Rothman on Fox News tonight

[Rem700]

Did any of the other mass shootings since the sunset envolve high cap mags?

Ft Hood. The FN five-seven holds 20 rounds.

Of course that's the STANDARD capacity magazine for that pistol.

Standard Beretta 92, many reloads and fast

Guess when I said high cap I was thinking 33 rounders and not the post ban standard capacity.

[gyrfalcon]

Guess when I said high cap I was thinking 33 rounders and not the post ban standard capacity.

A Calico 9mm holds 50 rounds with it's smallest magazine, and a 100 with the bigger of the two. I would say calling a magazine "high capacity" is a misnomer in a lot of the contexts it's used in.

[Dick Unger]

Back on the interview, it's hard to defend something like the magazine limit because it is an issue completely invented by opponents. I don't think any gun manufacturer would see a mag limit as a safety feature, it's not like we're talking about a safety or a proof test or something like that. The folks that came up with the concept are not gun folks. The NRA is all about education and gun safety, they never proposed such aconcept as a mag limit. It's never even been tested.

The opponents have formulated this debate. Their game their rules, their timing, their choice of field. They win or they don't. We can only play with defense in this game. We can lose or tie with a zero to zero score.

For example, if I propose a law requiring air bags on the bumpers of cars to reduce the injuries to bycyclists cars might run over, (as far as I know that has never been proposed anywhere) and then require the car people to respond to my "reasonable" idea on tonight's news, what could they say that would not sound callous? ( Everyone has a car and doesn't want to have that, but I bet I could get a bunch of folks to support that for snowmiobiles, dirt bikes or jet skis.)

The mag limiters don't REALLY want mag limits, they want no guns at all. They can't have that so they'll start with little things, of which this is the smallest. A fair debate requires both parties to have a good faith discourse, we don't have that. And any real chance for a real advance in public gun safety is wasted because we're debating things which won't make any difference to safety. Because mag limits won't affect hunting, it's a good way to target a small minority of America. And we wasted many millions of collars and lots of talent with this crap.

[Dick Unger]

Collin Peteson is a politician (our Dem Congressman 6th district). I've heard him dismiss gun controllers with a "You know, none of that stuff works anyway. It's wasted effort. I'm not going to get involved with ..... "

That was years ago when somebody asked about his support for an assault weapons ban.

[DeanC]

The mag limiters don't want mag limits, they want no guns at all. They can't have that so they'll start with little things, of which this is the smallest. A fair debate requires both parties to have a good faith discourse, we don't have that.

We all know that but you really did a good job of crystallizing it in a way that is useful and NON-inflammatory.

[gyrfalcon]

The opponents have formulated this debate. Their game their rules, their timing, their choice of field. ... course, we don't have that. And any real chance for a real advance in public gun safety is wasted because we're debating things which won't make any difference to safety. Because mag limits won't affect hunting, it's a good way to target a small minority of America. And we wasted many millions of cdollars and lots of talent with this crap.

I don't agree with only being able to play defensive, but I think you bring up some good points. A good debater could have questioned the original topic and refocused the entire debate. In this case you had a deranged individual who would apparently use any and all means to hurt people. Maybe he would have used a 5 gallon bucket of gas and a lighter to kill even more people if the firearm wasn't available. Focusing on the capacity of the magazine is ludicrous when you're dealing with a person like this.