Magazine Capacity Laws


PDA






GETxSOME
January 23, 2011, 05:18 PM
Can someone give me a walkthrough of both sides of the magazine capacity laws? A recent discussion with my brother about the incident in Arizona made me realize that I don't really know much about this topic, and I would like to be prepared the next time it comes up. So, if someone could explain reasons for and against magazine capacity restrictions I would be very grateful!

If you enjoyed reading about "Magazine Capacity Laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Onward Allusion
January 23, 2011, 05:29 PM
I think you're not going to find very many folks here in favor of magazine capacity laws. I for one am completely against them and think it is one more step toward a total civilian firearm ownership ban, although most likely not in our lifetime.

Magazine capacity ban came about as a result of '94 Assault Weapon ban. It limited newly manufactured magazines to 10 rounds for civilians. LEOs were not limited. Previously manufactured magazines were exempted which created a mad dash by some companies to churn out low quality high capacity magazines. There was a sunset provision built into the original AWB and on 9/13/2004 it expired. There are still a whole bunch of municipalities and even some states that enforce this draconian law. To date, there has not been any proof that the AWB was effective in lowering crime. In fact, quite the contrary. After the sunset many more States loosened conceal carry laws and civilians began defending themselves against criminals. That's the gist, but I'm sure a lot more folks here can add more info.

kingpin008
January 23, 2011, 05:31 PM
So, if someone could explain reasons for and against magazine capacity restrictions I would be very grateful!

Sure.

Reasons for capacity restrictions: Fear, ignorance.
Reasons against capacity restrictions: Common sense, and an understanding that a firearm with a large capacity magazine is no more deadly than one without.


That, in a nutshell, is the argument.

What most anti's (and others in favor of restricted capacity magazines) don't or can't understand is that even if the capacity of a firearm is limited to say, 10 rounds - it takes but a second to eject a spent mag and reload a fresh one. This was evidenced by the VA Tech massacre. He had 10 round mags, yet was still effective in his deadly goal. Lower-capacity mags do not deter criminals, or lessen crimes. Then again, gun laws in general seldom do.

Sunray
January 23, 2011, 05:47 PM
Hi. It's stupid nonsense dreamed up by the people who think you shouldn't be allowed to own any firearm. They seem to think a 20 round rifle mag or 15 + round hand gun mag is somehow more dangerous in the hands of a loonie or criminal than a 5 or 10 round mag.
It's primarily designed to split the 'shooting community'. Just like a battle rifle(media term is 'assualt rifle') ban or not allowing a flash hider with a bayonet lug. The 'once a year' hunter may think, "Why do you want that machine gun?", even if it's an AR15. While a battle rifle shooter just wants to shoot his rifle the way it was designed. Both guys will lose if they don't stand together.
A loonie or criminal won't pay attention to any mag capacity law anyway.

mickeygrimreaperblueeyes
January 23, 2011, 05:56 PM
I argue till I'm Blue in the face with my current Father in Law. He told me that the 2nd ammendment only covers single shot sporter rifles and not to current military grade rifles. It's funny to think that capacity control for a magazine is the topic. One shot, or a hundred, against tyranny and the despotic forms of government the Founders were trying to protect future generations from is the only thing we should be worried about.

You can carry two dozen ten shot magazines and do the same thing that you could do otherwise. The 1994 Gun Ban was a waste of tax money and so is the ATF. Just my opinion. Hope you all have a great day. It's the idea behind the ban of anything that should scare the public, not the ban. The Idea that anyone in America that is a citizen should be limited in his or her freedoms by another person with a fear of living and possibly being harmed is pathetic. Dumb people should not be protected, but left to their own devices and the American Way will survive.

DoubleTapDrew
January 23, 2011, 07:59 PM
I picked the '94 AWB as a topic in my argument class in college. One of the tidbits I came across was when asked why congress chose 10 rounds as the limit, the interviewee mentioned there was no reason for that number, it was totally arbitrary.
Go to a shooting match. Reloading hardly slows down anyone who practices. What would a magazine capacity ban accomplish? Make someone reload twice and spend 3 seconds longer on their killing spree? Would that make a difference in life or death? No, of course not. But it accomplishes the goal of putting more restrictions on the law abiding gun owners and that's the objective. They don't give a rip about public safety, they want you to not be able to own any guns. And chipping away at that right is good in there eyes, by a little slice at a time or a big chunk.

Caliper_RWVA
January 23, 2011, 08:11 PM
Best response I have heard yet to mag restrictions is this:

"Why are you trying to restrict how many rounds I have to defend myself? From a crowd of violent thugs, from a home invasion, etc". Just remember that criminals inherently do not obey the laws. The only people that a mag cap limit will hurt are the law abiding citizens.

And, yes, the number is totally arbitrary. Once a 10 round limit is in place and someone shoots people with a 10 round magazine, they will want 7 or 5 or 3 or 0... And the you see that this is just a step in their plan... (if you want a low reason why they picked 10: they couldn't count any higher :uhoh: )

GETxSOME
January 23, 2011, 08:27 PM
Thanks for the responses, but here is another question:

I was still in high school when the '94 AWB expired in 2004, so I'm not very informed on how it all went down. Was there a vote to extend it, and if so why did it not pass?

kingpin008
January 23, 2011, 09:18 PM
There have been multiple attempts to re-enact another AWB. The problem is that the original turned out to be political suicide for the Democrats. Since then, nobody's had the courage to support the various proposed "new" bans for long enough to get a vote.

Davey Wavey
January 24, 2011, 03:12 AM
Can someone give me a walkthrough of both sides of the magazine capacity laws? A recent discussion with my brother about the incident in Arizona made me realize that I don't really know much about this topic, and I would like to be prepared the next time it comes up. So, if someone could explain reasons for and against magazine capacity restrictions I would be very grateful!


If I repeat anything that anyone else has posted I apologize.

Ignorant people think high capacity gun magazines are made for killing people and only for killing people. I'm not sure what the definition of "high capacity" is but I'm guessing it's anything higher than ten. *shrug*

Reasons for the ban? Well if you believe that "high capacity" magazines have demonic powers or are self aware sentient beings capable of possessing people with said demonic powers causing them to go on bloody shooting rampages or if they are capable of going on bloody shooting rampages all by themselves then I would chalk those reasons up in the "For" column.

Reasons against? Logic and common sense. Glock loaded with 30+ 9mm rounds sitting in my nightstand reducing the need to take time to reload in the event of an intruder? Yes please!

But yes, as it was mentioned early on, reasons for are based on fear and ignorance.

Tell us how your conversation with your brother went?

dave

dkk73
January 24, 2011, 04:21 AM
(1) I believe the 2A was probably meant to grant to ordinary citizens (in some reasonable legal standing) a right to possess military arms comparable to those of an individual soldier.

Now, obviously these days a foot-soldier can pack a lot more heat than most of us would be comfortable with in the house next-door. Unless all your neighbors are just perfect, perfectly responsible people who take their training seriously, are reliable, disciplined, etc, and you like the ideas of MANPADs, mortars, and claymores 30 ft from your house. :)

Anyhow, the basic idea seems to me to include high-cap magazines (and come on, you can call a 33-rd 9mm glock mag "normal capacity" but that's being a bit stubborn. Or you're taller and heavier than I and can pack one of those suckers. I digress.)

(2) There is a tactical advantage to not having to reload.

It sounds as if this guy was taken down after he ran dry. So, yeah, the high-cap mag sounds like an enabler to his psychotic, evil shooting spree. I have to say I have a hard time arguing that it didn't help him. Different factors at play during the Luby's incident; guy reloaded twice (I think) due to the shock factor.

So, instead of arguing that there's no logic behind mag restrictions (clearly there is), we should instead argue about what we believe are *overriding* reasons why it hinders more lawful people. E.g. defense in civil unrest, etc.

I sense in this debate the old "we won't give an inch" attitude. Believe me, I argue and understand that. But, personally, I find it far clearer and easier to not argue that high-cap mags and "assault rifles" are harmless. Because, really they aren't. Or, if they are, why the heck did you buy them?

These topics are intrinsically troll/rant bait. But I think it's important to have some kind of discussion.... Hope someone with a historical/legislative perspective (Workman?) can add any more info on how these laws have fared over time.

Ah well, I suspect some kind of legislation is coming. Probably be a great opp. for the politicians to fiddle while Rome burns.

David

GETxSOME
January 24, 2011, 04:43 AM
Tell us how your conversation with your brother went?

To keep it short, his basic point was that if the gunman in Arizona would have only had a 10 round magazine, less people would have been hurt before he was taken down during his reload. His second point was: In what scenario does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?

Sam1911
January 24, 2011, 06:48 AM
less people would have been hurt before he was taken down during his reloadMaybe, maybe not. His reload may have been a lot faster and more positive (no fumbles) with a standard size magazine so he may have been able to kill or disable more of the folks who eventually fought him down.

In what scenario does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?

The same scenarios in which ANYONE ELSE would want more than 10 rounds in a magazine.

Davey Wavey
January 24, 2011, 07:01 AM
To keep it short, his basic point was that if the gunman in Arizona would have only had a 10 round magazine, less people would have been hurt before he was taken down during his reload. His second point was: In what scenario does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?

There's no way to prove that less people would have gotten hurt or killed. Let's say he used ten round magazines, was a very good shot, and every round was a kill shot. Then what, ban ten round magazines? Let's say he practiced reloads and was proficient at it. And killed twenty to thirty people using three mags. Ban ten round magazines AND carrying extra magazines? "The only reason to have so many large magazine clips is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible". It will never end.

Ten will turn to nine will turn to eight will turn to seven all the way down until we are stuck with black power single shot pistols. No honest man needs more than one bullet right?

All these gun laws do is impede law abiding people from defending themselves. It's something a lot of the antis and pro gun control people can't seem to understand. Research indicates that 100% of criminals don't follow the law.

As for scenarios needing more than ten rounds...Can the people saying that guarantee the average citizen will never need more than ten? Like I said it will only impede law abiding people from from defending themselves. The ban won't do a damn thing.

Criminals will still use the "people slaughtering child killing high capacity" magazines.

Onward Allusion
January 24, 2011, 08:01 AM
GETxSOME (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=123150)

Quote:
Tell us how your conversation with your brother went?To keep it short, his basic point was that if the gunman in Arizona would have only had a 10 round magazine, less people would have been hurt before he was taken down during his reload. His second point was: In what scenario does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?Take your B-i-L paintballing - goggles but no padding (maybe a cup). Give him 10 rounds. Give yourself as many rounds as you want. Chase him through the woods and nail him. Afterwards, ask him how he felt PSYCHOLOGICALLY with only 10 rounds in his paintball pistol. :evil:

lizziedog1
January 24, 2011, 08:15 AM
As I have mentioned in another post, I teach at a school for juvenile delinquents. They have told me many times, that no law, magazine capacity or other, will deter them. You could pass an outright ban on all firearms, but these thugs will still be armed and dangerous. You and I will be then me at their mercy, which many don't have a shread of.

danez71
January 24, 2011, 08:22 AM
The reasoning is simple.


If they banned 12 packs of beer and limited sales of beer to 6 packs, would there be less drunk drivers?, Would people get less drunk?

The reason? It wouldnt have any meaningful impact to the reduction of crime or make anyone more responsible.

Balrog
January 24, 2011, 08:41 AM
Reasons against capacity restrictions: Common sense, and an understanding that a firearm with a large capacity magazine is no more deadly than one without.

Well thats not true in my opinion. Guns with large capacity magazines can fire more rounds in less time than guns with reduced capacity magazines. If the shooter in arizona had had to reload after every few rounds, he probably would have killed less people, because he would have been subdued by bystanders before he got off as many shots.

Freedom is messy, and guns are designed to kill. Its a fact. There is risk involved in living in a free society. I do not support magazine bans. Going down that path is a slippery slope. If the shooter had only used 10 round mags, maybe he would have killed fewer people, but gun banners would then be calling 10 round mags "high capacity" and would want them banned too.

Sam1911
January 24, 2011, 08:48 AM
If the shooter in arizona had had to reload after every few rounds, he probably would have killed less people, because he would have been subdued by bystanders before he got off as many shots.

Eh, maybe, maybe not. Read post 13. We shouldn't make blanket statements like this.

But, yes, "freedom is messy," and it doesn't really matter who did what with ANY gun -- that doesn't remove the necessity and right of free people to own them.

Gregaw
January 24, 2011, 08:51 AM
...does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?

I think the exemption for law enforcement is proof that even the anti's realize that in a situation where a gun is needed, more than 10 rounds is often required. Granted that an individual LEO's are more likely to be in such a situation than the average citizen but statistics were never very comforting to the person being attacked when the nearest LEO is 10 minutes away. Plus it happens to citizens just as often, if not more, than LEO's because of the shear numbers of us compared to LEO's.

Blackbeard
January 24, 2011, 09:08 AM
The people in favor of magazine capacity limits generally come from the theory that the only legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to own guns is for target shooting and hunting, and therefore no more than 10 rounds will ever be needed for a "legitimate" purpose. They completely ignore self-defense as a legitimate reason and the added utility that 15 or 20 rounds can bring. They also erroneously believe that limited magazines will result in fewer people killed in a mass shooting scenario.

The easy counter to this argument is that Cho (VA Tech shooter) killed five times as many people as Loughner did, and he used standard sized magazines. The only thing that limited the body count in that case was the time that it took for police to arrive.

kingpin008
January 24, 2011, 11:35 AM
guns are designed to kill. Its a fact.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Guns are designed to propel small hunks of metal at high speeds. Period.

They are often used to kill, that is true. But to say that thay are designed to is ridiculous, and depends on the similarly laughable assumption that killing is always a bad thing. Sometimes things need killed - from goblins in your house at 2am to a rabid dog in your yard threatening your kid.

Long story short - "Guns are designed to kill" is the same kind of sensationalist, buzz-word laden fearmongering as "spray & pray" and "cop-killer bullets". Soundbites, specifically crafted to sound good on the evening news, but totally dependent on fictional thinking.

mljdeckard
January 24, 2011, 11:58 AM
If we concede that there is any reason for any limit at all, then there is no way to say where they will place the limit.

gbw
January 24, 2011, 02:03 PM
On the other hand....

Lots o' nonsense, we keep making these goofy arguments that persuede no one.

Larger mags do make the guns more deadly - that's why they exist and why armies use them.

I'm not in favor of a mag limit either, it's a red herring, but there's no consitiutional right to a 500 rd. magazine. It's not an infringement on the RKBA, only on how often a reload is required.

So I can't get too worked up about it IF it is 10 rds. The only argument so far that makes any sense is that as a precedent, the limit becomes arbitrary and could be set to 1.

I saw one post where the guy seriously claimed a constitutional right based on convenience at the range.

Some others that don't help much, IMO...

kingpin008... I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Guns are designed to propel small hunks of metal at high speeds. Period.

Wrong. They were designed to kill, and to do it at long range. Propelling small hunks of metal at high speeds is just the overall best way to go about it for individuals.

Blackbeard.....They completely ignore self-defense as a legitimate reason and the added utility that 15 or 20 rounds can bring. They also erroneously believe that limited magazines will result in fewer people killed in a mass shooting scenario.

Wrong. It brings no added utility. It is extremely rare for any civilian to fire, or wish they could have fired, more than 10 rounds in any SD event. It just doesn't happen. Besides, does anyone want to actually carry a pistol that looks like it's taking a big steel dump?

The easy counter to this argument is that Cho (VA Tech shooter) killed five times as many people as Loughner did, and he used standard sized magazines. The only thing that limited the body count in that case was the time that it took for police to arrive.

Cho had a very different environment, the comparison is questionable. He also seems to have been far better trained and competent, which matters more than mag size.

If the shooter in arizona had had to reload after every few rounds, he probably would have killed less people, because he would have been subdued by bystanders before he got off as many shots.

Eh, maybe, maybe not. Read post 13. We shouldn't make blanket statements like this.

It isn't a blanket statement, he said 'probably', and he's probably right - the shooter evidently wasn't too capable, thank goodness.

less people would have been hurt before he was taken down during his reload

Maybe, maybe not. His reload may have been a lot faster and more positive (no fumbles) with a standard size magazine so he may have been able to kill or disable more of the folks who eventually fought him down.

This is reaching beyond credibility - the first opinion makes sense. Much better odds the guy was just clumsy, or nervous, or untrained, and would have bobbled any mag change, and smaller mags really may have made a difference.

In what scenario does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?

The same scenarios in which ANYONE ELSE would want more than 10 rounds in a magazine.

No. The needs of a citizen and a cop or soldier are very different. Citizens may retreat; they should not look for trouble, and they only defend. Cops and soldiers are obligated to go towards trouble and to intervene.

Gregaw
January 24, 2011, 02:43 PM
gbw - Thanks for the common sense thoughts. I agree that there are a lot of arguments are don't make sense. I want high capacity magazines precisely because they make my firearms 'more deadly'. I don't mind reloading a little more often on the range (except yesterday when I was out, it was about 5 degrees).

It's good to hear desenct to common arguments. And the arbitrary nature of the 10 round limit is indeed scary.

Where I disagree at some level is with the idea that Law Enforcement Officers will encounter a different threat than an average citizen. Yes, the individual officer will be more likely too do so, but I don't think that matters. Likelyhood of need shouldn't be the driver of a law/ban. If police are responding toward a threat, then most likely a 'citizen' is already there and in danger. Citizens are more often in harms way than police as a whole. Also police will respond to such a threat with large numbers of officers. So do they really need more bullets than the average citizen???

I also think it does a disservice to limit the arguments to what is 'practical' for self defence, sports, and hunting. Our right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be limited by those catagories.

browneu
January 24, 2011, 04:25 PM
It's hard to state whether the AZ shooter would kill fewer people with 10 round magazines. There are many other factors that could have changed the outcome and 10 round magazines is just one.

It's like making a blanket statement that if someone there was armed they could have stopped him before he emptied his magazine. Perhaps they could or perhaps not.

The AWB was an attempt to prevent crime but like other laws only limited law abiding citizens. Criminals do not care about laws and never will.

Bonesinium
January 24, 2011, 04:59 PM
It is extremely rare for any civilian to fire, or wish they could have fired, more than 10 rounds in any SD event. It just doesn't happen.


Rare? Yes. It just doesn't happen? Usually not, but it has happened.

Other than that, great post. I just had to pick on the one thing that wasn't quite right.:neener:


I think magazine capacity laws are dumb, and don't like them. But I mostly don't like them because they are inconvenient. So my convenience isn't really an arguing point against them.

However, a nation wide 10 round (or however many) restriction makes more since than individual state restrictions....well, it would if the country wasn't already full of high cap mags. You ban them in MA, somebody who wants one anyways there, they go to NH to do so. Illegal to have in MA? Yes. Illegal and hard to acquire? Not at all. Criminals don't care about following some laws while break others (especially when the ones they are breaking are worse!)

kingpin008
January 24, 2011, 05:34 PM
Wrong. They were designed to kill, and to do it at long range. Propelling small hunks of metal at high speeds is just the overall best way to go about it for individuals.

You're confusing design with use. For example - a baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, but it can be used to break a knee cap. A chef's knife was designed to slice food, but it can be used to hurt someone.

The same is true of firearms. It was designed to propel small bits of metal very quickly, but it has more uses than simply killing things. What an object is used for is based on the intent of the user.

Mags
January 24, 2011, 06:32 PM
I am sorry, but the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to arm citizens to prevent goverment tyranny. Not to hunt not to protect your family from an intruder but to be able to overthrow the goverment.

We are already outgunned due to numerous compromises over the last few centuries, why give up magazines with over 10 round capacities now?

We started out in the beginning some 200 plus years ago with the same firepower as our national armies now when the army progresses the citizens do not.

bearcreek
January 24, 2011, 06:33 PM
A reason for not having a high capacity magazine ban? The 2nd amendment. It was designed to protect the right of american citizens to possess, carry, and utilize military weapons. An honest look at the way the 2nd amendment was written and what the founders wrote about the subject of an armed citizenry makes that quite clear. The primary purpose is to keep the government respectfully scared of the people. A secondary benefit is the self defense advantages it gives us.

Ronsch
January 24, 2011, 06:48 PM
The fact it is being debated at all shows the antis are not going to quit trying to regulate our freedoms.

Look how much debate is in the MSM and on forum boards.

Balrog
January 24, 2011, 06:55 PM
The same is true of firearms. It was designed to propel small bits of metal very quickly, but it has more uses than simply killing things. What an object is used for is based on the intent of the user.

Your argument is one of the silliest I have read in a long time.

Guns were designed to make it easier to kill things. They weren't invented just to throw lead for fun or competition. The founding fathers didnt constitutionally protect slingshots.

But I guess it doesnt really matter, since guns are used frequently to kill people and animals. Everyone knows what they are used for, regardless of the reason they were invented.

Bonesinium
January 24, 2011, 07:46 PM
You're confusing design with use. For example - a baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, but it can be used to break a knee cap. A chef's knife was designed to slice food, but it can be used to hurt someone.

The same is true of firearms. It was designed to propel small bits of metal very quickly, but it has more uses than simply killing things.

No no no.

A baseball bat was designed to hit a baseball. Exactly. It does that but being a blunt instrument. Sure you can do other things, but that not what it was designed for. So you got that right, kind of.

A bread knife was designed to cut bread. You can cut other things with it, but they are not what it was designed for. It is sharp, and you can do other things with it to. You also got this right, sort of.

The firearm was designed to kill things. It does so by propelling small bits of metal quickly. You can shoot non-living things with it, because it does shoot, but that is also not what the firearm was designed for. This you keep getting wrong.

A hunting rifle is designed to kill animals.
A battle rifle is designed to kill people.
Pistols are designed to kill things.
A target rifle is designed to shoot targets. This specific firearm is not designed to kill. But for firearms in general, they were specifically invented to kill. You don't just design things without an intended use for them. How they operate to their intended use is not without reason.

A firearm has a mechanical operation to do what it was intended. A baseball bat does not. In order for your comparison to work, you would have had to say that a bat was designed to be blunt, and a knife was designed to be sharp. Because in stating a firearm is designed to propel metal, you are stating a trait of the object, not what it's designed for!

ConstitutionCowboy
January 24, 2011, 08:51 PM
Why doesn't the anti-gun-rights crowd just introduce legislation that limits how much ammo you can put in a mag regardless of the mag's capacity? It makes about as much sense as passing a law that says if you are a felon, you can't have a gun.

Woody

Joe in fla
January 24, 2011, 08:54 PM
You said: I argue till I'm Blue in the face with my current Father in Law. He told me that the 2nd ammendment only covers single shot sporter rifles and not to current military grade rifles.

A lot of anti-gunners use this argument and claim that the only guns that existed when the 2nd Amendment was written were single shot rifles and a few double barrel shot guns. They claim that founding fathers never envisioned a rapid fire gun or any gun containing more than one shot and that therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to autoloading guns, "assault weapons" etc etc.. But if you go back and look there were actually a large number of guns that had multiple barrels and even multiple shots per barrel going back to even before the founding of this country. One of the most common was a gun called a "Nock Volley Gun". As it's names implies it was intended to fire a volley of shots. These guns contained up to twelve barrels welded together and fired by a single flintlock mechanism. There was a small channel between each chamber that allowed the fire to first first one barrel , then the next and then next, etc after a very short delay. The most common use of this gun was to issue it to sailors or marines stationed in the top sails of ships. They would use it to rake the decks of enemy ships before boarding. Make no mistake, this was not a shotgun, each barrel was full size (~.68 in) bore and fired a full size musket shot at standard musket velocity instead of a few ~.3in shot as used in buckshot and fired at a much lower velocity. It truely was the "assault weapon" of it's day! Even today it would not be surprising if the ATF didn't classify these as "machine guns" since they do "fire more than one shot for each manipulation of the trigger"!

What's more, the Continental Congress was well aware of the NVG even before the signing of the Constitution. There ARE historical records showing that the Continental Congress ordered a number of Nock Volley Guns, specificly and by name, to arm ships in the fledgling US Navy in about 1780.

In short, there were rapid firing guns that would certainly fit the description of TRUE assault weapons even in colonial times AND the pre-US Congress was well aware of them and even bought a number of them! These are THE SAME PEOPLE that wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment!

So much for the arguments that single shot guns being the "only" guns that the 2nd Amendment applies too or that "assault weapons" aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment!

AaronE
January 24, 2011, 09:21 PM
To all those postulating that a shooter can be taken down during a reload...See Suzanna Hupp. listen around 1:30 to 1:54 "I've Been there, i can tell you to DOESNT MATTER.... It takes about 1 second.... dump, thump....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM

Balrog
January 24, 2011, 09:34 PM
If I was in a gunfight, I would rather my opponent have to reload after every 10 rounds, rather than every 33.

Balrog
January 24, 2011, 09:35 PM
If I was in a gunfight, I would rather my opponent have to reload after every 10 rounds, rather than every 33.

I would prefer he be armed with a single shot.

Jim K
January 24, 2011, 09:53 PM
Most of those arguments revolve around "need". Why does anyone "need" a high capacity magazine? Why does anyone "need" expanding bullets? Why does anyone "need" a gun? Why does anyone "need" a car? Why does anyone "need" freedom of speech? Why does anyone "need" to vote?

Well, a slave has everything he needs - basic food, clothing and shelter. A free man should be able to have what he wants and be able to work to afford it. Note that the leftist-elitist gun control gang are the kind of people who would limit the rest of us to what we "need" - just like the slaves they want us to become.

Jim

armoredman
January 24, 2011, 11:16 PM
A firearm is designed to do ONE thing, and ONE thing only - expel a soft metal slug down a metal tube by the action of expanding gases. That is the only thing they are designed to do, period. Where that soft metal slug goes is entirely up to the operator. Those here disputing that, and many others like them are deliberately confusing two words, design and purpose.
But enough trolling for trolls, the FACT is, the Glock 18 33 round magazines have been in this country for OVER 20 YEARS, thousands upon thousands of them in civilian hands, most for the grins and giggle factor. ONE time they are MISUSED in multiple ILLEGAL actions by ONE possibly mentally unblanaced suspect in ONE headline grabbing high profile incident, and now everyone is a suspect. I reject that argument completely. You wish to punish ME before I have done anything on the mere suspicion that the possession of a piece of folded metal containing a spring will somehow be harmful to those around me. Are you the Department of Pre Crime? Do you slap tape over a person's mouth when they go into a theater on the odd possabilty that they might yell "FIRE"?
Sorry, once again, I reject that argument alone, as our legal system is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, EVEN Representative Giffords twisted assailant, and your reasoning is 108 degress off, making me the criminal becuase you think I might do something, someday, somewhere, with not one shred of evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence against it.

Want to ban a high capacity feeding device with a PROVEN track record of causing death and mayhem, (not the clever commercials), destroy lives and wreck millions of dollars worth of private property?















http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/largecapacityfeedingdevice.jpg


Wait, we tried that once, didn't we, and that one didn't work, either...

Balrog
January 24, 2011, 11:36 PM
A firearm is designed to do ONE thing, and ONE thing only - expel a soft metal slug down a metal tube by the action of expanding gases.

Talk about splitting hairs with design and purpose...

armoredman
January 24, 2011, 11:53 PM
When they misuse the terms to try to deflect the argument from criminal intent to firearm design and purpose, yep, I'll go there. :)

Carl N. Brown
January 25, 2011, 12:09 AM
This blame the magazine is absurd.

Loughner in Tuscon with 33 round magazines killed 6.
Cho at Virginia Tech with 10 and 15 round magazines killed 33.
Obviously the smaller magazines are deadlier than the larger ones.

In my home town, three of the eight murders reported in 2004-2006 were committed by one man, in one incident killing a woman with a knife and in another killing a man and a woman with a baseball bat. The problem with murder is murderers not magazines.

danez71
January 25, 2011, 08:27 AM
Oh jeez..... over rationalizing again......


They designed/invented things for purposes. The purpose is apparent.

They invented/designed the gun for a reason.

The reason was not "I wonder if we can make something expel a soft hunk of metal down a tube."

The reason was "I want to stop that thing over there from over here... lets make something that can do that"

Obviously I wasnt there but I think its pretty much common sense that they did not invent the gun purely for self satisfaction that they could invent something thats intended purpose would be to 'shoot a soft hunk of metal down a tube'. They could have used a blow gun for that.

Self preservation was (and still is) key; hunting and defense.

And no, its not a hammer either. The 2a doesnt protect hammers nor does it protect things that expel soft metal objects. It protects arms (guns).

armoredman
January 25, 2011, 08:48 AM
The purpose is apparent...really. ALL guns were made to KILL!!!!

To use the same "argument" that I have seen here already, I'll just reply,
wrong. There, make ya happier?

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/zerokilled.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/Project11.png

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/posterproject1-1.jpg

Bookworm
January 25, 2011, 09:40 AM
I liked something that DoubleTapDrew mentioned in post # 6.

It doesn't matter what a magizine's capacity is, or what type of weapon is used, or anything else.

What does matter is that the anti-gunners are stirring up FEAR. People are afraid of guns, that irrational fear is going to be stirred by "high capacity magizines" "assault rifles" "gun show loopholes" and so on.

Fear is what allowed the anti-gunners to pass the AWB. Fear is what allowed the states and communities to pass so much legislation decades ago to restrict peoples' rights. For generations, there has been groups dedicated to spreading fear that allows the liberal/progressive movement. People are afraid of sticking up for themselves, to defend themselves or their homes and property. Generations of "call the police" when you see someone loitering in your pasture, rather than to confront them and boot them off your land yourself. Generations of calling for help rather than to be self-reliant breeds a submissive poplulace that can be dictated to.

Ever open carry and had people look afraid when they saw a gun? Ever get a question about why you're wearing that? People are shocked when I tell them it is lawful to do, without a license. They put "gun" and "lawbreaking" together.

Teach gun safety and handling in high schools, some range time, and the basics of the legal system. You'll have whole generations of gun carriers rather than the society which pressures citizens not to arm themselves now.

To get to the original question, spreading fear is the purpose for the magazine capacity rulings.

DeepSouth
January 25, 2011, 10:08 AM
To all those postulating that a shooter can be taken down during a reload...See Suzanna Hupp. listen around 1:30 to 1:54 "I've Been there, i can tell you to DOESNT MATTER.... It takes about 1 second.... dump, thump....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM


Just to help make the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI&feature=fvst

Ole Coot
January 25, 2011, 10:12 AM
On this "re-run" tis better to have two 10rd mags than a 20 just in case the single mag screws up. Better yet, two 20s if it works. A single stack will be a little easier to conceal than a double stack otherwise look at it as another ban means a foot in the door for not only firearms bans but another chance to take away the freedom lots of us fought for while the old draft dodgers of the 50s & 60s minus the long hair, beards and grubby looks now run this country.

gbw
January 25, 2011, 10:43 AM
What does matter is that the anti-gunners are stirring up FEAR. People are afraid of guns, that irrational fear...

The ‘fear of guns’ is not irrational. And it isn’t fear of guns, most people aren’t that dumb. It's important we get this right. There is too much sloganeering, misdirection, smoke blowing, and over simplification on our side.

Since we now seem intent on parsing every word to logical absurdity, think of it this way: fearing a maniac, whose power to kill is far greater with a gun than anything else available to him, is not irrational. People fear that mix, and justifiably so. It may not bother me or you, but it happens often enough for folks to fear it.

[OT, but it's come up here: This is also why open carry puts people off and is a bad idea. People don’t know the carrier – they do know there are many many flakes out there, and now some Wyatt Earp wannabe is now figuratively waving a gun in their face to no apparent purpose, they do know guns make it efficient to kill (they are designed that way), and they do know if he goes nuts he has the means to kill easily, quickly, and often. Sure it makes them uncomfortable.

So if you want to lose your right to carry, keep it up by open carrying in people’s face. Sure you have the right, and if they don’t like it’s their problem.

But they aren’t gun people, guns and gun rights aren’t important to them, and they don’t care overmuch about your right to flaunt a gun around. When they get uncomfortable enough, and they will, they’ll have the votes to solve their problem by removing your right. Bet on it.]

Anyhow. Banning magazines is not done to spread fear. The fear exists. The politicians know as well as we that a ban won't change anything. But it is a visible way to show “we’re DOING something about this problem!” Politicians love high visibility. That what they do makes little sense is unimportant.

highlander 5
January 25, 2011, 11:22 AM
Mag limitations be damned. Jerry Miculek can fire a revolver and reload faster than most can fire a semi auto. IIRC if he had enough speed loader his rate of fire is equal to some full auto weapons. Can't remember the name but a mentaly disturbed man went on a shooteing spree on a train in NY state and IIRC he had several 10 round magazines for his pistol. And I believe it was not long after the AWB passed. And the widow of one man who was killed became a US senator or represenative from NY,McCarthy I think.

Balrog
January 25, 2011, 11:30 AM
I am predicting a run on full capacity magazines at about 10:05 PM tonight.

Chris Rhines
January 25, 2011, 11:38 AM
I would disagree that a fear of guns, or even a fear of becoming a victim in a spree killing, is rational. Mass killings are vanishingly rare; you may as well be afraid of lightning strikes or moose attacks. Significantly altering your behavior based on such a tiny threat is the definition of irrationality.

Of course, try telling this to the average American cable TV viewer, who has been conditioned by a lifetime of media infotainment to believe that every shadow hides an army of child molesters, terrorists, and wild animals just waiting to attack...

Anyhow, my argument against large-capacity magazine bans is pretty much a clone of my pro-assault-rifle argument: Guns are not designed to kill as such, but certain guns (and magazines) are designed to be useful in combat. Since self defense is one of the reasons that I own guns, it makes sense that I should own the guns (and magazines) that would give me an advantage in a fight. After all, why should I play fair if some criminal is trying to rob or kill me?

-C

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

kingpin008
January 25, 2011, 11:43 AM
To all those postulating that a shooter can be taken down during a reload...See Suzanna Hupp. listen around 1:30 to 1:54 "I've Been there, i can tell you to DOESNT MATTER.... It takes about 1 second.... dump, thump....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM

You do realize the problem with this comment, don't you?

Loughner WAS taken down during a mag change. It does matter.

Just to help make the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI&feature=fvst

With all due respect, that clip isn't fair given the context. It's pretty clear that he's a competitive shooter. I find it hard to believe that the type of individual likely to go on these sorts of rampages is going to invest hours upon hours in mag change drills, don't you?

Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No.

browneu
January 25, 2011, 11:49 AM
Chris,

Agreed, most phobias like someone fearing guns are irrational. This point wouldn't come up for discussion if we were talking about someone's fear of flying or heights.

Rustinthewheel
January 25, 2011, 01:05 PM
You do realize the problem with this comment, don't you?

Loughner WAS taken down during a mag change. It does matter.



With all due respect, that clip isn't fair given the context. It's pretty clear that he's a competitive shooter. I find it hard to believe that the type of individual likely to go on these sorts of rampages is going to invest hours upon hours in mag change drills, don't you?

Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No.
You're missing it.... the focus is not on Tuscon, it's on the argument of whether or not smaller mags save lives. (Not just you Kingpin008, just saying we lost sight of the issue)

The Tuscon fruitcake just happened to lack training, which was a blessing to the rest of the world.

Crazy people, are often motivated people. Google Marvin Heemayer. A person willing to commit these acts, as demonstrated by Cho and Harris and Klebold who is really looking to do damage, will know how to clear jams, and swap magazines, and in their focused state, can probably do it faster than your friendly neighborhood cop.

The important thing to remember and what needs to be stressed to our representatives in the Washington is that THR, and NRA members, and RKBA advocates are not taking out groups of people. Criminals are law breakers, they will have the "evil guns" anyhow. Restricting their availability to smaller numbers just means the criminals will eventually have all of them, and we will have none because our "justice" system failed to protect the just.

Remember where the cops went for help in the North Hollywood Shootout.... their local gun store. What did they get??? Black guns, black guns with large magazines.

How about when the degenerates overran LA in 92? guess who had to look out for the people... the people themselves, because all the laws in the world didn't stop innocent bystanders from getting the snot kicked out of them.

Bottom line, gun laws in general, only affect(hinder) those who are going to follow the laws.

Besides I live in a city, how am I supposed to pick off the crowds of zombies with only a 5 round 91/30???

MisterMike
January 25, 2011, 01:51 PM
I've just skimmed this thread, but I think that the arguments against large capacity magazines, "assault" weapons, military rounds, and pretty much every other gun control scheme that is device-specific come down to one thing: an effort to define an ever-expanding list of guns, ammunition, and accessories as "unnecessary" and not contemplated as being within the protection of the Second Amendment.

Their tactics are quite clear: find any unjustified shooting situation where the offender was using a weapon that they might be able to portray as extreme and offer the "Why would any law-abiding citizen ever need this?" argument. This argument has been applied (as far as I can recall) to: larger-capacity magazines, weapons with a semi-automatic mechanism, laser sights, rounds that are deemed too lethal, rounds that are not lethal enough, guns that have folding stocks, guns that have barrels that are too short, guns that look too scary, guns that are not really guns but look like them (toys), and, I am sure, a plethora of other criteria and devices.

If you think that a proponent of a 10-round magazine limit really believes that to be the solution to gun crimes, you are kidding yourself. The hope of the proponents of these schemes is that they can ultimately be successful incrementally limiting what others are permitted to own or carry until the right to keep and bear arms is reduced to total insignificance.

Logic and experience show their proposals to be utter nonsense, but they rely on appealing to an uneducated populace that is incapable of critical thought.

rainbowbob
January 25, 2011, 01:57 PM
You're confusing design with use. For example - a baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, but it can be used to break a knee cap. A chef's knife was designed to slice food, but it can be used to hurt someone.

Those here disputing that, and many others like them are deliberately confusing two words, design and purpose.


Aww c'mon. A device is designed FOR a specific purpose. People don't randomly put parts together for the heck of it. Firearms were designed for the specific purpose of killing things.

That does NOT imply that killing things is necessarily an evil purpose. That depends on the operator.

By the same reasoning, high-cap mags were designed for the purpose of not having to reload as often.

Again, that does NOT imply that fewer reloads is an evil purpose. It depends on the operator.

But design and purpose are NOT unrelated - and in fact design relies on the intended purpose.

None of these semantic arguments has ANYTHING to do with whether or not a purpose-designed item should be banned in a free society.

GambJoe
January 25, 2011, 02:15 PM
I am speaking for myself now. Yes it is fun to bring it to the range and shoot at paper but the main reason I own my pistol and shotgun is fear. Fear that a criminal may try to do me or mine bodily harm.

People that don't own guns, however you want to but it, fear guns or fear people with guns because they don't know what their intent is. Thirty round magazines add to the fear. you won't convince them otherwise.

Banning a thirty round magazines is a mild concession to the anti's because it's meaningless. Preban mags will still be available if you want them. Even the former VP is saying maybe it's a ban might be a good thing.

rcmodel
January 25, 2011, 02:24 PM
Maybe, maybe not. His reload may have been a lot faster and more positive (no fumbles)I'd guess the older lady who grabbed the 33 round extended mag away from him would have been less successful if he had a standard length Glock mag in his hand.

rc

dkk73
January 25, 2011, 02:38 PM
I would disagree that a fear of guns, or even a fear of becoming a victim in a spree killing, is rational. Mass killings are vanishingly rare; you may as well be afraid of lightning strikes or moose attacks. Significantly altering your behavior based on such a tiny threat is the definition of irrationality.

(snip)

Since self defense is one of the reasons that I own guns, it makes sense that I should own the guns (and magazines) that would give me an advantage in a fight. After all, why should I play fair if some criminal is trying to rob or kill me?

-C
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

Chris,

You make a very good point that cuts both ways.
The fear of being part of a killing spree, home-invasion, etc, is what seems to fuel 80% of the discussion on most gun forums.
People will perseverate to absurd lengths about slightly differences in tactical effectiveness of gadgets and how a slightly slower holster is "suicide". Heck, people will argue that if you have an external safety, you must not care about your safety and your family's and you'll certainly get killed.

Fear is a big motivator and a very personal thing. Most of the firearms enthusiasts I knew at my old club in the midwest were more likely to die of a heart attack than of violence. But that's certainly not where their focus was.

If you read Fernando ("FerFAL") Aguirre's notes on the Argentinian economic collapse, you'll see he makes some thought-provoking points about the (greater) tactical value of high-capacity magazines. It certainly made me think about my preference for thinner guns (in my situation, concealment seems to provide more perceived utility).

For most Americans right now, it probably is a marginal value if they are already carrying a modern autoloader. Already, we've heard reasonable people argue both sides of this.

But, going back to the anti-gun side, it's not an irrational fear. You simply consider it (shooting spree) a lower-probability threat, or assign less emotional import to it.
On the other hand, anti-gunners seem to think that a home-invasion you can successfully negate/shoot your way out of is unlikely and irrational and we (presumably) don't. Or they think it's unlikely you can defuse a gas station robbery by being armed ("more likely you'll get killed" is the common argument). Or they think that gun laws will prevent such robberies, but that's another thread.

I'm not just trying to split hairs; I'm making a point about the subjective aspect of what drives people. E.g. People get worried about car-jacking but not road accidents. E.g. Anthrax is scary but unlikely vs. heart disease which is very common and mostly preventable.

David

PS. Anyone have a take this from a legal standpoint? Ie. Is there some additional way that the existing laws are written that makes magazine capacity a particular "key" focus for anti-gun legislation (beyond all the specific justifications given)?

theory
January 25, 2011, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by rcmodel
I'd guess the older lady who grabbed the 33 round extended mag away from him would have been less successful if he had a standard length Glock mag in his hand.

You're absolutely right.

Chris Rhines
January 25, 2011, 03:33 PM
Banning 30 round magazines is not a mild concession; it's an unacceptable one. I lived through ten years of the '94 AWB, and I have no desire to relive those days. Certainly not for the sake of appeasing a handful of whiny cranks who will never agree with me in any event.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

ConstitutionCowboy
January 25, 2011, 04:07 PM
Yea, armoredman

Do you realize what you've just done? You've pointed out very succinctly that the gun is a completely inanimate object. The FINGER is the animated object! Thank you. Ergo, if there is a shooting somewhere, the person in control of the animated object - the finger - is to blame.

Lock the finger up along with the person in control of the finger, not the gun or everyone else's right to one.

Woody

sig220mw
January 25, 2011, 04:27 PM
Hey Mickey your father in law is dead wrong. During the debates leading to the GCA of 1968 the antis' argued that the 2A only protected military style weapons and that sporting weapons should be gotten rid of.

They change their arguement to fit the times. The only thing consistent is that they want to eventually ban all firearms from public use and then take them away from the police. That way the criminals will be safer and also be the only ones armed.

I don't personally see a need for large capacity mags myself but I will argue against a restriction on them because some people want them and like them and that's good enough for me.

Any type of restriction is bad and always just a "first step".

We must stick together.

Justin
January 25, 2011, 05:31 PM
The panel also considered whether the previous
federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned
15-round magazines would have made a difference
in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed
after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned
clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The
panel concluded that 10-round magazines that
were legal would have not made much difference
in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders
could have been about as deadly in this situation.

Seung-Hui Cho used no 30 round magazines and killed more than five times as many people.

The official report (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm) released in the wake of the shooting, which I quote above, specifically stated that magazine capacity would not have made a demonstrable difference in the outcome of the shooting.

Why do I bring Virginia Tech up?

Simply to make this point: spree killers are neither hindered nor given a significant advantage from having access to so-called "high capacity" magazines. The most successful spree killers are the ones who manage to control the environment* in which they commit their crime, and even if you could successfully limit the tools with which they murder, it would only cause them to change technique, method, and/or location but not make them any less deadly.

Spree killers are crazy, but that doesn't make them stupid.




*Thanks to Chris Rhines who pointed this out during a conversation at SHOT.

Justin
January 25, 2011, 05:31 PM
People in this case are fixating on the magazine because it has a higher-than-average capacity. However, it strikes me that most people stop thinking when they read "30 round magazine" and don't actually consider the ramifications of instituting a ban on magazines.

-If a magazine ban were an effective way to curb violent crime, there would be evidence of this from the ten year period of 1994-2004 when such a federal ban was in place. Anyone speaking in favor of such a ban should be asked to provide irrefutable proof that the ban actually worked.

-If you institute a ban on these magazines, you're going to have to explain how you intend to effectively enforce a ban on objects that are roughly the size of a candy bar, completely untraceable, and are already possessed by tens of millions of US citizens.

-If magazine capacity had an actual effect on the effectiveness of spree killers, then you'd see a direct relationship of deaths to magazine capacity. This isn't the case. Again, Seung-Hui Cho had no 30 round magazines, yet managed to kill five times as many people. John Allan Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed nearly twice as many people as Laughner, and they only fired one or two shots per incident. Charles Whitman killed more than two and a half times as many people as Laughner, and this was long before the days of Glock 19s or 30 round magazines.

-If you are in favor of making possession of these sorts of magazines illegal, then you must justify the arrest, trial, and conviction of people merely for possessing some stamped sheet metal/extruded plastic with a spring inside.



Fundamentally this is not an argument whereby we should be in a position of having to defend the ability to own magazines of any capacity. The argument should and must be framed such that those who wish to enact such a ban must prove that it would work (it won't) and outline how they intend to enforce a ban on tens of millions of nearly untraceable objects already in private hands (they must defend the confiscation of private property and/or arrest of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners for their ban to work.)

Justin
January 25, 2011, 05:55 PM
You do realize the problem with this comment, don't you?

Loughner WAS taken down during a mag change. It does matter.

I've seen reports that stated that Loughner was taken down while executing a magazine change after his pistol jammed.

There's a world of difference in the amount of time it takes for someone to reload a pistol after it jams, vs. executing a reload after running the gun dry vs. executing a tactical reload.

This becomes even more apparent for the novice who's not actually practiced malfunction drills.

danez71
January 25, 2011, 07:22 PM
I've seen reports that stated that Loughner was taken down while executing a magazine change after his pistol jammed.

Ive seen that report too. However, from all of the reports Ive seen overall, that seems incorrect.

He fired 31 times and had a 30 round mag.

I think witnesses mistakenly reported that it jammed when, in reality, he just ran out of rounds.

Black Toe Knives
January 25, 2011, 07:30 PM
During the years of AWB. I could Buy a M134, M16, AK-47, 100 round clips, the banned did nothing. If you had the money you could purchase everything legally. It was a just Pitbull with no teeth.

danez71
January 25, 2011, 07:44 PM
When they misuse the terms to try to deflect the argument from criminal intent to firearm design and purpose, yep, I'll go there

armoredman,
I agree its the CRIMINAL that operates the gun, knife, car, hammer, pogo-stik, ect and does horrible things.

However, I seriously question the notion that around 1100-1200 AD, someone said 'I want to build something that sends something down a tube really fast...for no reason.... just because I can...'.

JayBird
January 25, 2011, 08:19 PM
The thing is...how does a Magazine ban accomplish anything?

It is simply a piece of metal. A Magazine without a firearm can not do any harm. If I owned a 30 Round Magazine for a firearm I did not own, the best I could do to harm someone is throw it at them.

So.....my conclusion is....if they outlaw 30 rounders....what is next? Any gun that can function with a 30 rounder?

Afraid I am....I am very afraid any step in this direction would lead to so many other things, such as serializing or limiting Mags. Such as Ammunition registration.

You give an inch....and when that isn't enough(which it wont be), they take a yard.

Oh....and Hi THR. New member, long time lurker. :D

gc70
January 25, 2011, 08:59 PM
I'd guess the older lady who grabbed the 33 round extended mag away from him would have been less successful if he had a standard length Glock mag in his hand.

The size of the magazine probably made no difference in the woman's ability to grab it in Tucson.

WSJ article (http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2011/01/09/woman-helped-subdue-suspect/)
As two men tackled him, Ms. Maisch saw the gunman reach into his pocket with his left hand and draw out a magazine of bullets. He dropped it, and she heard someone shout to get the magazine. “I was able to grab it before he could,” she said.

Justin
January 25, 2011, 09:37 PM
However, I seriously question the notion that around 1100-1200 AD, someone said 'I want to build something that sends something down a tube really fast...for no reason.... just because I can...'.

I suppose you'd have a point, if we all slavishly adhered to a belief that the original intention of the inventor of an item was actually somehow more meaningful than the myriad of uses people have found since that time.

To draw a comparison to vehicles, it would be like claiming that anyone who uses a Jeep for anything other than troop transport is somehow wrong.

By claiming that guns are only or primarily made for killing, you are stupidly dismissing out of hand all of the other equally legitimate reasons people choose to own firearms without so much as a second thought.

By making that claim, you're also implying that the only reason anyone ever buys a firearm is because they intend to kill someone or something with it. The logical conclusion to your statement is that anyone who chooses to buy a gun must therefore be a murderous nut bent on havoc.

TexasRifleman
January 25, 2011, 10:02 PM
He fired 31 times and had a 30 round mag.

Just a technicality but it was in fact a 33 round magazine. People keep saying 30 because that's a nice round number, but they hold 33 rounds. So the reports of his pistol being jammed makes sense if he changed mags before it was empty.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG242-36.html

Balrog
January 25, 2011, 10:16 PM
So the reports of his pistol being jammed makes sense if he changed mags before it was empty.

His pistol was a Glock, so it is unlikely it jammed.

Onward Allusion
January 25, 2011, 10:19 PM
If you think that a proponent of a 10-round magazine limit really believes that to be the solution to gun crimes, you are kidding yourself. The hope of the proponents of these schemes is that they can ultimately be successful incrementally limiting what others are permitted to own or carry until the right to keep and bear arms is reduced to total insignificance.

One bite at a time...

This is the strategy of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and their brethren. They may not currently want your 15 or even 10 round magazine, but they will come for your guns and their accessories one day if you give in now and accept their bent logic. Maybe it won't happen to you specifically but perhaps it may happen to your children or grand children.

This isn't paranoia. History has proven time and time again. Case in point, UK, Australia, and Canada (though their peeps are coming to their senses) just to name a few English speaking countries.

Justin
January 25, 2011, 10:23 PM
Either way we don't know. Plenty of guns, including Glocks, require at least a couple of hundred rounds of breakin before they run smoothly.

armoredman
January 25, 2011, 11:29 PM
armoredman,
I agree its the CRIMINAL that operates the gun, knife, car, hammer, pogo-stik, ect and does horrible things.

However, I seriously question the notion that around 1100-1200 AD, someone said 'I want to build something that sends something down a tube really fast...for no reason.... just because I can...'.
Quick question, would Og the Caveman been happier with an AK or an AR? Just kidding.:D

Nope, he made it for a reason, like all weapons, even though bows and arrows were used for hunting, and still are, etc. Like the fireworks you see on Independance Day? Originally weapons of war developed by the Chinese. Ban them, for the children. Nobody needs to have weapons of war exploding over their heads during a party, ban them. For the children.

Constitution Cowboy, those are old posters, too, only have two of those guns anymore.

Balrog, I KNOW you're joking, had three Glocks fail on me, two during Department range. All mechanical devices can and will fail over time, no matter who made them, even my beloved CZs. :) I did hear the murderer failed the first reload, when that brave woman snatched it away, but succeeded with the second, whereupon that magazine failed and jammed the pistol, which gave bystanders time to tackle him. That came from the US Marshals at a press conference, anyone else hear that?

Those of you who are willing to compromise your rights away to appease the enemy, please refer again to the lessons of Neville Chamberlain and the infamous White Paper. Or, as an even older saying goes, if you pay the Danegeld, the Dane will just return again.
So, no, I reject the notion that any proponent of pre crime can pre judge me by my lawful posession and use of greater than 10 round magazines, and I refuse to attempt to appease the wolf by throwing ANY portion of my rights off the sleigh.

Oh, BTW, an aside to the gent who said if we keep open carrying we'll just irritate people until they vote our rights away? AZ must scare people like that to death - we've had open carry since we were a territory, and not only did we keep it all these years, we went to permitless concealed carry as well. That theory fails here, sorry.


'Nuff said.

gc70
January 26, 2011, 12:06 AM
I did hear the murderer failed the first reload, when that brave woman snatched it away, but succeeded with the second, whereupon that magazine failed and jammed the pistol, which gave bystanders time to tackle him.That came from the US Marshals at a press conference, anyone else hear that?

Not exactly.

WSJ article (http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2011/01/09/woman-helped-subdue-suspect/)
As two men tackled him, Ms. Maisch saw the gunman reach into his pocket with his left hand and draw out a magazine of bullets. He dropped it, and she heard someone shout to get the magazine. I was able to grab it before he could, she said.

armoredman
January 26, 2011, 12:53 AM
Yes, that was the FIRST reload, then there was supposedly a second according to a report from the US Marshals office, but I don't remember hearing that again.That was on CNN, IIRC.
She didn't say what happened after she grabbed the fumbled reload, either, in the story you linked, BUT the Marshals report could have been wrong. Just curious.

danez71
January 26, 2011, 08:20 AM
I suppose you'd have a point, if we all slavishly adhered to a belief that the original intention of the inventor of an item was actually somehow more meaningful than the myriad of uses people have found since that time.

To draw a comparison to vehicles, it would be like claiming that anyone who uses a Jeep for anything other than troop transport is somehow wrong.

By claiming that guns are only or primarily made for killing, you are stupidly dismissing out of hand all of the other equally legitimate reasons people choose to own firearms without so much as a second thought.

By making that claim, you're also implying that the only reason anyone ever buys a firearm is because they intend to kill someone or something with it. The logical conclusion to your statement is that anyone who chooses to buy a gun must therefore be a murderous nut bent on havoc.
Yesterday 08:59 PM


Not to sound rude.... I suppose you'd have a point IF I said any of those things. You can not make a logical conclusion to statements I never made.

I said back on pg 1 that a high cap mag ban wouldnt do anthing.

Seriously, re-read all of my posts in this thread.

Kind of surprised on the low road "stupidly" comment though.

Bob2222
January 26, 2011, 09:18 AM
One aspect that I think the magazine control crowd is missing is that the practical magazine capacity limit is a function of the size of a pistol's handgrip, which is a function of the size of a human hand.

A 9mm handgun can fit 13-17 rounds, a .45 ACP 1911 is limited to 7 or 8 rounds. If a magazine capacity limit is reinstated, buyers are likely to favor larger-caliber, more powerful handguns.

Would the Congresswoman and other victims have fared better if they had been shot with more powerful, larger caliber ammunition? I doubt it.

Husker_Fan
January 26, 2011, 12:45 PM
I've always wondered if the popularity of the 1911 platform wasn't helped by the old ban. I mean, if you were limited to ten rounds, why not a single stack .45?

Travis McGee
January 26, 2011, 07:55 PM
For sure, if a high cap mag ban passes, we'll see lots of ten round .45s.

I think it's nearly certain a mag ban will pass. At least 50 RINOs will vote for it. Even Dick "Shotgun" CHeney has said "we don't need" high cap mags. Stock up now, while you can. And this time, there won't be a sunset provision. THe only questions in my mind are:

Will our currently owned mags be grandfathered?
Will it only be for pistol mags, or all mags?
Will it be a strict ten round limit, or will they perhaps raise the number of legal rounds to 20? A 20 round limit would not affect standard factory Glock 9mm or other double stack mags. It would only outlaw extended mags like those used by Cho and Loughner.

Balrog
January 26, 2011, 08:28 PM
I think Travis is correct. I find it a little odd that most of the threads about possible magazine bans have been closed.

gc70
January 26, 2011, 09:02 PM
I find it a little odd that most of the threads about possible magazine bans have been closed.

Instead of discussing legal ramifications of a ban (this is the Legal Forum), a lot of these threads devolve to diatribes against politicians, political parties, or political philosophies.

For sure, if a high cap mag ban passes, we'll see lots of ten round .45s.

That is a very reasonable assumption.

From the '70s through the start of the AWB, there was a shift from single-stack to double-stack pistols, generally in full-size guns in major calibers. Pocket pistols generally remained in traditional minor calibers. During the AWB, there was a huge increase in smaller pistols chambered in larger calibers to make the most use of the limited number of rounds available. While it was certainly not the intention of the AWB's authors, the AWB probably contributed greatly to the development of more potent and concealable handguns.

Dominus
January 26, 2011, 09:16 PM
How would Mcdonald and Heller affect a magazine limit law?

I'm hoping those cases will help states like NY and CA join the rest of the nation and remove the draconian AWB's at state level.

kingpin008
January 26, 2011, 10:02 PM
I think Travis is correct. I find it a little odd that most of the threads about possible magazine bans have been closed.

Most of the threads about possible magazine bans haven't had enough information to sustain a logical discussion, so they've been locked until more info is available. Seems pretty reasonable.

Art Eatman
January 26, 2011, 11:11 PM
Until there is a House bill and a companion Senate bill, there is little to discuss. When bills are introduced, we can discuss them--and also get an Activism thread going to get our opinions known to our Congresscritters.

Really, you could start right now, writing a one-page polite and courteous letter to explain your opposition to any upcoming anti-gun legislation. Snail mail carries more weight that other communication. The perception is that it's more thought-out and of more importance to the writer than the usual quickie "I'm mad!" email.

If you enjoyed reading about "Magazine Capacity Laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!