in a nutshell, the Catch .223; they have constructed a political environment in which they lobby against any and all regulation, then when a compromise is offered, they argue that the proposed law isnt strict enough to do any good. Its true, a ban on high-capacity magazines would work best if all non-registered magazines were confiscated immediately, but even without that, as I explained earlier, police would be able to take them away from people as they encountered them, hopefully before theyre used to kill people.
Read More: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/catch-223-newtown-parent-mark-mattioli-says-magazine-limits-wont-work-without-confiscation/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2492 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Catch .223: Newtown Parent Mark Mattioli Says Magazine Limits Won’t Work Without "Confiscation" (Original Post)
Robb
Apr 2013
OP
Loudly
(2,436 posts)1. Gun registry and regular inspections and periodic background checks might be an alternative.
Why leap all the way to confiscation?
But I can't call upon someone suffering such profound grief to make an incremental argument.
I don't blame him a bit. I only wish it were that easy.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)2. Canada did it without confiscation.
They required modification of existing hcm.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)3. why is bank robbery illegal?
i mean, they'll just rob banks anyway.
why have a law?