I agree with Keith... it's not about guns or mags... and will toss in my .02's worth... the discussion should be about mental illness.

Every one of the mass shootings that has taken place in the past decade has involved a shooter who was mentally unstable.

Ever since the legal standard for involuntary commitment was tightened back in the Reagan era (OMB Dave Stockman wanted to reduce medicaid spending for in-patient services and so had HHS change the threshold for qualifying for commitment) to the "danger to him/herself or others" and subsequent move away from in-patient care to out-patient pharmaceutical management, there have been ever increasing numbers of the mentally ill present among us. A recent study by the NIMH estimated that 13% of the US population had some form of clinical mental illness (depression, anxiety, etc.) and nearly 4-5% had a serious mental condition (psychosis, paranoid schizophrenia, dementia, etc.), yet the vast majority of these people never got treatment.

To me, it's not rocket science that we need to get away from a legal/medical standard for commitment which basically argues that we must wait for the mentally ill person to have a "severe episode" in which actual harm comes to them or those around them in order to qualify for detention or treatment. Furthermore, as the Newtown and similar cases clearly shows, gun owners who have a family member who is seriously mentally ill need to first, secure their **** guns, and second, get the person prompt and meaningful treatment.

To me, arguing with someone over number of rounds in a magazine or whether a rifle has a pistol grip or "looks" like an M-16 is buying into their argument that the issue is about guns. It's not. Period. The issue is about mental illness and the need for mental health reform, and that's where the discussion in the media and with friends should move, IMO...