So, the magazine ban in Colorado is a done deal, right? And as part of the rationale behind the ban were the Columbine school shooting and Aurora movie theater shooting, right?
So tell me, if you can. How does limiting the number of rounds a magazine can legally hold to 15 stop shootings - both of which happened in "gun-free" zones - which saw 13 and 12 deaths, respectively?
Honestly, I don't get this. Both the Columbine shooting, where 13 people were killed, and the Aurora movie theater shooting, where 12 people died, could just as easily have been accomplished with a 15 round magazine as a 30. The Aurora movie theater shooting, utilized an AR-15 pattern rifle and a pump-action shotgun, with the shotgun seeing more use after the AR-15 jammed from a high capacity magazine. The Columbine shooting happened right in the middle of the Federal Assault Weapons ban.
In the Aurora shooting - which was mentioned heavily by CO Governor Hickenlooper - there were 12 deaths and more than 50 people wounded. Even with a 30 round magazine (which, by the way, *IS* standard capacity, not high capacity), that's two reloads. If the people being shot were unable to stop the attack when he stopped to reload twice, why is there any indication they could stop the attack if he had to reload four times?
The forces against freedom can't answer this simple question because all they have on their sides is emotion and rhetoric. They would have you believe that there is a magic number that will automatically stop all mass murders, as though someone bent on killing a large number of people is going to care that their magazine is banned. They don't care about gun-free zones or laws against murder, but by gum they're not about to break that ban on magazines! We know that it takes a second or two at most to change a magazine - or to simply switch to a second firearm - and I suspect the forces against freedom know this as well.
They rely on ignorance and fear to push their agenda - when they're not outright lying; what does that tell you about the strength of their argument?
That is all.