A few more thoughts on gun control.

More on the guns issue:

(I apologize if this seems a bit disorganized, but it's been a long and chaotic day, and I had many things to say, which I tried to cram all into one post. -- DLC)

The debate continues in it's usual cycle, with one side demanding gun bans and more restrictions and the other side pointing to the second amendment and demanding constitutionality.
I've already written about how I'd change the background checks system here , but now I want to add in something I left out then -- the Ammunition issue.
I've heard a lot of talk about banning rifles that can hold more than some number of rounds of ammunition, mainly from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former Governor Cuomo. (This happened, in the NYSAFE act )

Personally, I do not agree with that law. The thing is, ammunition restrictions are one thing, banning an entire class of weapons based on largely cosmetic features is another.
What I propose is a limit or restriction on what magazine you can legally have in the rifle. The limit would be 10 rounds, and violation would be a traffic-offense size fine.
This isn't a good solution. Most people bent on destruction probably won't worry about a magazine size limit. Colin Ferguson, the Long Island Railroad shooter, did not. He simply reloaded more often.
But, on the other hand, a police officer who stops some guy who has a double drum 100 round magazine in the weapon, he could stop the man and conduct a field interview, and if necessary, write him a ticket for the magazine violation. This might just cause a man otherwise thinking of destruction to stop and think. Or maybe he would go off right there and draw down on the officer, causing an immediate officer-involved shooting. This increases risk to police officers, but might decrease risk to civilians. So, where are we with this? There are some tens of millions of high capacity magazines out there. Fact on the ground. Fact on the ground, a ban will not make these high capacity magazines go away. A man bent on large scale murder could still obtain them by various means, Or he could go full on Wild West and pack 4 revolvers and a Winchester, and shoot less but do more damage per hit. Of course, there are other ways someone bent on doing murder could do it, but I want to keep the discussion on guns. Guns, including Armalite Rifle 15s, are yet another item out of Pandora's box. Like explosives, poisons and nuclear weapons, once they're discovered they cannot be un-discovered. Like it or not, guns are with us to stay. Our forefathers, those famous fellows we call The Founding Fathers, knew that firearms were not going away. They also set up civil courts for people to settle their differences in instead of blasting each other or hacking each other to bits. Because humans aren't perfect they also set up courts of criminal law to punish those who violated those laws. They also hoped that we, their posterity, would develop into a society where people would respect each others rights, and take their responsibilities seriously. Of course, people could voluntarily start switching to 10 round magazines. But I think that's as likely to happen as Hillary Clinton not making a ban on semiautomatic rifles a "first 100 days" priority, even though such weapons are only rarely used in crimes. Finally, a note : We need to go at this from the opposite direction -- concentrate on ways to restrict those likely to commit crimes with firearms from obtaining them. Banning guns does it from the wrong end, penalizing the 99 % of firearm owners in order to stop the 1% .