I have not gotten to where I can do anything with the CNN site. I was going to try and link Hensons' talk at the CT hearing. This is what I've come up with for text though (comments or corrections?)
Firstly we all have to remember that the police and law enforcement are not obligated to defend you. That has been decided in court. You are on your own for your personal defense. No one has the right to prevent me from defending myself or my family. Remember when seconds count, 911 is only minutes away. In the not too distant past our local college campus was subject of a series of rapes. Being a university the campus is a gun free zone. As it is a gun free zone, the women are not allowed to defend themselves. Why?
If you take the time to look them up, detailed studies of these horrible crimes reveal that magazine capacity had no bearing on the damage done. A magazine change can be done in under 2 seconds. The VT shooter had a backpack full of magazines, he killed 32 and did 18 magazine changes. There were no armed personnel within Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza could have done exactly what he did with 5, 7 or 10 round magazines. I don’t think the total number of shots fired has been published, but in all total it might have added 10-30 seconds to his rampage. Preparation is more critical than capacity. Additionally, as magazines are nothing more than a box and a spring, anyone with marginal skills could just make their own. In fact, the new 3-d printers can, and have, ‘printed’ a magazine. All you need is a spring. Limiting magazine capacity only affects law-abiding citizens, it does not do much more than inconvenience criminals.
What is not shown by the press is the examples of how many lives are saved every day by armed citizens. If you want to study the issue - you have to look at the whole picture - you have to look at the benefits as well as the costs. Chicago, home of the toughest gun control in the country also has the highest rate of gun related crimes, why is that? For an interesting read on the subject:
www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
The prevention of an act of random madness is impossible by attempting to control the tools that one madman used. They will just find another way, for example Timothy McVeigh.
IMHO, the answer to a lot of firearm problems is education. Kids are taught about firearms by watching movies. This is wrong, Hollywood is now, and always has been, a poor teacher of just about anything. They are in it for the money and just do what sells.
Firearm education still won't stop madmen. That is a mental health issue. If we truly want to work on the prevention of another tragedy, we need to address the state of mental health care.
I don't personally own any of the AR style (or MSR rifles as they are called now.) I hunt, primarily birds, but big game as well. For me the AR style rifles are not what I choose to hunt with as they are expensive and fairly heavy, but that is my personal decision, others have the right to feel differently. If I felt the need however to arm and defend myself with an AR, I do not believe anyone has the right to tell me I can't.
In fact, that is what the courts have said the Second Amendment is for. The People have the right to defend themselves and that right shall not be infringed.
