Maddow on Guns

Here is a link to a recent Rachel Maddow clip where she "Tears into Ted Cruz" (sorry Jason) and talks about clips.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rachel-maddow-ted-cruz-gun-control_n_2883141.html

So I agree with her take on Ted Cruz. He must think pretty highly of himself to lecture our fine senator like she is a third grader. Of course he was playing to the hometown audience so you can hardly blame him for being insincere.

I would agree with her that there are limits on the second amendment already, and the first and probably others as well. And it is right and reasonable that the rights guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights are not unlimited. If they were we would not need either and there would be anarchy.

I won't get into why ordinary citizens shouldn't own RPGs or Nuclear Subs.

But saying that the 2nd amendment can be limited does not necessarily mean that we should ban assault rifles and high capacity clips.

As Sam Harris says in The Riddle of the Gun, (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun) "According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. Again, only 3 percent are committed with rifles (of any type)."

So at best banning assault rifles would only prevent 3% of murders in the U.S.. But that is really an overstatement. Unless you collect every assault weapon from every citizen, and figure out a way to stop soldiers from taking them home after work, and seal the borders up tight there will still be assault weapons available for murderers.

So this another fallacy Maddow falls into. She claims that if the assault weapon ban had still been in effect the Newtown shooter's mother could not have purchased those rifles and high capacity clips. That is assuming a lot. I don't know if she purchased her weapons before the ban went into effect or after it expired, but if were going to play "what if" which is what Maddow is doing by saying what if the ban was still in effect, then I say what if she purchased the guns before 1994? It is just as valid. 

Again according to Harris who is quoting FBI figures, you could stop 13% of all murders by banning knives. That's over 4 times as many as a theoretical perfect assault weapon ban.

Then next "fact" that Maddow makes a big deal about is that if high capacity clips were banned he would have only had to reload 14 times instead of 4. She seems to think there is no way he could have done that and still fired 152 shots in 5 minutes. Well I think she may be mistaken again. Someone completely untrained could easily reload in 4 seconds. A nerd who practices in his basement for hours at a stretch could probably do it in less than half a second. Again, "what if" his gun jammed? Well he had another. What if he dropped a clip, well if he was limited to 10 round clips he probably would have had 20 more. He would have to carry 14 clips, well most of the weight is the bullets themselves so it wouldn't be a major hardship.

So why are Maddow and so many others so passionate about this issue? In Maddow's case she has to sell Cialis or whatever they advertise on her show. Feinstein thinks it will get her reelected. Do either of them really care? It's an emotional issue that is easy to get behind when you know kids are being killed.

If your goal is to save lives though why not do things that are actually effective. More people still die on the freeways than are killed by guns. What are the reasons people murder?

As I said in a previous post.

Murder=Life in Prison 
2 strikes max for gun crimes including straw buyers
While were at it Rape=Life
Universal Background Checks for criminals and mental health
More mental health care
Your thoughts here...
So I say let's get the data, let's study this. I think the NRA was silly to stop the NIH from researching gun deaths. I think there might be useful data out there that would save lives and keep guns in the hands of responsible citizens.