On the day of the VA Beach shooting, Police Chief Cervera stated that the shooter used two handguns with extended magazines. Spurred in part by that statement, legislation has been proposed to limit magazine size.
In the corrected timeline, we now know that the shooter had sixteen minutes between the first shooting in the parking lot and when the police engaged him. With that much time, and having two handguns so there would never be a time when both needed a magazine change, it is highly unlikely that magazine size made any difference at all.
But even after five months, VA Beach has not released the type of handguns used or standard magazine capacity, the number of shots fired before police engaged, or what Chief Cervera meant by extended magazines.
I contacted a number of reporters at the Pilot and found that those questions have been asked but the city has refused to answer them. Why?
There is no one to prosecute. There is no innocent reason for concealing that information. Did Cervera lie about extended magazines being used?
With gun control a major issue in the coming elections, covering such a lie by a gun control advocate in an official position is unacceptable.
When will the city come clean?
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
…”a lie by a gun control advocate in an official position is unacceptable.”
What makes you say Cervera is a gun control advocate? And so what if he is? His advocacy for gun control is based on a lot more than just what YOU believe. Real law enforcement experience is better than blind allegiance to a 232 year old document that even Jefferson said should be changed as needed.
LikeLike
https://wtkr.com/2018/06/15/virginia-beachs-police-chief-calls-for-reasonable-gun-law-reforms/
Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. He also admits that none of the measures he recommends would have prevented the VA Beach shooting.
https://newvirginiapress.com/virginia-beach-police-chief-on-new-gun-laws/
But that is typical of gun control advocates. They really don’t care if their measures would work, they just want to feel like they ‘did something,’ even if voodoo would have worked just as well.
If you want to change the 2nd Amendment the process is spelled out in the Constitution. You are welcome to try, but don’t just ignore it or twist its meaning.
LikeLike
“Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.”
Very true. But it appears that you believe NOTHING need be changed as far as the laws go.
Red flag laws, increased background checks, requiring the reporting of stolen firearms, and some of the other reasonable (IMO) changes will NOT limit YOUR rights, as you always contend. If you are a law abiding gun owner, you have nothing to worry about except maybe the slightest of inconveniences.
LikeLike
Not exactly.
Red flag laws, if they can be made to allow for due process are acceptable, but only if there are severe penalties attached for false reports. Some divorce attorneys routinely file for protective orders simply to harass their client’s spouse and deplete their resources. Such behavior leading to disarming the spouse is basically “swatting” should put both the client and attorney in jail for a long time.
I have written many times in this forum and at the Pilot about how the background check system can be made more effective without adding new laws. But as long as known straw purchases are prosecuted less than 1 time in 1000, passing more laws ONLY inconveniences me and does no good if the laws aren’t going to be used as intended.
LikeLike
“They really don’t care if their measures would work, they just want to feel like they ‘did something,’ even if voodoo would have worked just as well.”
That is not true. Or at least any more than the gun lobby not caring who gets armed so long as they get theirs.
There are measures in consideration to make background checks more rigorous, effective and hopefully more enforceable. And if we take a look at some of the red flag ideas, we might make communities more responsible in identifying the risks. Almost all the mass shooters have had some kind of tell tale warnings that we ignored. Not all, but most.
The other problem, of course, is that we have saturated the illicit markets in the streets and that will take more time and effort.
Even though the mass shooters account for a relatively small number of gun deaths each year, the impact is huge. The randomness is a threat to safety and security in our everyday lives. The number of people affected is probably a few dozen to maybe hundreds for each fatality and injury. Family, friends, co-workers and witnesses are all affected to a degree, included life long trauma.
If gang members have a shootout, the news is gone in a day or two. Sadly, even if innocent poor people are affected, the impact on rural/suburban America is minimal or even dismissive. But have a shootout in a suburban mall or school and the activists get going.
And you may have noticed that the conservative suburbs are flipping as women get involved and also more and more young people are not as wedded to guns being the solution to a bad government.
Bottom line, if you value the 2nd, which I know you do, then realistic understanding of the other side is important.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
A realistic understanding of gun control advocates is challenging, for the same reason the Joker always gets ahead of Batman. The Joker can reliably anticipate what Batman will do, but Batman cannot predict the irrational Joker.
The fear of guns is in itself irrational. About 60% of firearms deaths are suicides. Limiting my ability to keep and bear arms does not protect you from that risk. Of the remainder, 80% are drug gang related, again, not connected to you or me. Of that remainder, most are domestic violence. Your chance of being shot dead if you are not suicidal, a gang member or in an abusive relationship is really no greater than a European’s.
But as you say, the randomness of mass shootings has a greater impact. You mentioned “Almost all the mass shooters have had some kind of tell tale warnings that we ignored.” but what the greatest number really have is a history of crimes against person’s for which they were not prosecuted. Again, not all, but most should have been in the NICS database.
But what new laws will do any good if they are not enforced?
Most modern firearms used by gang members are obtained by straw purchases, but when those straw purchases are detected by dealers and reported, the straw purchasers are prosecuted less than 1 time on 1000.
If you are rational about violence using guns, the first thing to do is to enforce the existing laws, the NICS system was carefully crafted to keep guns away from those who should not have them at least most of the time while not transgressing the rights of good people. Enforcing NICS AS DESIGNED would do far more good than any of the marginal changes proposed.
So start with that.
If you are rational.
LikeLike
Well, at least you don’t assume I am rational. It is still at the “if” stage.
Keeps people wondering…or guessing. 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
#VBWrong
LikeLike