With guns, a bullet is a bullet for the most part (if we are talking about human fired calibers), an the risk any given undirected bullet poses is effectively the same. Larger magazines don't increase accident risk, while being automatic or explosive does.
I.E. if you're a responsible gun owner, an assault rifle with with a 100 round magazine carries the same risk to your neighbor as an old revolver (if not less since most old revolvers have no safety). The risk to others only diverges when you assume ill-intent, but then risks get whacky for tons of legal objects (plastic bags, cars, planes, pens, household chemicals).
A related, follow up question is your thoughts on requirements to get said items. Should background checks be required? Training?
Sure, but a couple other confounding factors enter the picture. If you assume ill-intent, then you have to also assume subversion of the law, and you then have to consider what lines not only make sense from a risk perspective, but what line make sense in feasibility and outcome as well. This is where
> A related, follow up question is your thoughts on requirements to get said items. Should background checks be required? Training?
Comes in. For the situations where ill intent was involved, and the weapons being discuss did then pose a substantially greater risk to other people, would these things make a difference? I Think the answer is yes, but not significantly. Most of these mass shooters would have passed the kinds of background checks proposed, and training would not have lessened the number killed.
Personally I like red-flag laws (provided there is a framework for recourse when someone is falsely accused to prevent them from being abused) for reducing casualties from people with ill intent. It's better from a second amendment point of view since the government isn't the entity creating barriers, and it'd better from an enforcement point of view because requirements can be fuzzier. It's much easier to substantiate "this person represents a risk to others and the community they live in feels they should not have access to guns" than it is to convict someone of a crime that would disqualify them from gun ownership broadly. I think on paper it works out better as well, as with most of these shooters, people were definitely weary of them and had reason to believe they posed a risk, but they hadn't committed any crimes, so what were they supposed to do about it?
That, as well as the fact that in many of these cases, the guns came from friends and family, and weren't even owned by the shooter.
In a town, city or school or church the two guns would be completely different.
I can't explain the math in great detail here, but, if we assume something like an urban residential complex, the risk of two people standing along the same line from a misfire at 30 ft is already so small that the extra risk a bullet capable of 60ft, or 120ft of travel poses (I'm using small distances because I'm assuming walls/furniture in the way) is only a fractional increase.
If you look at people being hit by strays, it actually doesn't correlate at all with caliber/magazine/etc., since most incidents are 9mm handguns being fired in urban environments.
If you consider dense crowds instead, then the extra risk can be a multiplier (say 2-5 if you're going from 9mm to .50), but I am totally fine with any gun just not being allowed at events like that assuming police are on site.
As for needing more than 5 rounds for self defense, well, it's a bit tongue in cheek but I go along with this logic: https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/am4epf/en...
0: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-th...
1: https://www.hotcars.com/here-are-the-worlds-largest-private-...
I’d love to hear your answer if you have one to the question that was asked.
If you're scared of criminals having these, I have something unfortunate to tell you; the law is not stopping these people. It's the exact same thing with small arms controls in the US. The controls people suggest are going to stop fuck all. Every time somebody brings up universal background checks or assault weapons bans in a discussion, they end having to admit that those things wouldn't have stopped the shooting that triggered that discussion. They MIGHT allow you to prosecute somebody after the fact, for whatever that's worth.
Framers intended for individuals to be able to own weapons as powerful as what was available to the military at the time. I'd say framers wanted us to be able to legally buy tanks (with the gun still operational!).