Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines


PDA






timmy4
January 26, 2013, 01:53 PM
Good morning. My previous thread is temporarily closed, and since it is devoted to an overall discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I thought I would devote another thread to this specific issue, and why I am in favor of it. First let me make a number of points:

1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.

2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.

The basis of my argument comes from several law enforcement agencies. Here is a partial list:

National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
Hispanic American police Command Officers Association
National Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
National Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Sherrif's Association
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation

All of these national organizations, and many if not most state law enforcement agencies, are in favor of this ban. Their reasoning is pretty simple:

1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

That is the basis for my argument. Obviously there is much more detail, and I look forward to the responses I receive. One thing- I am in and out much of the day. I ask that, even if I am not here to respond, that the moderators not close this thread. I promise that I WILL get back to it. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
au01st
January 26, 2013, 01:58 PM
2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general.

Nuff said...

Steve H
January 26, 2013, 02:02 PM
2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general.

:banghead::banghead:

meanmrmustard
January 26, 2013, 02:02 PM
Number 2 on your OP is not only true, but makes this thread pointless.

airsix
January 26, 2013, 02:03 PM
By your logic the easiest time to take out a victim defending themselves is while they are reloading. Also, I counter that a magazine ban is a constitutional violation because SCOTUS has ruled 2A protects arms "in common use". A high capacity mag isn't high capacity. It is standard capacity. The AR platform is the most popular rifle in America and its standard magazine is 30 rounds. Semi-auto pistols with 15-17 round capacity are the most common handguns. According to SCOTUS these are exactly the very arms protected.

Midnight Oil
January 26, 2013, 02:04 PM
i hear this argument very often. have you ever changed out a magazine before? it takes like 2 seconds to drop the spent mag and put in a new one. If someone is shooting, not necessarily at you, how close do you think you'd be to the said shooter? Are you charging toward where the shots are coming from? or would you most likely be running in the opposite direction? Also, how likely do you think you'll be in apprehending this shooter without a gun (aka going in for the tackle). you've cited loughner, in the grand scheme of things (over the course of infinity), everything has 100% probability that it will happen. do something enough times, even if it's a .0000000001% chance of success, over the course of infinity there is a 100% chance that it will succeed at some point time. just something to think about.

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2013, 02:05 PM
Ah, a list of law enforcement associations, typically run by police chiefs and desk jockeys. You also left out Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors know better than peasants too. Also Obama and most of the federal administration. They know better than us.

Funny...how all the cops I call friends are in favor of high-capacity magazines. Since when did we allow trolling?

CmdrSlander
January 26, 2013, 02:06 PM
My problem with a magazine capacity limit is that it is entirely arbitrary. If you want to limit all guns to say, 15 rounds a magazine, you severely limit the capability of the AR15 but barely phase the killing power of a M1A rifle (google it) which fires a far deadlier cartridge. Furthermore, a hunting shotgun with a 5 round capacity can put a total of 40 .33 caliber bullets down range without reloading because it uses shells which contain multiple bullets while an AR15 with a standard 30 round magazine which fires one bullet at a time, can only put 30 .22 caliber bullets downrange before a reload is necessary. A mass shooter with a shotgun, especially in the confines of a classroom would be far deadlier than a mass shooter with an AR, but mass shooters select the AR15 because of its menacing looks and purported killing power when in reality it can barely bring down a deer.

If the goal is to limit the lethality of a mass killer then a comprehensive ban involving intense study of the efficacy of every cartridge and shell and caliber would have to be put in place. Such a ban, to bring every weapon down to the relative killing power of an AR15 with a 15 round magazines, would require limiting shotguns to 2 shots each, banning large bore hunting rifles and revolvers entirely, reducing the capacity of .308 rifles to 5 rounds, .243 rifles to 7 rounds, and so on. Hopefully you are beginning to see that a limit on magazine capacity to any arbitrary number that applies to all guns is nothing more than feel good lawmaking.

Why then is no such comprehensive and specific ban being promoted? Because anti-gun politicians don't care and don't understand how firearms work and refuse to learn. They only care about advancing their careers, and in the rare cases of victim turned activist, such as Sarah Brady and Gabby Giffords, they only care about doing "something" about gun violence and generally sticking to us gun owners. Meanwhile, as we argue about this and the polls on gun control shift by barely 2 percentage points in any given direction, our children are no safer.

Now would be the time to push for government funded mental health care and screening, which would go a long way to achieving the Democratic ideal of single payer health care, but they ignore this because guns are an easy target and good talking point. Mental health care improvements could make our children safer right now. Armed teachers could too. A magazine limit, which would never pass unless it let us keep our existing magazines, would take a generation to take effect, if not longer, as magazines are easily maintained and repaired. Adam Lanza stole a rifle that had been outlawed but 'grandfathered' into legality since it was owned before Ct. banned them, and this is exactly how mass killers would acquire magazines if a ban on them was passed.

Then you have to consider what a magazine is: a curved piece of plastic or stamped metal with another piece of plastic or metal and a spring in it. Anyone with access to a hardware store could make high capacity magazines if they wanted to. Nobody does because they are currently legal, cheap, high quality and ubiquitous, but if that changed people would illegally fabricate them. Not only can they be made with simple parts, but with 3D printing technology, which will come of age within the next 20 years and become ubiquitous, people will be able to make factory grade polymer high capacity magazines with the push of a button. How the hell do you regulate that? You could make it illegal but it would be illegal in the same way the online piracy is illegal... you'll never get in trouble if you are smart and don't go around bragging about it.

You would never see these home brew magazines at the range during a ban, but many of us would keep them loaded and hidden, in the back of our safe, under a floorboard, etc. in case we ever needed them and there is nothing stopping dangerous criminals from doing the same and doing it on a larger scale.

So I ask you again?

How do you regulate high capacity magazines?

I await your answer.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:06 PM
Nuff said...
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

1911Jeeper
January 26, 2013, 02:07 PM
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when .......

I am shooting back.




30 rounds is the standard capacity for an AR-15, since Colt first made them.

Police Chiefs serve at the pleasure of Mayors and City Councils, and are just as politically motivated as elected officials who employ them.







.

CmdrSlander
January 26, 2013, 02:07 PM
Why did all law enforcement agencies (including ones which are member of the orgs you listed) jump on the chance to acquire service pistols with high capacity magazines as soon as they became cheap and available?

Because they are ideal for personal defense.

xfyrfiter
January 26, 2013, 02:08 PM
The awb only limited the manufacture and transfer of current issue large cap mags, it only raised the price of currently owned but grandfathered mags. And since the sunset there have probably been a billion or more put into circulation. It will not make a bit of difference to a mass shooter as he will only find more mags, or find a different method .

CmdrSlander
January 26, 2013, 02:09 PM
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.
They are so rare that they are really statistical blips and barely add to the murder rate. Why infringe on the rights of millions of people for a statistical blip?

armoredman
January 26, 2013, 02:09 PM
You've got brass, I'll give ye that.

Let me boil what you just said down to one statement, "I know taking away your lawfully held private property will do nothing to stop any crimes whatsoever, but will make me feel better knowing your lawfully held private property, (since I believe with no basis in reality that it is not part of the 'arms' covered under the Second Amendment), has been taken away from every law abiding citizen, since criminals won't obey the law anyway."
To support that - Gen. Gage's first movement against the colonists was the powder and shot stores at the Concord Arsenal, to wit, and the term does apply, the town's magazine. If he could have limited them to two rounds per man, he would have done so, as every engagement would have been over that much quicker, since the Minuteman's possibles bag contained his powder and shot, generally 40 rounds per man, IIRC. That was their "high capacity" magazine.

No, I'm sorry, sir, I completely and totally disagree with you, though I do salute you for not trying to hide behind fake 2A stances like our elected officials, you do come right out and admit you're an anti-rights person.
As for your police chiefs associations, perhaps they would learn a thing from all the Sheriffs who have come out personally against the ideas in question, and have sworn to not enforce such illegal acts.
Please have a nice day.

Gaiudo
January 26, 2013, 02:10 PM
How do you propose to make this enforceable, given the hundreds of millions of normal-capacity magazines currently in civilian hands? All untraceable. Potentially with the ability to print polymer magazines using 3D print technology. Do you think this will actually affect anyone who is law abiding?

Secondly, do you really propose to revert magazine capacity to levels pre-late 1800's? +10 rounds includes the venerable Winchester, as well as various other firearms. This is not "high capacity", this is considered "standard capacity", and has been for over a hundred years.

Additionally, what is the real benefit here? Mag changes can be made in an AR in two seconds. The official report from the VT shooting was that magazine restrictions would have had minimal effect (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techPanelReport-docs/10%20CHAPTER%20VI%20GUN%20PURCHASE%20AND%20CAMPUS%20GUN%20POLICIES.pdf) on the end result of the campus shooting.

Finally, people who have planned a mass shooting can fill a backpack full of mags (VTech, Aurora, etc. all apply); my wife typically has one magazine within reach, namely the one attached to her AR-15. The benefit of normal-capacity magazines is heavily weighted towards the normal, law-abiding citizen, and away from those intent on mass murder.

As for your anecdote about Jarod Loughner, come on Timmy, do a little more research if you're going to argue seriously. Loughner had a Glock, and he was tackled when his magazine jammed.

Steve H
January 26, 2013, 02:11 PM
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

The magazines are NOT deadly................the idiot using them to commit a crime is.

meanmrmustard
January 26, 2013, 02:12 PM
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.
Soooo...mass murderers are only allowed to use regulated magazines during their spree?

10 people dead is less of a tragedy than 17? You're weighing tragedy with body count?

Whether its 10, 17, or 100 its a tragedy. Could be zero if someone had a gun to shoot back.

LevelHead
January 26, 2013, 02:12 PM
Timmy, your argument is called "Appeal to Authority", and is a logical fallacy.

There is no valid purpose to limit magazine capacity for law-abiding responsible gun owners.

Tommygunn
January 26, 2013, 02:12 PM
2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.

I posted this fact in another thread.
During the Virginia Tech shooting, Cho used two habdguns which he reloaded 18 times. He had no AR - 15, just two semiauto handguns. He murdered 32 people.
Dama Lanza managed to murder 26. One report I heard indicated he shot some victims up to ten times. That is revealing of his savage intent, for sure, but it is also severe overkill.
The individual who goes on these sprees plans his attack in accordance to what he has available. Cho's decision to use only handguns did not handicap him at all.
Adam Lanza's actions certainly were not handicapped by much -- except a fairly quick police response which prompted his suicide.
It only takes a couple of seconds to switch out expended magazines.
Limiting their capacity helps no one.
Cho; 32 dead, 18 magazine changes. Think about that.

DeepSouth
January 26, 2013, 02:13 PM
2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.


What bearing do you think it will have on mass shootings?
While answering remember there are currently millions upon millions of "high capacity" magazines already out there and they will stay out there.....Unless you are suggesting a mandatory turn in and or confiscation. At which point law abiding people will turn them in and only criminals will have access to them.



EDIT:

Is this honestly what your fighting for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI


He is admittedly fast but never the less, it shows what one can do with practice and most mass shooters plan and practice.
Let's say he's 5 times faster tan most are with practice.....were looking at ....what, a 2 sec (on average) mag change..

Do you really think it'll make a difference?

goon
January 26, 2013, 02:14 PM
Has anyone taken down a mass shooter while he was reloading? Most unarmed people who are getting shot at in these situations are busy hiding and praying for mercy that they aren't going to get. The answer to stopping a mass shooter is the Mozambique drill.

The Supreme Court in Heller also did not rule on the legality of bubble wrap. They ruled in the specific case in front of them, and that case was based on registration, storage, and de facto denial of the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Also, have you ever done any kind of self defense firearms training? Have you ever used a firearm in a stressful situation, such as self defense or even hunting? It is possible to miss. Most states don't even limit the number of rounds you can hunt with, but some limit it to ten rounds. If the state acknowledges that ten rounds may be used to hunt prey that cannot shoot back, why would you think that ten rounds is enough for criminals who set out to shoot you first?

You specifically want to address mass shootings, but you are far more likely to be killed by a criminal with a handgun in a regular crime. Statistically, mass shootings are such a tiny fraction of crimes that one could question if there is anything that can be done to stop them. Also, couldn't a mass shooter carry more than one weapon and therefore not need to reload? Or just leave a round in the chamber while changing magazines to shoot any heroes who try to charge him while reloading?

jamesbeat
January 26, 2013, 02:14 PM
By your logic the easiest time to take out a victim defending themselves is while they are reloading. Also, I counter that a magazine ban is a constitutional violation because SCOTUS has ruled 2A protects arms "in common use". A high capacity mag isn't high capacity. It is standard capacity. The AR platform is the most popular rifle in America and its standard magazine is 30 rounds. Semi-auto pistols with 15-17 round capacity are the most common handguns. According to SCOTUS these are exactly the very arms protected.
+1

You need to get over the idea that only bad guys use guns.

danez71
January 26, 2013, 02:15 PM
1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.


1st - Just because t was never challenged doesnt mean it wasnt unconstitutional.

2nd - The SC wasnt asked about 10 round limits in Heller. The SC doesnt rule on things it wasnt asked. This isnt a valid reason to assume a 10 round limit isnt constitutional.


Let me ask, if a law was passed to limit you to ten words that you are able to use in your vocabulary, do think your right to free speech was infringed?

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:15 PM
My problem with a magazine capacity limit is that it is entirely arbitrary. If you want to limit all guns to say, 15 rounds a magazine, you severely limit the capability of the AR15 but barely phase the killing power of a M1A rifle (google it) which fires a far deadlier cartridge. Furthermore, a hunting shotgun with a 5 round capacity can put a total of 40 .33 caliber bullets down range without reloading because it uses shells which contain multiple bullets while an AR15 with a standard 30 round magazine which fires one bullet at a time, can only put 30 .22 caliber bullets downrange before a reload is necessary. A mass shooter with a shotgun, especially in the confines of a classroom would be far deadlier than a mass shooter with an AR, but mass shooters select the AR15 because of its menacing looks and purported killing power when in reality it can barely bring down a deer.

If the goal is to limit the lethality of a mass killer then a comprehensive ban involving intense study of the efficacy of every cartridge and shell and caliber would have to be put in place. Such a ban, to bring every weapon down to the relative killing power of an AR15 with a 15 round magazines, would require limiting shotguns to 2 shots each, banning large bore hunting rifles and revolvers entirely, reducing the capacity of .308 rifles to 5 rounds, .243 rifles to 7 rounds, and so on. Hopefully you are beginning to see that a limit on magazine capacity to any arbitrary number that applies to all guns is nothing more than feel good lawmaking.

Why then is no such comprehensive and specific ban being promoted? Because anti-gun politicians don't care and don't understand how firearms work and refuse to learn. They only care about advancing their careers, and in the rare cases of victim turned activist, such as Sarah Brady and Gabby Giffords, they only care about doing "something" about gun violence and generally sticking to us gun owners. Meanwhile, as we argue about this and the polls on gun control shift by barely 2 percentage points in any given direction, our children are no safer.

Now would be the time to push for government funded mental health care and screening, which would go a long way to achieving the Democratic ideal of single payer health care, but they ignore this because guns are an easy target and good talking point. Mental health care improvements could make our children safer right now. Armed teachers could too. A magazine limit, which would never pass unless it let us keep our existing magazines, would take a generation to take effect, if not longer, as magazines are easily maintained and repaired. Adam Lanza stole a rifle that had been outlawed but 'grandfathered' into legality since it was owned before Ct. banned them, and this is exactly how mass killers would acquire magazines if a ban on them was passed.

Then you have to consider what a magazine is: a curved piece of plastic or stamped metal with another piece of plastic or metal and a spring in it. Anyone with access to a hardware store could make high capacity magazines if they wanted to. Nobody does because they are currently legal, cheap, high quality and ubiquitous, but if that changed people would illegally fabricate them. Not only can they be made with simple parts, but with 3D printing technology, which will come of age within the next 20 years and become ubiquitous, people will be able to make factory grade polymer high capacity magazines with the push of a button. How the hell do you regulate that? You could make it illegal but it would be illegal in the same way the online piracy is illegal... you'll never get in trouble if you are smart and don't go around bragging about it.

You would never see these home brew magazines at the range during a ban, but many of us would keep them loaded and hidden, in the back of our safe, under a floorboard, etc. in case we ever needed them and there is nothing stopping dangerous criminals from doing the same and doing it on a larger scale.

So I ask you again?

How do you regulate high capacity magazines?

I await your answer.
You make some very interesting points here, and I want to reiterate that I am no politician. Their motives are not mine, and frankly in many ways I am just as suspicious of their motives as you are. Specifically, I don't like the way this issue is being used by Obama to pound away against the Republican party. That's not what I had in mind.

As to your points: personally, I would be open to a more detailed discussion. I admit I have trouble understanding your point that a shotgun would be far more deadly than an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine- that seems intuitively to be wrong. Also most of these mass shooters don't choose shotguns- we have evidence of that. My understanding is that most of them are not nearly as knowledgeable about firearms as most of you here- nor can they reload as fast as many of you, especially in such a crazy situation where they are behaving in an insane manner. Part of my logic is that these guys are cowards, and will use the easiest, most "deadly looking" guns available to them legally, and prefer to fire spraying bullets until they are out of ammo.

Armchair Warrior
January 26, 2013, 02:15 PM
The magazine capacity is irrelevent to this anti gun effort. They have no concern about magazine capacity. Please be neither too naive nor stupid to realize that it simply the first major stage towards disarming the citizens. One small step for man. One giant step for gun grabbers. The sheeple supporting them have no idea the cause that they are advancing.

Tommygunn
January 26, 2013, 02:16 PM
Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

What shootings aren't "deadly?"
As I said in my prior thread, even limiting magazine size does no good. It didn't stop Cho from shooting more people than Lanza.
So your idea has no practical merit.

labhound
January 26, 2013, 02:16 PM
Well timmy4 maybe the standard 30 round AR magazine should be inscribed with the warning "Do not use in mass shootings". :mad:

gym
January 26, 2013, 02:18 PM
It takes a second to swap a magazine, how exactlly do you disarm someone out of arms reach in that time. Also remember that a pistol would be used in this case for an emergency "spare" if someone was close, you can use a pistol in hand while doing a mag change. So I don't see how any restrictions make sense at all.
The past has taught us that if someone wants to kill you or many people at once, and is willing to die in the process, there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Also a truck full of fertiliser and diesel fuel can take out the entire building from a mile away, with little to no knowledge of "bomb making". This would just be an inconvience to a mad man, not a way to stop or slow thwm down.
Also knife, hatchet and Machete attacks are becoming the way of many countries who's people don't have guns.
I believe a guy hacked up 20 something kids in a minute in some school in china or one of the 3d world countries.
this is just being pushed as an agenda to disarm Americans for what down the road is a complete and utter Govt. controlled society, IMO.
Obamma wishes to be king. These folks don't plan on leaving the White House in 4 years.
Watch your 6

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2013, 02:18 PM
Virginia Tech was done with a 9mm handgun and .22 pistol. The media is purposely neglecting to mention this mass shooting when drumming the "high-capacity magazine" debate. I don't see how the 6,000+ annual handgun murders are less worthy of attention than the <50 annual mass shooting deaths. If gun-control advocates were truly honest, they'd be going after handguns.

Also, Charles Whitman killed 16 people with a deer rifle. Several members on this board were there in 1966 in the streets dodging bullets.

Also I appreciate your hanging around this forum. Looking at the totality of your other posts, it's clear you're in the minority but interested in hearing what others have to say.

Solo
January 26, 2013, 02:19 PM
Timmy4, I have a question: Do you know what guns were used in Columbine?

According to Wikipedia,
"[Eric] Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
[Dylan] Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times."

So we have one firearm with high capacity magazines, one firearm with 10 round magazines, and two shotguns.

How much better would Columbine had gone if Klebold had been restricted to 10 round magazines?

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2013, 02:20 PM
The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle.

Laughner didn't have a rifle, and he was tackled when the gun (A Glock) jammed.

Here's the thing, Timmy; If a man is bent on doing maximum harm with a weapon, he will pick the softest targets. Needing to reload after every 7, 10 or however many shots is not going to minimize the carnage. Lanza could have pulled off his feat with a single shot; A bunch of first graders aren't going to rush an armed assailant during the 1-2 seconds it takes to reload.

On the other hand, limiting capacity of magazines may have deadly consequences for someone using a firearm in self defense. Like mass shootings, attacks on individuals involving 4 or more assailants are uncommon......but they do happen. I can point you to countless reports of defenders having to fire 3, 5 or more times to stop ONE attacker; If they have 3 or 4 attackers, they may need 15, 17, 20+ rounds on tap without reloading, because in a defensive situation, that 1-2 seconds it takes to reload could cost you your life.

willroute
January 26, 2013, 02:22 PM
yes, only bad guys use guns and limiting magazine capacity will make them obey.

"2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings. "

Sounds like you went to the Dianne Feinstein school of non thought.


follow the link in my signature and review what happens when you give up your second and fourth amendments.

LNK
January 26, 2013, 02:24 PM
Good morning. My previous thread is temporarily closed, and since it is devoted to an overall discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I thought I would devote another thread to this specific issue, and why I am in favor of it. First let me make a number of points:

1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.

Please show us where in the second amendment it states this. Just because they had a ban before, doesn't make this true. If you like the bans in California, please keep them there.

2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.

The basis of my argument comes from several law enforcement agencies. Here is a partial list:

National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
Hispanic American police Command Officers Association
National Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
National Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Sherrif's Association
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation

I could counter your sources with dozens that disagree with your sources.

All of these national organizations, and many if not most state law enforcement agencies, are in favor of this ban. Their reasoning is pretty simple:


1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

Then again, maybe more would have been killed trying to get the jump on the shooter during a reload and failing...."Might have been", when you use might and maybe, your arguement su**s

That is the basis for my argument. Obviously there is much more detail, and I look forward to the responses I receive. One thing- I am in and out much of the day. I ask that, even if I am not here to respond, that the moderators not close this thread. I promise that I WILL get back to it. Thanks.

Seems like a ploy to get people to say things that you could cross post to anohter forum. I don't believe you are genuine in your second amendment support. As far as lives being saved in Aurora, I believe he used a drum magazine that jammed and made his rifle non-operational. Thus the larger feeding device actually saved lives. Nice try, come back when you've thought this through some more....

LNK

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:25 PM
Sorry that I can't respond to each and every post. To summarize your responses:

1. My analysis of the Second Amendment is not correct. This is a violation or infringement.

2. Police chiefs and executives cannot be trusted as they are no different from politicians. Rank and file police are in favor of high capacity gun magazines.

3. This proposed ban is the beginning of a "slippery slope" designed to seize all firearms from law abiding citizens.

4. The ban would have no effect because there are millions of such magazines already in existence, bad guys can obtain them illegally (or print them) with ease. And even if they can't, it won't make any difference anyhow because they can reload within a few seconds, or do as much damage with other weapons, as proven in Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Do I have all of this correct? And am I missing anything?

labhound
January 26, 2013, 02:26 PM
I admit I have trouble understanding your point that a shotgun would be far more deadly than an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine- that seems intuitively to be wrong.
Obviously you neither own nor have shot a shotgun or an AR!!

Gaiudo
January 26, 2013, 02:26 PM
5. Round limitations hurt the normal, law-abiding person who often purchases a rifle with a single magazine, much more than it hurts a criminal intent on harm who will carry multiple magazines. Why pass a law that will only hurt the law-abiding?

Solo
January 26, 2013, 02:27 PM
Sorry that I can't respond to each and every post. To summarize your responses:

1. My analysis of the Second Amendment is not correct. This is a violation or infringement.

2. Police chiefs and executives cannot be trusted as they are no different from politicians. Rank and file police are in favor of high capacity gun magazines.

3. This proposed ban is the beginning of a "slippery slope" designed to seize all firearms from law abiding citizens.

4. The ban would have no effect because there are millions of such magazines already in existence, bad guys can obtain them illegally (or print them) with ease. And even if they can't, it won't make any difference anyhow because they can reload within a few seconds, or do as much damage with other weapons, as proven in Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Do I have all of this correct? And am I missing anything?

That seems to be the gist of it. I would give most weight to #4, as # 1-3 rely on ideological arguments. #4, however, is indisputable fact.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:28 PM
5. Round limitations hurt the normal, law-abiding person who often purchases a rifle with a single magazine, much more than it hurts a criminal intent on harm who will carry multiple magazines. Why pass a law that will only hurt the law-abiding?
Thanks.

Any other points I am missing?

David White
January 26, 2013, 02:29 PM
Here you go. The "new AWB" and it looks like Nothing was overlooked!

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/feinstein-introduces-massive-semi-auto-firearm-and-magazine-ban.aspx

PRM
January 26, 2013, 02:30 PM
i hear this argument very often. have you ever changed out a magazine before? it takes like 2 seconds to drop the spent mag and put in a new one.- MidnightOil

You are absolutely correct. My full time occupation is a police firearms instructor. The standard we encourage officers to attain is 1.65 seconds for a mag change. Two seconds is what most who practice get on a bad day at the range. You got two fifteen round mags or three ten round mags - the math is pretty easy on how much of a difference that will make.

This whole thing is about diminishing the the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. It's about control.

You would be hard pressed to find even 1% of LEOs in our region who support any of the anti-gun proposals. Don't listen to the liberal BS about significant support for this.

Gaiudo
January 26, 2013, 02:33 PM
Think of a college administrator/principle who is tasked to defend his school. Someone pops into his school with a rucksack full of 10 round mags. The principle has an ar-15 in the safe, and the mag that goes with it. You've just significantly decreased the odds that the principle will survive the next two minutes of gunfire.

ATBackPackin
January 26, 2013, 02:33 PM
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

Timmy, the most effective thing we as a nation could do to stop these mass shootings is to deprive them of the notoriety that they are so desperately seeking. These people are nobodies who are trying to get the nation to feel their plight. They honestly believe that if their story was to get out that people would feel sorry for them. Sadly they are correct. Listen to the media playing and replaying their lives for everyone to hear and even calling them victims in their own right. Victims of an underfunded mentally ill program. Victims of society. Victims of their parents. Victims of bullying. Everyone is a victim.

You want to stop them? Make a law that makes it illegal to even mention their name or talk about their life. Journalists can report the incident, just refer to them as the criminal, monster, lunatic, etc. Then they will go back to being nobodies and if they still decide to off themselves, then they will do it alone in their parents basement.

Obviously there are other things we can do as well, but limiting magazine limits will only hinder citizens who are trying to protect themselves, not the insane or criminals.

Shawn

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2013, 02:33 PM
Sorry that I can't respond to each and every post. To summarize your responses:

1. My analysis of the Second Amendment is not correct. This is a violation or infringement.

2. Police chiefs and executives cannot be trusted as they are no different from politicians. Rank and file police are in favor of high capacity gun magazines.

3. This proposed ban is the beginning of a "slippery slope" designed to seize all firearms from law abiding citizens.

4. The ban would have no effect because there are millions of such magazines already in existence, bad guys can obtain them illegally (or print them) with ease. And even if they can't, it won't make any difference anyhow because they can reload within a few seconds, or do as much damage with other weapons, as proven in Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Do I have all of this correct? And am I missing anything?

Pretty much, although #2 overstates the point to the extent that it is misleading of our opinion as a group. Some police chiefs and other high up LEO's are power hungry monsters. Many aspire to higher office, and so pander to the politicians they wish to govern with or even replace. But there are plenty that are good, trustworthy people who serve with honor and integrity. Our county sheriff is one such, and the people of this county do absolutely trust him. Of course, he also understands what "shall not be infringed" means, and has publicly stated as much; To quote the last line in his letter (verbatim), "the right to keep and bear arms is absolute!"

wooly bugger
January 26, 2013, 02:34 PM
1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation.

That was before Heller. I am not aware of any NEW magazine restrictions being passed since Heller, except for the NYS one, which will shortly be challenged.


2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.

Unless there is a particular fear of dying in a mass shooting rather than an individual one, it makes no sense to separate them out. The proper metric should be overall chance of being murdered, which you acknowledge above is unchanged by magazine limits.



The basis of my argument comes from several law enforcement agencies. Here is a partial list:

National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
Hispanic American police Command Officers Association
National Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
National Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Sherrif's Association
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation


These are highly politicized groups. If their stance is tenable, it should withstand reason, rather than just an appeal to their authorityc.


1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.

Faulty logic, but you're in good company with a lot of our leaders. You present no evidence that removing those magazines wouldn't just result in the same slaughters occurring with smaller magazines.

CmdrSlander has made a very good point in several threads, comparing the lethality of a pump action shotgun with 5 rounds of buckshot to an AR15 with a 30 round magazine. It's incredibly ironic that the AWB could have the unintended consequence of forcing killers to use MORE lethal weapons. In the case of deranged murderers, we can be thankful that many of them share the same misinformation as our politicians.

And no, the shotgun described above will not be banned any time soon. It's the first and only gun of millions of hunters.

USAF_Vet
January 26, 2013, 02:35 PM
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

You realize that Jared Loughner used a pistol with a 33 round extended magazine, and not a rifle?

As per Aurora, Holmes had a 100 round Beta magazine in his AR, which jammed, as they are well know for doing.

Do some research before making your claims, and you won't look quite so foolish.

skeeziks
January 26, 2013, 02:36 PM
Trying to "rush" the assailant during a reload will get you killed. And any idea of rushing is automatically thrown out the window when there are 2 or more gunmen, anyway.

Sav .250
January 26, 2013, 02:36 PM
"Hot button" issues, like them or not, only serves to anger some. Cause others to march on the court house and those left with out a torch, to plead for more dialogue. Some interesting points of view.

goon
January 26, 2013, 02:37 PM
Again, what if the attacker is carrying a second weapon? What if he just leaves a round chambered while reloading. It is possible to replace an empty magazine and still have a round chambered, which allows the attacker to still shoot you with the same weapon WHILE reloading.

wooly bugger
January 26, 2013, 02:39 PM
One more point about the possibility of taking down a shooter during a reload....

Using this as a justification for banning high capacity magazines can cause some cognitive dissonance amongst gun banners. Remember, according to their dogma, only highly trained police officers are capable of facing off an armed marauder. If you allow for the possibility of a bystander having the presence of mind to incapacitate a shooter during a 2 second pause, then wouldn't it be better if he had the ability momentarily to emerge from cover and do so from a distance rather than by means of a kamikaze charge??

I'll consider accepting a stricter magazine capacity limit in my home state of NJ in exchange for "shall issue" CCW.

David White
January 26, 2013, 02:39 PM
Thanks.

Any other points I am missing?

Probably the most important one of all...
178447
This one is just for you "Timmy"..
178452

4v50 Gary
January 26, 2013, 02:40 PM
None of those cited organizations have any credibility with me nor with most line level law enforcement officers. When you reach management level, you play politics. They all play politics.

john wall
January 26, 2013, 02:40 PM
You don't seem to realize, Gun Control is NOT about guns. It is about CONTROL.

skeeziks
January 26, 2013, 02:41 PM
"Separation of Powers."

junyo
January 26, 2013, 02:41 PM
Restricting hi-caps because it might impact mass shooting casualties is basically like mandating the removal of car windshields because some people are injured going through them in crashes. On the basis of a highly improbable hypothesis of a very low probability event, you massively impact the wide spread utility of the thing for it's designed purpose.

And even then, it presupposes that a criminal madman, bent on murder a) can't lay his hands on an illegal sheet metal box; because we all know how awesome the government is at keeping prohibited items out of the hands of people that want them, b) can't bring more guns. All of the idiots who come up with ideas like this seem to not be capable of grasping the fact that just because there's an easy way to do something, doesn't mean that if you make that method less easy the person just says 'Okay, I guess I won't be a murderous nutjob today; let's see what's on Netflix.' It means the murderous nutjob figures out another way to be a murderous nutjob, which might turn out to make him a more effective murderous nutjob.

kayak-man
January 26, 2013, 02:42 PM
CMDRSlander, could you elaborate on how you got those numbers? I'm just curios.

If the goal is to limit the lethality of a mass killer then a comprehensive ban involving intense study of the efficacy of every cartridge and shell and caliber would have to be put in place. Such a ban, to bring every weapon down to the relative killing power of an AR15 with a 15 round magazines, would require limiting shotguns to 2 shots each, banning large bore hunting rifles and revolvers entirely, reducing the capacity of .308 rifles to 5 rounds, .243 rifles to 7 rounds, and so on. Hopefully you are beginning to see that a limit on magazine capacity to any arbitrary number that applies to all guns is nothing more than feel good lawmaking.

Solo
January 26, 2013, 02:42 PM
Timmy, the most effective thing we as a nation could do to stop these mass shootings is to deprive them of the notoriety that they are so desperately seeking. These people are nobodies who are trying to get the nation to feel their plight. They honestly believe that if their story was to get out that people would feel sorry for them. Sadly they are correct. Listen to the media playing and replaying their lives for everyone to hear and even calling them victims in their own right. Victims of an underfunded mentally ill program. Victims of society. Victims of their parents. Victims of bullying. Everyone is a victim.

You want to stop them? Make a law that makes it illegal to even mention their name or talk about their life. Journalists can report the incident, just refer to them as the criminal, monster, lunatic, etc. Then they will go back to being nobodies and if they still decide to off themselves, then they will do it alone in their parents basement.

Obviously there are other things we can do as well, but limiting magazine limits will only hinder citizens who are trying to protect themselves, not the insane or criminals.

Shawn
Finally, a voice of reason! What we clearly need as a nation are common sense restriction on high exposure reporting. There should be a massacre coverage ban on news segments on mass shootings longer than 10 minutes in order to prevent any future incidents by mentally disturbed attention seeking lunatics.

skeeziks
January 26, 2013, 02:46 PM
OK...free speech is protected under the 1st, but there has to be "reasonable" limitations.
You can only speak your mind in "approved locations" (speach-free zones.)
And public speaking must be limited to 10 words or less. Those speaches that contain 30 words; 50 words; 100 words, are just too dangerous and have no place in our society.

Now maybe Pierce Morgan can sit there at his desk, and while interviewing his guest, continually ask the question: Yes, but why would anyone Need a speach containing that many words?

Pilot
January 26, 2013, 02:47 PM
Ah, a list of law enforcement associations, typically run by police chiefs and desk jockeys. You also left out Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors know better than peasants too.


The leadership of these organizations are just towing the Democrat Party line. They are paid by cities run by machine style Democrat politicians, and many have ambition for higher positions within their departments or political ambitions themselves. I you're going to climb the ladder, best to be on board with what your superior's want, especially those that pay your salary, and approve your advancement.

It is PURELY self serving.

bikerdoc
January 26, 2013, 02:48 PM
I rather ban crazy people, than high caps, as most of the shooters had a diagnosis and the the system worked too slow.

wow6599
January 26, 2013, 02:49 PM
If this has been asked already, then I apologize.

timmy4, I respect your willingness to ask the questions you ask - even if I don't understand your thought process. But.....

IMO, there is a hidden agenda here. I'm not sure who benefits from all the posts / questions you have been asking, but I have a feeling this is all going somewhere. Sorry, just do.

40 posts in less than 24 hours......

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:50 PM
That seems to be the gist of it. I would give most weight to #4, as # 1-3 rely on ideological arguments. #4, however, is indisputable fact.
Good. I'll add Gaiudo's point #5, and address them one by one:

1. I don't think I'm wrong about the 2nd Amendment, but if such a proposal is enacted on a federal basis, I'm sure we'll find out one way or another, as it will no doubt be challenged.

2. I disagree about the police chiefs being trustworthy. There are reasons they have risen to the level they have, and not all of them are political. I think it's rather cynical to accuse them of dishonesty or ulterior motives. In any case, I find their arguments on this issue to be compelling.

3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.

4. Let's take this in parts:
(a) Nothing I can do about the millions of high capacity magazines already in existence. However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines. My main rationale for believing that, with such a ban in place, these crazies will not use them nearly as often is that they are just that: crazies. They are much more like to obtain whatever is easily obtainable. Make these magazines illegal and they WILL use smaller magazines.
(b) While many of you are gun experts and can reload in 2 seconds or less, I don't believe that many of these crazies can. Again, I have to rely on the law enforcement experts that you guys find disreputable, but they tell me that these crazy people struggle when trying to reload and thus can be taken down at that time. Therefore a limitation saves lives. Someone actually posted if it made any difference if 10 people die instead of 17? My answer is absolutely yes. That is the point, the ONLY point of this ban.
(c) The examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech demonstrate that this proposal will not be 100% effective or even 70% effective. In fact, there will be no way whatsoever to prove that it was effective at all if it's put into place, and no way to disprove your arguments that it won't make any difference. I believe it will, but I can't prove a negative. Still, I think that overall lives will be saved.

5. The issue of whether or not one's home defense is significantly hurt by not having these magazines is debatable. I don't think it is. I believe that most of you that own high caliber magazines do so not for defensive purposes, but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, except in this instance I think it has to be limited in order to protect society against crazy people.

bikerdoc
January 26, 2013, 02:53 PM
I think it has to be limited in order to protect society against crazy people.

Seriously, you didnt just say that!
How about addressing the root cause, crazy people.

parsimonious_instead
January 26, 2013, 02:54 PM
My favorite LGS is owned by a veteran cop, with decades of service in a city that has its share of gang violence.
Outside of what he can't sell due to NYS law, why would he sell stuff to non-LEO that would put him and his fellow officers in danger? And why would non-LEO that buy "scary stuff" get high-fives and pats on the back from the cops in his shop as they're leaving with their new purchases, if these things were such a problem???

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:55 PM
One more point about the possibility of taking down a shooter during a reload....

Using this as a justification for banning high capacity magazines can cause some cognitive dissonance amongst gun banners. Remember, according to their dogma, only highly trained police officers are capable of facing off an armed marauder. If you allow for the possibility of a bystander having the presence of mind to incapacitate a shooter during a 2 second pause, then wouldn't it be better if he had the ability momentarily to emerge from cover and do so from a distance rather than by means of a kamikaze charge??

I'll consider accepting a stricter magazine capacity limit in my home state of NJ in exchange for "shall issue" CCW.
Their dogma is not MY dogma. I have no problem with concealed carry permits. I don't believe in gun free zones, either, EXCEPT for public schools where IMO only trained officers or security people should be allowed to have guns.

I think your concealed carry permit protects me.

tarosean
January 26, 2013, 02:56 PM
[1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.


Please provide proof to this claim...

76shuvlinoff
January 26, 2013, 02:57 PM
timster,
you keep coming here under the guise of information gathering and asking questions as if you actually possessed the desire to learn, then you continuously tell those people they are wrong. Interesting passive-aggressive tactic you have going on.

Are you working on a college paper? Gov't employee? News "journalist" ? You are certainly not who you pretend to be.

Walkalong
January 26, 2013, 02:58 PM
2. I disagree about the police chiefs being trustworthy.No more or no less than politicians.
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments.
In my opinion this is simply being naive.

Gun control has never been about crime or saving lives. It is simply about control. Free men and women who are not afraid to stand on their own and make their way in this world will always fight against more loss of freedom, which is what this bill is about. It is not about saving lives, and the sponsors know it won't do that. There are however, many people who support these things simply because they do not understand what is going on, are ignorant of past history concerning gun control and its consequences, are ill informed by the media, and truly think it will help save lives.

And history proves that it is indeed a very slippery slope.

IMO, there is a hidden agenda here. Well of course there is. Not all that hidden though.

4v50 Gary
January 26, 2013, 02:59 PM
Timmy4 - has it occurred to you that criminals don't respect the law and what you propose will result in the creation of a black market? Are you aware of what prohibition did and have you examined the American track record for the war against marijuana and against drugs?

Might I suggest you view this interview with Catherine Austin Fitts? She was Assistant Secretary of Housing under Bush (the father): http://usawatchdog.com/guns-protect-honest-people-catherine-austin-fitts/

You might as well look up Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan era. He cautions that the media is agenda driven. Be careful what you read or are told from the mainstream media. There is a reason why many Americans have turned off the news, stopped reading Time or other major publications and rely on other means for information. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/12/19/agenda-driven-news/

Last, since you cited police as supporting the ban, here's a sheriff who doesn't. Sheriff Clarke (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-clarke-urges-residents-to-arm-themselves-with-guns-o38h47h-188375091.html)

hAkron
January 26, 2013, 02:59 PM
The job of the police is to apprehend criminals during the commission, or at some point after the commission of a crime, not to be your personal protector. Why would their opinion on what you need to provide protection for yourself or your family be of any consequence? They have guns to protect themselves and their partners. Do you think they will agree to a reduced capacity magazine for this task?

Kramer Krazy
January 26, 2013, 03:01 PM
I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment
A lot of people believe that as long as we have single-shot, flint-locks that the 2nd is not being revoked. The problem is that once you look into the purpose of the 2nd and that they specifically state "...shall not be infringed", you have to admit that ANY restriction on the 2nd is an infringement....including the NFA. For the purpose of the 2nd, we should have access to everything a government has access to (it's a shame most of it is far too expensive).

Would you be content that the 2nd is upheld if you were only allowed one flint-lock rifle? It could easily come down to that if you keep allowing restrictions placed on the 2nd....which is an infringement.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 03:02 PM
Please provide proof to this claim...
I got that from an editorial by George Gascon, district attorney for San Francisco. It was posted in Real Clear Politics about a month ago. Sorry I can't find a link for it right now.

I have to leave for probably a couple of hours. Moderators, please do NOT close this thread. I promise I WILL respond when I return.

Thanks everyone for your responses thus far. Even where I disagree, I am learning quite a bit from your posts. As Dennis Prager often points out, clarity of disagreement can be as constructive as agreement, or even more so.

Gaiudo
January 26, 2013, 03:02 PM
I don't think it is. I believe that most of you that own high caliber magazines do so not for defensive purposes, but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure.

This is an unbelievable arrogant and misplaced statement. How do you know this? What's the basis of your statement, or your "belief"? This isn't an argument, it's a personal, baseless hunch. How can you be convinced other than lots of other personal anecdotes?

Here's one: the Ar-15 is one of the most commonly owned rifle in the nation. My wife uses one as her primary home defense weapon for the following reasons:

(1) modular, and fits a 110lb lady
(2) low recoil (despite corresponding relative low power).
(3) Easy of use/reload/manual of arms.

As to your statement "why most own normal-capacity magazines" . . . most own normal capacity magazines because these were the magazines included in the box at the time of purchase, together with the rifles for which they were designed. It's a simple as that: these are the normal magazines that have been included, since the time the AR-15 was designed.

The normal capacity magazine of 20 or 30 rounds is easy: it's there, and has what she needs. She doesn't have to keep track of multiple mags. It eases the burden of having to reload in an unplanned, violent context.

goon
January 26, 2013, 03:03 PM
Even if one wanted to be "reasonable," is an outright ban reasonable?

I don't necessarily agree, but Some I have spoken with favor restrictions on semi-automatic firearms or standard capacity magazines such as requiring a background check, showing ID, not being able to purchase more than two at a time, having a CCW permit or some firearms safety training, having to keep firearms and standard capacity magazines secured by law, etc.

But total bans? That's just as nuts as people who argue that abstinence is the only thing we should teach kids about sex. A total ban ignores the reality of the situation.

r1derbike
January 26, 2013, 03:04 PM
Mass murderers and their atrocities are not the only issue here, and media/Hollywood/our government has done a grave disservice not admitting to other reasons for carrying magazines of 20 to 30 rounds; MULTIPLE ARMED INTRUDER HOME INVASIONS! It has been discussed before, and it ALMOST happened to my family, but my wife thwarted it before it even got off the ground.

Any discussion of mass murderers and magazine capacity is moot, indefensible, and an absolute affront to most of the firearms professionals here, and on other boards.

I have a personal stake in this argument; my family and I could have been raped, robbed, and murdered because of this attempted home invasion incident. I have more at stake than bellicose bravado, conjecture, ignorance, and outright blatant stupidity being spread about magazine capacity by the media, our government, and those who would prefer to follow blindly, their idols, off a cliff.

There are no arguments about magazine capacity, or other contentious, misguided fools' agendas when you have have stared evil directly in the eyes, and realized it is you, or them.

The elitists in ivory towers haven't a clue how Americans live today. They are so far removed from reality, as to look down at us as pawns, bricks in the wall, and peasants to legally extort money from to justify their means, and way of life.

I hope everyone noticed the caps at the top of my post, because unless "you've been there, done that", arguments for the sake of just argument have no emotional meaning, at least to me, and my family.

wow6599
January 26, 2013, 03:06 PM
please do NOT close this thread. I promise I WILL respond when I return.

Will you let us in on your "project"? Why be coy......

Solo
January 26, 2013, 03:07 PM
4. Let's take this in parts:
(a) Nothing I can do about the millions of high capacity magazines already in existence. However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines. My main rationale for believing that, with such a ban in place, these crazies will not use them nearly as often is that they are just that: crazies. They are much more like to obtain whatever is easily obtainable. Make these magazines illegal and they WILL use smaller magazines.
May I ask which study you read?

(b) While many of you are gun experts and can reload in 2 seconds or less, I don't believe that many of these crazies can. Again, I have to rely on the law enforcement experts that you guys find disreputable, but they tell me that these crazy people struggle when trying to reload and thus can be taken down at that time. Therefore a limitation saves lives. Someone actually posted if it made any difference if 10 people die instead of 17? My answer is absolutely yes. That is the point, the ONLY point of this ban.
Is saving 7 lives in an incredibly rare act of violence is worth the inconvenience it causes to all those who do own high capacity magazines for their firearms in the event that they are the targets of more frequent acts of violence such as murder/rape/assault/burglary/etc?

[qute](c) The examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech demonstrate that this proposal will not be 100% effective or even 70% effective. In fact, there will be no way whatsoever to prove that it was effective at all if it's put into place, and no way to disprove your arguments that it won't make any difference. I believe it will, but I can't prove a negative. Still, I think that overall lives will be saved. [/QUOTE]
How do you feel about the War in Iraq to combat terrorism abroad, or the PATRIOT Act and preventing domestic terrorism at the expense of our civil liberties?

valnar
January 26, 2013, 03:08 PM
There are no such things as high-capacity magazines. The term was invented to describe a limited functionality compared to the original design.

Making legislation based on something that happens as often as getting hit by lighting is bad policy. You cannot control that. There is a chance I might slip and fall on ice when I leave my house. We should ban that too. Should we build cars to limit their speeds to 55mph because somebody might go 70mph and hit somebody, someday?

With the price of freedom comes the possibility some people can do wrong, not only to others but themselves. I would not want to live in a country where every permutation possible was accounted for. You wouldn't be able to do anything!

goon
January 26, 2013, 03:08 PM
A Ph.D. candidate who can fill his apartment with booby traps can't learn to reload a magazine in less than three seconds?

Timmy4 - you really need to learn some of this stuff for yourself. Go to a gun store and ask to handle a semi auto firearm and see for yourself whether or not you could reload as quickly as we say you can, then report back to us.

skeeziks
January 26, 2013, 03:09 PM
" However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines."

Because of a "Study" you read in the Washington Post...?
I can't imagine how a study would be able to get any kind of numbers on the procuration of anything on the black market.

You can't put your trust in some study. Trust me when I say that you are being lied to.

wrs840
January 26, 2013, 03:09 PM
...but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure...

Your pleasure-pursuit, or "hobby" of bullying others through legislation and regulation is far more deadly. I will explain:

The de-institutionalization of psychotics began with the last law Progressive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9jUuYeseVw) president JFK ever signed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act). Wrongheaded meddling by Progressives, who, absent spiritual fulfillment, find satisfaction of sorts by bullying others via laws and regulation, gave us "gun-free zones".

History proves that these "fish-in-a-barrel" zones present an especially irresistible attraction to psychotics bent on mayhem. timmy4 and Progressives like him are, therefore, accessories to murder.

goldie
January 26, 2013, 03:13 PM
On nightline last night they actually admitted that most crimes with guns involve stolen guns.Once again, its crimminals that should suffer, not the law abiding citizen. This has been mentoined so many times here i cant even count anymore.I had to run around getting 10 round mags for guns they dont make anymore, because of this nonsense. Try to get a 10 rd mag for a full size walther p88,that was alot of fun,& 40.00 to boot.60.00 for an at22 mag that i have to block at 10 rounds. who is paying the price with these laws & bans;not the crimminals....

tarosean
January 26, 2013, 03:14 PM
I got that from an editorial by George Gascon, district attorney for San Francisco. It was posted in Real Clear Politics about a month ago. Sorry I can't find a link for it right now.

It is wrong.....


This map goes back to 1982, you can see all but the latest CT shooting, weapons used, etc.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

MachIVshooter
January 26, 2013, 03:19 PM
1. I don't think I'm wrong about the 2nd Amendment, but if such a proposal is enacted on a federal basis, I'm sure we'll find out one way or another, as it will no doubt be challenged.

Yes, we will. If it comes to pass, that is.

2. I disagree about the police chiefs being trustworthy. There are reasons they have risen to the level they have, and not all of them are political. I think it's rather cynical to accuse them of dishonesty or ulterior motives. In any case, I find their arguments on this issue to be compelling.

Police chiefs are not county sheriffs, they are not elected by the people. They are promoted/appointed, and they get these by politicking and demagoguery.

3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.

If only it were as simple as "we accept this, but not this". The good people of the UK and AU supported registration, believing they were doing the right thing, and after all, they had "nothing to hide", right? Fast forward a few years, and they saw large scale confiscations.

Your notion that it's not a slippery slope is fundamentally flawed; You assume that the government will not seek more power, when all evidence the world over for the entire history of man plainly demonstrates otherwise. The "common sense" stuff is incrementalism, period.

Regulation>Registration>Confiscation>Subjugation. History does repeat itself.

4. Let's take this in parts:
(a) Nothing I can do about the millions of high capacity magazines already in existence. However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines. My main rationale for believing that, with such a ban in place, these crazies will not use them nearly as often is that they are just that: crazies. They are much more like to obtain whatever is easily obtainable. Make these magazines illegal and they WILL use smaller magazines.

No, it had a significant effect on cost of the magazines. I came of age in the midst of the ban, and had no trouble getting 15, 20, 30 and 100 round magazines. They were just about 3 times as expensive as they were pre and post ban. There are millions more of these magazines on the market today than in 1994 (largely because of the previous ban).


(b) While many of you are gun experts and can reload in 2 seconds or less, I don't believe that many of these crazies can. Again, I have to rely on the law enforcement experts that you guys find disreputable, but they tell me that these crazy people struggle when trying to reload and thus can be taken down at that time. Therefore a limitation saves lives. Someone actually posted if it made any difference if 10 people die instead of 17? My answer is absolutely yes. That is the point, the ONLY point of this ban.

You admit to having no experience with firearms, yet espouse knowledge of reloading times and it's effect on violent crime? Non sequiter.

(c) The examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech demonstrate that this proposal will not be 100% effective or even 70% effective. In fact, there will be no way whatsoever to prove that it was effective at all if it's put into place, and no way to disprove your arguments that it won't make any difference. I believe it will, but I can't prove a negative. Still, I think that overall lives will be saved.

Myriad studies of the '94 ban prove that you believe incorrectly.

5. The issue of whether or not one's home defense is significantly hurt by not having these magazines is debatable. I don't think it is. I believe that most of you that own high caliber magazines do so not for defensive purposes, but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, except in this instance I think it has to be limited in order to protect society against crazy people.

Hopefully I'll never be affected by any firearm legislation in regards to self defense, because hopefully I'll never need to defend myself or my family with a firearm. But if violent actors ever do target me or my family, I hope I have enough rounds to stay in the fight.

Assuming that a certain number of rounds is enough to defend oneself from violent actors is assuming to know the impossible. How many hits will each violent criminal require to cease his actions? How many actors will there be? How many times will the defender miss? The list goes on. The reality is that a defender may run out of ammo even with a 15, 17 or even 30 round mag, or he may be killed with rounds still in the magazine. But the possibility of a defender coming up short in an armed confrontation are magnified with restrictions on magazine capacity; Would sure suck to be that law abiding citizen who managed to bring down 2 out of the three assailants with 10 rounds, but was killed while trying to reload by the surviving criminal.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference 1-2 seconds of reloading makes for a murderer with soft targets versus a defender. One will be (maybe) minimally inconvenienced by fewer rounds, the other may lose his life.

4v50 Gary
January 26, 2013, 03:20 PM
I remember Gascon when he was chief of SFPD. He got the chief post because of politics and when the former D.A. was elected to higher office, Gascon was selected by the then mayor to fill the post. Just another politician getting promoted.

thread being closed for now until Timmy4 returns.

hso
January 26, 2013, 03:20 PM
Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB that banned magazines and firearms under discussion. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines constitute a tiny fraction of all murders because rifles constitute a tiny fraction of means of committing murder. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.


If it is a myth that violent crime rates are influenced by banning firearms and magazines they why try to ban them instead of focusing on understanding the actual causes of violent crime and working to reduce the causes.

Derek Zeanah
January 26, 2013, 03:25 PM
I really think the OP is missing the point here. I'd like to assert the following: The weapons under assault right now are those that are most effective for self defense. My initial assertion will be this: what does your average police officer carry on his belt, what is its capacity, and why are the suggested bills exempting police from their restrictions? If said police officer needs a longarm, is he more likely to bring an AR to the fight (or it's full-auto cousin), or a shotgun? Hint: it'll have a 30 round magazine attached, also exempted for use by cops and retired po-po.
The weapons under assault right now are those weapons that fit best in the militia role the 2nd Amendment discusses (being the semi-auto version of the weapon every troop for the last 50 years has been issued and trained on). These are also the sorts of weapons that are most rarely used in homicides -- I'll let someone else link to the data, but the last numbers I saw said that out of ~ 18,000 homicides half of those were committed with handguns, and a touch over 300 used rifles of any sort. Hands and feet were used more often than rifles. This makes me wonder what the real fear of ARs really is.
The limits you're talking about don't matter. I can swap a magazine on a 1911 faster than you can rush me, especially if I don't shoot it dry. I can throw a messenger bag over a shoulder, dump 5 boxes of 12GA ammunition in it, and shoot for a long time with only a pump shotgun with a 5 round capacity. Assuming, of course, that I'm not an idiot.
Explosives make for horrendous casualty rates. They're not hard to make. If suitable firearms aren't available to disaffected youth of reasonable intelligence who brood and plan for 18+ months (like these shooters seem to do), then explosives will be used instead. Hint: the deadliest school killing in US history involved dynamite as the weapon of choice, not a rifle.At best you're acting based off of emotion and excessive trust in those who have devoted a significant amount of their lives into disarming the US population (though not themselves, of course.)

You need to think this through more thoroughly. Violence against the defenseless is a terrible tragedy, and it happens way more than it should. It is worth having discussions on how to reduce this kind of violence, but "we need more of the same that didn't work last time" isn't the answer.

And at the end of the day we need to weigh the consequences of our need to do something in our grief against the possible harms that come as a result of our actions. How will crime and victimization rates change with increased firearm restrictions? What is the potential harm from a government gone wrong (as we've seen over the last 100 years or so) multiplied by the risk of such a situation developing? How many orders of magnitude greater is that potential harm vs 200 innocents dead per year -- deaths we might not be able to prevent even if we can magically make all firearms disappear?

This is an important national debate. Decisions shouldn't be made based on the selected letters written by children.

SOTSpro21:31
January 27, 2013, 11:02 AM
1: Killing inoccent people is illegal, so why bother with the laws concerning hi-cap mags?
2: I do obey laws. I might need that hi-cap mag to defend my family.
3: "Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle." He used a pistol.

Claymore1500
January 27, 2013, 01:22 PM
I am not directing my comment to "Timmy4" I am directing it to the many responders to his threads.

I have not been able to read all of the arguments against his opinions, but the many I have read, are honest and compelling, yet they are not swaying him any that I can see, He sights studies written by anti's, never by pro gun organizations, and when his beliefs are countered with known facts, he continues to argue against them.

When I was here on Saturday, and back today, I counted at least 21 pages in at least two threads that effectively countered his arguments, yet they have not changed his stance.

I submit that he is a troll, and he is being fed a gourmet luncheon.

Just my opinion, Tom

splattergun
January 27, 2013, 01:24 PM
20,000 gun laws in the US and this fellow citizens believes more laws will be effective, while at the same time admitting he knows that it won't.
oy

mnhntr
January 27, 2013, 01:32 PM
Timmy who's opinion are you trying to change? You are in the wrong place if you think anyone on here is goingto agree with you. The reason is quite simple, as you have no understading of the topic. Like most of the anti gun crowd you do not understand the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the tools used but the person using them. I would simply argue that in each case of the mass shootings there was not an armed person there that was willing and able to stop it. Why is that you ask? Because we have made it easy to pick soft targets. Gun Free zones and how obvious a liberal rally. Suprised there was not an armed person there. LOL In each case there would have been a lot less carnage had there been an armed person that cared enough to keep up their training.

splattergun
January 27, 2013, 01:35 PM
Timmy, I have a serious question for you, I hope you don't find it snarky.
Who the heck are you, or any one else, to tell me or any one else, what I/ we need?

If I find a need for a 30 round magazine, what business is it of yours or Senator Feinstein? I am a law abiding citizen, I am harming no one.

I don't see the need for Poli-Sci majors, I believe politics is one of the most vile, destructive occupations on earth, causing untold misery and hardship, yet I'm not calling for a restriction on your education. I see no need to stick my nose into your business. Why do you antis believe you have the right to stick your nose in ours?

bikerdoc
January 27, 2013, 01:39 PM
Before we go any further Timmy take a look at this thread for a counter to your position.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=699101

pacerdude
January 27, 2013, 01:51 PM
I have a pacemaker and other heart issues and several scars that make it impossible to use shotguns or rifles with recoil for defense or pleasure. I can not hold up in a physical confrontation, a few well placed hits and I am dead.

I am 23 and look fairly healthy but that can be deceiving. I own my pistols with high capacity (11 & 15 rounds) purely for self defense. I find it extremely ignorant that you think the magazines are only for pleasure.

Good day to you!

beatledog7
January 27, 2013, 01:51 PM
Timmy arrives, we open the thread. Timmy has to leave, we close the thread. Why exactly have we granted timmy4 such power?

And to timmy4 -- You never answered my question from the original thread. I'll paraphrase: when you and your family are attacked by three or more thugs, and I'm the only armed person around that can help you, how many rounds do you want me to have?

OK, it's statistically unlikely that the victim will be you, but on any given day it is statistically far more likely that some family will face this situation than that a mass shooting will occur. So what's your answer?

Baby Kaboomer
January 27, 2013, 01:57 PM
There are many in LE who are not of favor severe gun restrictions. First of all, they know better than most that such laws are largely ineffective and often difficult to enforce. Also, those in LE tend to have short careers, and they themselves are subject to those laws upon retirement.

You might be surprised to read the recent letter to Comrade Cuomo from the New York State Sheriff's Association. It is highly critical of the NY SAFE Act and the secretive way in which it was passed. They criticize the banning of assault-styled weapons; and about magazine capacity restrictions they say:

"The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer."

daveinohio
January 27, 2013, 02:14 PM
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

How about we quit attempting to medically muzzle the mentally ill folks who have violent tendencies and euthanize them?

How about we quit fooling ourselves that we can rehabilitate violent offenders and expeditiously execute them?

Do it for the children.

9MMare
January 27, 2013, 02:19 PM
No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.
And put the rest of us who choose this option for self defense (as opposed to other reasons) at a life or death disadvantage when we need it?

Thank you for choosing to punish, once again, the law-abiding rather than the criminals.

Multiple attackers and the 'average' gun owner....in your home or concealed carrying out in public....if you had ever read of or watched real gunfights (the FBI has some doozies) you'd see why even trained professionals under fire need more more than 10 bullets.

Have you not seen the classic video where 2 cops pull over a car....and the driver & passenger get out...firing back....and run away...all firing at point blank range...and not one hitting a person?

There are 'realities' to being attacked that most people dont realize. And submitting and not being attacked certainly doesnt make you qualified. You were only threatened. (If I remember your story correctly).

easyg
January 27, 2013, 02:21 PM
First we must acknowledge that a free society is never going to be "safe".
A caged bird is safe.

Next we must acknowledge that such bans will only effect law abiding citizens.
Just as criminals obtain illegal drugs they will obtain banned magazines.

Next we must acknowledge that the only way to stop a murderer on a shooting spree is to shoot that murderer.

We must stop these stupid politicians from shreading the Constitution and disarming the law abiding citizens of this nation.
Limiting the capacity of the "good guys" only makes things worse.

Utryme
January 27, 2013, 02:38 PM
Because its silly and irresponsible to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of nut jobs and criminals.

Hacker15E
January 27, 2013, 03:02 PM
1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.

What medications were each of the shooters on in those "22 high profile mass shootings"?

We seem to know an incredible amount about, and do a lot of comparisons of, the firearms these shooters used.

Why don't we know and discuss each of the mental health issues these shooters may have had, and what pharmaceuticals they were being treated with?

Cosmoline
January 27, 2013, 03:11 PM
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings.

Which is precisely where they matter the least. Think about it for a second. Someone who has a bunch of helpless unarmed people at bay is the LEAST likely to need a high cap magazine. The victims are by definition helpless. He can shoot them at his leisure. He can shoot some, kick some to death, set some on fire. He can wander around using a variety of methods just like the Columbine killers. Who, BTW, didn't use high caps.

You're supporting a massive and costly ban which will be all but impossible to enforce for a benefit that isn't even theoretically valid. And in practical terms represents only a tiny fraction of a percent of the murders in the nation. It's the worst conceivable public policy. Without even getting into Constitutional issues.

Arguing to authority by listing the groups that support this ban does nothing to make the ban more logical or effective.

The purpose of the high cap ban is to attack gun owners. That's its only purpose.

Southern Rebel
January 27, 2013, 03:13 PM
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

Oh, I understand! Well, that makes it very simple - just pass a law that forbids the mass murderers to use any high-capacity magazines. Once it is against the law, they won't use them anymore! Wait, you want to forbid the rest of us to use them in order to set a good example for the mass murderer? That is like saying we should all be neutered so that mass rapists will be ok with that procedure also. If that is the case, then YOU go first and set a good example for me. :barf:

Rancher5
January 27, 2013, 03:17 PM
I've talked to folks who don't shoot . Conclusion we came up with is, it is a slippery slope to start banning this and that, 2nd amendment is there for a reason, not so those in power or the non informed can make laws that they THINK is right, Law abiding people will respect life. Non issue, though I believe my thoughts is Schools as other public places that already have security like Hospitals,public events,Malls and contrary to liberal thinking allot of schools have metal detectors and armed security. So no don't start the slippery slope of loosing rights.

Phineas Dregg
January 27, 2013, 03:22 PM
Ya know Timmy, if these guys had used machetes, they wouldn't have had to change mags at all. That would also have been quiet enough to not attract the attention a gunshot would. Then even more people would be dead. Also, a mag restriction isn't going to end the argument. Just look at England. There they are now restricting pocket knives and citizens are punished for using force to defend themselves against criminals. We can't afford to go down that road.

CarolinaChuck
January 27, 2013, 03:34 PM
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.

Timmy,

I am glade to see you are up on what a fallacy is. Look up non sequitur fallacy and consider your whole argement as to wheather or not it meets the criteria as one.

Reguardless of how happy it makes you feel, your conclusions do not follow from the premises. Stay on topic this time now Timmy; what will banning high cap mags do?

CC

P.S. Stop giving this kids other places to take his argument, or he'll keep running in circles; make this kid land in one spot and exspose him and his arguments for what they are.

Highcaliber
January 27, 2013, 03:57 PM
You make some very interesting points here, and I want to reiterate that I am no politician. Their motives are not mine, and frankly in many ways I am just as suspicious of their motives as you are. Specifically, I don't like the way this issue is being used by Obama to pound away against the Republican party. That's not what I had in mind.

Now your getting warmer. There are some serious longer term ramifications to all of this gun control debate, that hides under the surface. The Republican party is already trying to recover and reorganize and is considered "wounded" by many on the left. If the leftys can somehow capitalize on the "moment" with gun control issues, they can drive yet another nail in the coffin of the Republican party in general. Its a chess game not checkers.

natman
January 27, 2013, 04:13 PM
Good morning. My previous thread is temporarily closed, and since it is devoted to an overall discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I thought I would devote another thread to this specific issue, and why I am in favor of it. First let me make a number of points:

1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.

The SC did not refer to magazine capacity in Heller because it was not at issue in that case. The SC addresses the issues at hand and does not rule on random side issues. Jumping to the conclusion that because no case made it to the SC that one side or the other is true is ridiculous.

2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings........

2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.


For all the publicity mass shootings generate, they are still rare. If you nevertheless feel that a change in the law is needed to deal with them, I would suggest that universal concealed carry permits and scrapping gun-free school zones would be much more effective. You can wait for the shooter to reload if you want. I'd rather be able to fire back.

9MMare
January 27, 2013, 04:39 PM
It's even unrealistic to believe that lower capacity magazines would prevent mass shootings or reduce numbers of wounded/killed.

Mass shootings are not crimes of passion. They are not spur of the moment.

They are well planned out, and they strategize around security and locks and guards. They carefully prepare for weeks if not months. Some blog about it. Most expect to die.

They pathetically are living for that final event and their gratification comes from the planning. Just thinking about getting back at (???? you tell me, they are messed up individuals).

They will just plan around things like magazine capacity...they'll just carry more. Or choose another weapon. Or....?

You have to fix 'people.' Not inanimate objects.

zoom6zoom
January 27, 2013, 04:39 PM
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings.
So let's just make mass shootings illegal.,,,

HKGuns
January 27, 2013, 04:48 PM
OP you are "exactly" the type of gun owner that scares the crap right out of me. "I don't need a 30 round magazine therefore no-one else should need one either". I don't see a point to it....blah blah blah. (Assumes you are a gun owner and not a troll)

"Shall not be infringed". Enough said....You give them an inch and they will be coming back for more. The line is HERE.

The SCOTUS is just a political as the rest of the crew we have leading the Country, perhaps even more so. Their biased interpretations of the constitution leaves a LOT to be desired.

Seat belt laws are a great example. I don't need, nor should it be a function of Government to protect stupid people from stupidity. That is one of the costs of freedom.

cbpagent72
January 27, 2013, 05:12 PM
You fully acknowledge that a ban will not have an effect on crime. Please leave and come back with an idea that will actually hurt criminals and will leave law abiding citizens alone.

I love how all of the experts on the left do not have any working knowledge of firearms and firearm parts except what the equally disinformed media has told them. That would be the equivalent of a person who doesn't know anything about cars and doesn't drive taking a postion on gas task capacity.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

SFsc616171
January 27, 2013, 05:19 PM
Dear Timmy4:

In all your logic, and all those "associations" that you have listed, you do not recognize that there is an underlying idea, that seems to escape you.

"Duh, gee, SF, what d'at?"

FREEDOM.

Decl. of Indep., Para. 2, Sentence 2:
" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just poweres from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We, the People, have NOT consented to this idea of a gun ban. The politicians, in their myopic belief, that it is THEY who have the power, by right of ascension to post, that are consenting to this gun ban.

To argue the good/evil of a manufactured item, that is used in the operation of a firearm, is a distraction, and a lie, foisted upon us, by the politicians, and their croneys, at all levels, be it federal, state, municipal, or from some Obama-supporting cleric, afraid of losing church money.

The Browning Hi Power, produced in 1935, was so named, because it was the first pistol, to have more than 8 rounds in a detachable magazine! Now, how many years is it? 78 years and still going.

The Colt AR-15/M16/M16A1 came into being in 1962. 51 years and going. We all know the history of the M-1 Garand, as well as the fact that The Washington Times in Sept., 2010, reported that Obama feared this WW2 rifle!

All of these have been used to defend and secure Freedom. Therefore, like those of us who cherish Freedom, it is a bad thing, and must be labeled as such.

Now, who am I, to sit here, and pontificate such things?

I am a senior citizen. I have seen more than some of you. I am a disabled military veteran, Class of U-Tapao, '71 - '74; Cold War veteran '70 - '80. I know what an M-16, and an AK-47, and all Chinese versions, can do.

It is my firm belief, that those who are born, as of and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in this Nation, outside of present-day veterans, do not know what it is that has been laid in their hands, by those like me, that paid the price of Freedom, unless they were taught by those that have never let that idea, slip from their hearts.

Any time those that have been elected to represent us, turn around and tell us, "No, you can't." It is time to remove those folks from office, because they no longer represent us, but think they lord over us.

Ms_Dragon
January 27, 2013, 05:21 PM
The issue of high cap mags has already being exhaustively discussed on your other thread and you have blatantly ignored all pro arguments there.

Making a second thread about this is ridiculous and the mods should lock it or merge it like they have done with threads made by longstanding, worthwhile members of this forum.

I see this thread as nothing more than attention seeking.

archigos
January 27, 2013, 05:22 PM
Address the cause that is present in almost every mass killing, not miscellaneous factors that are in some but not in others.
Ban assault zones. Almost every mass killing has occurred in a "gun-free" assault zone. Why are we even discussing any other action?

colorado_handgunner
January 27, 2013, 05:26 PM
I disagree one hundred percent on everything you said. This is not a matter of mass shootings, it is a matter of freedom. If you do not believe in high capacity magazines, do not buy them. However, do not propose to take away my rights because of your fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

JVaughn
January 27, 2013, 05:30 PM
Let's face it Timmy, you are an anti. Here it is, plain and simple, it is not the government's right, or place to tell us what we can and cannot own. Even if it did prevent crimes, which you said yourself it doesn't. The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizens (not the army, not the LEO's, the civilians) to protect themselves from threats, including the government.

If you don't understand that, then either:

1. You are not intelligent enough to get it (which I find unlikely based on your writing.)
2. You are uneducated in the facts about firearms and their effects on society (possible)
or
3. You hate freedom like all anti's do.

Which is it?

481
January 27, 2013, 05:33 PM
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments.


This is a tactic used by the anti-gun mob because they prefer to rely on emotion, not logic and fact, to argue their position.

If you simply reject a valid argumentative premise out of hand, then you also reject the right to engage in a reasonable debate.

Given your behavior (starting another thread of the same topic after the first was locked) and your refusal to accept valid premises counter to your point, I suspect that you are here simply to engage in trolling.

Ms_Dragon
January 27, 2013, 05:35 PM
@ Johnny Dollar: For some people even negative attention is good attention.

BHP FAN
January 27, 2013, 05:46 PM
''Quote:
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings.

So let's just make mass shootings illegal...''

THIS is the best comment I've read so far. Thanks, 'Zoom.

JRWhit
January 27, 2013, 05:53 PM
1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.
This is inaccurate. Loughner was tackled when the pistol jammed At that point he was tackled.
Not to nit pick, but that being your prime example, the fact that it is inaccurate brings the whole thing into question. Fact is your talking about people who did a lot of planning. I would assume that quick magazine swaps would be part of that preparation. The issue of magazine limits is far too divisive and would have very little effect on a situation of mass shooting. If we are to do something about it, we need to have a better plan than," keep the killing to ten". Magazine swaps can take place in as less than 1.5 seconds with practice. If we are going top have a course of action then we need a plan to shut a shooter down at the immediate point of occurrence,and prevention of such occurrence to begin with.

22-rimfire
January 27, 2013, 05:56 PM
2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general.

Hence, a magazine ban would have ZERO effect on future "mass shootings". Anyone with any sense can get 30 round magazines. You think they are just going to "dissappear" because of some law?

You might consider eliminating "gun free zones" or as one poster early in this thead suggested... maybe the manufacturer should just put a disclaimer that their magazines should not be used for "mass shootings". That will have just about as much impact as a law banning 10 round or higher magazines.

If only 10-round magazines existed, I would just carry more loaded magazines. After all, you can carry a backpack or other method to carry into these places and nobody would even take much notice.

I see no sense in such a ban. It would be a feel good law that only impacts honest people. Laws intended to fight crime should not inflict such hardships onto honest law abiding gun owners. I consider it an infringement on my rights as an honest citizen. I don't hold to the argument that some give that "if only one life is saved..."

I don't see much reason to debate this topic. You are not going to convince most people here. Your name Bloomberg? But I do think that views that are contrary to the majority of THR members should be welcome. But you will get the kind of response you get and those should be anticipated.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2013, 06:08 PM
Timmy said:

I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But it clearly would be a violation.

The intent behind the 2nd Amendment was...and is...that we be on equal footing with a standing army, which the founders were not in favor of, by the way. They knew the dangers of such.

"Well Regulated" is not to be taken to mean government regulated. It means self-regulated, by the members of the militia...a militia that we all belong to.

"Regulated" meaning that the militia should conduct regular meetings...drill...practice...appoint leaders and officers...and develop strategies for senarios in which the militia may have to mobilize. Google "Minutemen."

To believe that the wording means government regulated defies logic. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a costly war against an over-reaching, tyrannical government...one that strove to regulate everything. Why would they...in their mistrust of a centralized government with a standing army...turn around and hand control of the only means to resist back to the government? It doesn't make sense.

Lastly, the 2nd Amendment is the only one that insures that all other articles addressed in the Bill of Rights will stand. Without the means to effectively resist the usurpation of the rights that the Constitution guarantees...there is nothing to prevent them being trampled. Nothing. Thus, the 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense. We can't afford to allow any of its teeth to be pulled.

Ultimately, the police chiefs and mayors and the media shills and the politicians can speak any way that they choose, but to work toward violating the constitution is not only a violation of their sworn oaths...it's treason.

Whenever I hear one of them state out loud something on the lines of "We have to disarm the citizens of this country!" I'm tempted to ask them just who the hell they think they are to propose to do anything to the citizens of this country.

"By the consent of the governed" is another term you should research. The politician's job is to serve the people...as he is sworn to...not the other way around. It's time for we the people to remind them of that little reality.

And, no...we can only occasionally stop the man bent on mass murder before the fact. We can only stop him in the act, as soon as possible...and the only reliable way to do that is to shoot him down the instant that he starts...and the only way to do that is to be armed. While it may indeed be my day to die at his hands, he'll have to prove it to me. Given a choice between dying on my feet, fighting for my life...and on my knees, begging for my life...the choice is pretty clear. At least, mine is.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well,
but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters
. . . . . but they mean to be masters."

--Daniel Webster--

Wilbert
January 27, 2013, 06:13 PM
Remember the infamous North Hollywood shootout? That occurred during the last ban. Criminals aren't too worried about breaking laws.

JRWhit
January 27, 2013, 06:48 PM
I would click "Like" on tuners post

BHP FAN
January 27, 2013, 07:11 PM
...me too. Wow, did Tuner ever nail it..! [and the Daniel Webster, quote too]

wannabeagunsmith
January 27, 2013, 07:21 PM
I admit I have trouble understanding your point that a shotgun would be far more deadly than an AR-15

Here is a shotgun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBFS3HWoIU

and an AR-15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP_3_b4ZvIQ&list=UU1UICFxcABkGg8Nj3X0dW8Q&index=40


now tell me what seems more powerful..

1911Tuner
January 27, 2013, 07:36 PM
I admit I have trouble understanding your point that a shotgun would be far more deadly than an AR-15

Let's take a look at that.

A short barreled 12 gauge shotgun with no choke...firing buckshot...is probably the most lethal and destructive close quarters weapon ever devised by man if we exclude explosive devices...and even those are hard-pressed to match the shotgun because they're indiscriminate. The shotgun is aimed.

If I were tasked with cleaning out a roomful of people...given the choice between a short slide-action shotgun with 8 rounds capacity vs an AR15 with 30...I'd pick up the shotgun without blinking.

Fred Fuller
January 27, 2013, 07:46 PM
One of the framers used a phrase a couple of times that has stuck with me ever since the first time I read it many years ago. His name was Tench Coxe, he was from Pennsylvania, and the memorable (to me) phrase was "every terrible implement of the soldier."

I have included a segment of his writing below which includes this phrase, in context, which might help in understanding what he meant.

Just one of the "terrible implements" of the modern soldier is a 30-round magazine...
===========================================

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".
=============================================

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2013, 07:50 PM
Fred! Outstanding post!

Fred Fuller
January 27, 2013, 08:07 PM
Thank you, sir. And they told me in 1974 I'd never amount to anything with just a history degree... :D

For more on Coxe, see http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/hk-coxe.htm. It's too long to post here, but well worth reading IMHO.

Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823
By Stephen P. Halbrook[a1] and David B. Kopel [aa1]
7 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 347 (1999).

beatledog7
January 27, 2013, 08:24 PM
Fred, I presume that full quote is at the link. Just what I needed to send to a friend and to use in a class. Thanks!

BLB68
January 27, 2013, 08:28 PM
This is just a quick reply to put out a couple of thoughts that I had on reading the original post. I haven't read the thread, but will go through it later when I have more time. So, if I say something that's been covered, I apologize in advance.



1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.

If you have any links to this list of shootings, I'd appreciate if you could provide a link. I've seen many, many lists of mass shootings lately, from all kinds of sources, and no two lists are the same.

I think this is important in framing the discussion. We need to be able to agree on what constitutes as mass shooting. The FBI definition of a mass murder is 9 or more people killed in one event at one location. However, that doesn't necessarily work for the discussion. For example, the Oregon mall shooter only managed to shoot a smaller number of people, but his intent was clear. Or, for example, a man shot his wife and several of he friends in another event, but we don't know that his motivation was general mayhem or premeditated murder against just those people (or anyone he had to go through to get to them). (That event was on one list and I don't think had nine victims. So, it would have been disqualified by the strict definition anyway.)


2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion.

While things worked out this way in the Arizona shooting, and they have at other shootings, they don't always work out this way. Someone has to take the first step. That's psychologically hard to do. Mostly, people react like deer in the headlights in the face of an unexpected outbreak of violence. Once they see someone else react, they get validation for their urge to act and follow along. There's a name for this phenomena, though I can't think of it off the top of my head, but it's a very real thing. This means that it is a rare event.

Given the rarity of mass shootings, and the further rarity of unarmed civilians stopping a shooter during a reload, I'd have to say that this is a flawed argument. Very flawed. I may be proven wrong by that list of mass shootings since the AWB. How many more besides the AZ shooter were taken out by unarmed citizens while reloading? How does that compare to the number who were stopped by armed resistance from a civilian, security guard (still a civilian, but listed b/c some people don't view them as such), or off duty police officer (basically as well-equipped to deal with the situation as any other concealed carrier)?


Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well.

Did you know that the 100 round drum magazine used in Aurora malfunctioned? The shooter was not tackled by anyone. I believe most of his victims were shot by his handgun, but I'd have to fact check that.

And there are more examples.


As stated above, please provide these.

Lucifer_Sam
January 27, 2013, 08:41 PM
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.


Ah, this old saw. Based on the Giffords shooting where the shooters gun malfunctioned after a reload and he got taken while trying to get it working again. Guess what? He might have killed a few more people with reduced capacity mags, alot of these spree shooters have had mag problems, and reduced capacity might have worked better.

I'd never heard Laughner was taken during a reload, I thought even the media knew that his weapon malfunctioned, too. I guess the facts are changing to fit the story the antis want. Its like they think reloading is this long arduous process that takes the better part of 10 minutes.

But the final nail in that coffin is this post by one of the mods here

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=691700

Also, regarding the "9 out of 10 spree shootings have been with high capacity mags" thing, or what ever it was, most modern pistols and rifles have more than ten in the mag by design, that is the natural capacity of the weapon. 10 rounds is an artificial constraint. So, the shooters would have had to go buy special reduced capacity mags for their spree shooting to use ten rounds or less.

I dont know how much of this has been said already, I haven't read through the whole thread.



"Well Regulated" is not to be taken to mean government regulated. It means self-regulated, by the members of the militia...a militia that we all belong to.

"Regulated" meaning that the militia should conduct regular meetings...drill...practice...appoint leaders and officers...and develop strategies for senarios in which the militia may have to mobilize. Google "Minutemen."

To believe that the wording means government regulated defies logic. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a costly war against an over-reaching, tyrannical government...one that strove to regulate everything. Why would they...in their mistrust of a centralized government with a standing army...turn around and hand control of the only means to resist back to the government? It doesn't make sense.



Its my understanding that the closest synonym to "regulated" as used in the Constitution is "disciplined"--"A well Disciplined militia....". I was actually thinking of starting a thread here to double check that. I've also heard it meant that the weapons were of a common deisgn so there would be ammo commonality and things like that. Not so sure about the second one, though.

12gaugeTim
January 27, 2013, 08:49 PM
1. Most people who buy magazine fed rifles have more than one magazine to accompany it. I don't know a single person who owns just one magazine with their AR15. With that in mind, its fair to take the number of rifles that are commonly found with 30 round magazines and multiply it by 3. this is an extremely low, but fair, estimate of how many magazines are already in circulation. This is also an extremely low estimate of the candidates for magazines that will be forced into a black market that will see its inception under a capacity ban.
2. Magazines are easy to hide and they are they are easy to make. It's a rectangular prism with a spring. Any fool with mechanical know-how of the lowest caliber could modify a 10 round magazine to hold 30.
3. "If it can save just one life." Unfortunately, many of the people who keep nightstand guns only keep one magazine handy with it (even if they have more). Three thugs break into a house. The woman wakes up and grabs her 10 round limited 9mm. She shoots 3 times at one thug, he's down for the count. 4 at the next, luckily a few connected. Now she has 3 rounds to deal with the last one. Oh yeah, he's on PCP.
4. Defenders are almost always less prepared than attackers. These high profile shootings have been committed by people absolutely strapped with ammo. Magazine changes can happen fast. Drop, insert, rack. It's not complicated. Capacity bans will only make the defenders less apt to, well, defend.
5. Look at Columbine and Virginia Tech. Shooters don't need 30 round magazines to get the job done.
6. Are the police also going to comply with a capacity ban? They face the same threats us lowly citizens do. They don't fight some "police only" criminals. If a burglar breaks in and I have a ten round magazine to defend myself with, when the police show up after I'm dead, they should also only need a 10 rounder to do their job. After all, it's the SAME threat, and Unkie Sam already told me I only need 10 rounds to defend myself from it.
I'm tired of typing

OcelotZ3
January 27, 2013, 09:35 PM
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.

Timmy must be ignorant of New York's new law ratcheting the magazine limits from 10 down to 7, and a New Jersey lawmaker's bill to lower it from 15 to 5 rounds per magazine.

Funny how he rejects something happening before his own eyes in real time.

skeeziks
January 27, 2013, 09:38 PM
Timmy's on vacation.... He'll be back in a couple days.

Kim
January 27, 2013, 09:39 PM
Timmy-----until people who want to ban firearms etc. understand firearms it is a useless argument. I am a single female highly educated professional (physician). I do not support any "gun control". It does not work. All it does is effect people like me. What good is that going to do. If you trust me with your life how in the world will taking away things from me make society safer?????? My father gave me my first firearm at age 18. He showed me how and when to use it. It had it in my dorm room in college etc. I graduated HS in 1977. What has happened if anything to the younger generation in that time span and how do you correct it???? Oh yea, he gave me all this knowledge because I would be living 20 miles from home. And yes, I am a female. Never would I give up my firearms and magazines. My father taught me better than that.

Pronghorn19
January 27, 2013, 09:40 PM
What happens when the next mass shooting happens with a psycho using 10 round magazines?

Another thing, my shotgun holds 8 rounds. Firing 00 buck that means I can put 72 32cal balls on target as fast as I can pull the trigger. Don't try and compare lethality of different types of firearms. They are ALL lethal, and ALL of them can be used by criminals. Why stop law abiding citizens from owning one?

newfalguy101
January 27, 2013, 09:42 PM
shocked this isnt locked yet......jes sayin

Pronghorn19
January 27, 2013, 09:44 PM
Another thing, I go to UWW and I am 20 years old. On friday we had a shooter on campus scare, and I was told to just sit in my room and stay put. Unfortunately, my life isn't valuable enough to hold a CCW, let alone a CCW on my campus. Thats where the real gun discussion should be in the media. Why can't I have the right to protect myself?! I have a job, go to school, pay my taxes, belong to a gun club, and obey all laws. How come my life isn't valuable enough in the laws eyes?

gossamer
January 27, 2013, 09:48 PM
Do you have any proof of the efficacy of intervention against someone with a smaller mag than a larger?

You have a hypothesis: smaller capacity magazine means intervention is more effective. It seems that if you want to change the law you would be able to provide statistically significant evidenced of your hypothesis. Meaning it would bye repeatable.

At this point you're only offering conjecture.

velojym
January 27, 2013, 09:51 PM
Limiting your argument to one set of circumstances, and ignoring all else, is a common tactic of the grabbers. "If we can only save ONE child!!!" comes to mind... but they don't tell you about the thousands endangered by not allowing their parents the tools with which to protect them.
The OP is, at best, intellectually dishonest, but I won't put too much effort into debating with a troll, so have at it.

gossamer
January 27, 2013, 09:57 PM
Tuner, can you site a source for this?

"Well Regulated" is not to be taken to mean government regulated. It means self-regulated, by the members of the militia...a militia that we all belong to.

I'm not doubting you, I just would love a source for this.

lobo9er
January 27, 2013, 10:01 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8648077.stm
Let me rephrase
maniac in school stabbed 18 children killed 8. He did not need a gun to inflict that type of havoc. I believe the OP's heart is in the right place but in my opinion he is mis guided.

velojym
January 27, 2013, 10:02 PM
It was the language of the time. I don't think you'd expect a bunch of anti-government rebels to include wording that would immediately place a monopoly of power in the hands of a government that nearly all of the Founding Fathers warned us about.
You regulate the barrels on a double shotgun to shoot at a certain point of aim. It doesn't require a vast government agency to dictate the process. Besides, it isn't the defining clause in the Amendment anyway. The key phrase is "shall not be infringed." Whatever leads up to that may be taken as context, but that's it.

DammitBoy
January 27, 2013, 10:07 PM
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload.

So, if I am a defender fighting off multiple criminal assailants, the easiest time for them to overrun me is when I'm trying to reload.

This must be why the police and military favor the 30 round magazine. It's also why I favor standard capacity magazines.

Newcatwalt
January 27, 2013, 10:11 PM
Is Timmy some kind of Troll? He joined THR two days ago, already has 108 posts, and he makes some BS statement about not being in favor of high capacity magazines on this forum. Must be trying to stir up trouble. Why else would he make such a post - to better educate himself? Yeah right....

9MMare
January 27, 2013, 10:15 PM
I would say, on the "chance" that the responses here will be used for other purposes, that we remain as civil and constructive as possible.

I dont want to risk banning, of course, but whatever the purpose of Timmy's appearance here, we do have the opportunity to make our case for the 2nd Amendment and proposed restrictions clearly and effectively. People have done so in both of his threads; it's been really impressive.

However nothing stops him from cherry-picking the few that might be taken the wrong way or were misleading or extremist...and using them for his purposes.

I'm not focusing this on any High Road member....mostly I am incredibly impressed by the range and depth of knowlege here. kudos.

CBT_ENG
January 27, 2013, 10:19 PM
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle.

Loughner was using a Glock 9mm which is most likely faster reload then a rifle. The argument that a smaller capacity magazine will save lives is ridiculous. You better hope an unarmed person is brave enough to make a split second decision to attack an armed person who is reloading. Not going to find many of those types.

Triumph
January 27, 2013, 10:23 PM
I got that from an editorial by George Gascon, district attorney for San Francisco

Enough said.

I believe this thread is an exercise in futility, IMHO.

Timmy4 cannot be convinced but enjoys the the ongoing pontification.

Not sure his assertions deserve any more comment.

12gaugeTim
January 27, 2013, 10:32 PM
I wouldn't call Timmy4 a troll. I know he joined just a few days ago, but I saw his first thread, and he obviously created his account for the express purpose of being able to have an honest discussion with pro-gun advocates.

In addition to that, a troll would probably make more irrational arguments that cause frustration and anger, and wouldn't be so open to suggestion. If he's a troll, he's the most subtle troll I've ever seen.

Even if he is a troll, it's not common that an anti-gun posts in this forum. Personally, I consider this a welcome break from the incessant commiseration that goes on in THR. New gun legislation is proposed, a thread is started about it, and people come together to post the same ideas that everybody already has about why the proposal wouldn't work. It's preaching to the choir. Even if all these rational arguments don't do a thing to change Timmy4's mind, it's still a chance to see how the anti's function, the points they like to make, and the most effective counterpoints for those points.

grampster
January 27, 2013, 10:34 PM
We're into 7 pages of very well balanced, polite, informative debate with Timmy. The membership has handled itself very well imho. Moderators have been very liberal with the continuance of this thread. Anything more and all we are doing is indulging a person who is not willing to be educated and perhaps never was.

At this point this thread has no real purpose anymore and should be closed.

Just my 2 cents and well done for the membership.

BullfrogKen
January 27, 2013, 10:37 PM
Even if he is a troll, it's not common that an anti-gun posts in this forum. Personally, I consider this a welcome break from the incessant commiseration that goes on in THR. New gun legislation is proposed, a thread is started about it, and people come together to post the same ideas that everybody already has about why the proposal wouldn't work. It's preaching to the choir. Even if all these rational arguments don't do a thing to change Timmy4's mind, it's still a chance to see how the anti's function, the points they like to make, and the most effective counterpoints for those points.

Hear, hear!


I like having to opportunity to defend my position in a thoughful manner. Timmy has provided that.

lobo9er
January 27, 2013, 10:46 PM
The biggest school massacre in the USA didn't even involve a firearm at all.
"...The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58..."
so take away the guns, the magazines, and the bullets and bad guys through out history have always found a away and I am sure will continue to, unfortunately.

I agree with triumph's last post.

breakingcontact
January 27, 2013, 10:47 PM
I used to not understand the NRA position of not giving up one inch or how people couldn't agree to "common sense gun control measures".

I get it now, as soon as they get you to 10 round mags, it will be 7 or 8, then 5. Then no magazine fed rifles.

Then we end up begging to keep a 22 bolt action.

How to stop violence is to prevent it in the first place by having real communities and families and social support systems that don't create monsters.

If that fails, we need to be able and willing and prepared to commit a greater "violence of action" against these monsters.

chevyman097
January 27, 2013, 11:01 PM
You defeat your own argument for the restriction with #2. Thank you, help out cause again.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:18 PM
Hello again, back sooner than I thought. For some reason the other thread I started was closed or removed. So I decided to post in this one again. Hope you guys don't mind.

If I could, I would change the title to this thread, because I am now unsure where I stand on this issue, thanks to some of the posts here. I can no longer write with any confidence that a ban on high capacity magazines will be effective in saving lives. There are too many problems with that position, among them:

1. The ability of bad guys to do as much damage with lower capacity magazines, in part because of the speed in which they can change mags. Perhaps the key aspect of my argument has been that while the bad guy is trying to change mags, he can be taken down. But if it only takes a second or two, then my argument flies right out the window. There does seem to be some disagreement on this issue between the literature I have read previously and the stuff you guys have provided. Until I get to the truth here, I am no longer confident about my previous position.

2. Because there are so many high capacity magazines already in existence, and because apparently they are easy to duplicate through printing, banning them will have little to no effect on the ability of bad guys to obtain them. This argument is not really addressed by those in favor of the ban, other than one Washington Post story which I cited earlier in which the original ban had an effect. Before I reach final judgment on this question, I want to look at how it has affected California (where we already have a ban in effect.)

3. The argument that high capacity magazines are a necessity for home defense. I have been skeptical of this argument in the past, and in the other thread, I challenged people to provide me anecdotes that would back up this argument. But then someone linked me to an article about a woman who faced a dire situation with only 10 rounds, and nearly died. I have to admit this article has given me pause. I'm still skeptical that anyone NEEDS 30 rounds, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I'm truly qualified, as a non-gun owner, to arrive at an educated opinion about this.

Hence my uncertainty. Have I moved to a point where I believe that there should be no limits? I have not. But questions have been raised, and information has been provided, which I can't answer to my own satisfaction.

I remain convinced that most of you are wrong about three essential issues regarding the proposed ban: first, that it would violate the 2nd Amendment. Second, that it is part of a slippery slope. Third, that tyranny is a real possibility or concern that factors into this equation. I would be happy to discuss and/or debate these issues or any other aspect of this proposal.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:23 PM
Regarding point #1 in my last post: One of the key examples I have been relying upon in the "tackle while reloading" argument has been Jared Loughner. According to the literature which supported my original position, Loughner was tackled while trying to reload. This has also been reported numerous times in the mainstream media. However, according to several people here, Loughner was tackled when his gun jammed.

Obviously, there is a big difference between reloading and jamming- the first helps to justify my previous argument, the second destroys it (especially if the jamming is the result of a higher capacity magazine.) What is the truth about this? I assure you it matters very much.

BHP FAN
January 27, 2013, 11:28 PM
Let me pose a question in return. Most of the folks that come up with these restrictions and bans have even less of a clue about guns, than you, a non shooter [who has at least done some research] so why in the world do they get to decide what we do and don't need, or even what would be ''reasonable''? Do you go to your dentist to get an opinion on what muffler to buy for your car?

Warp
January 27, 2013, 11:30 PM
Regarding point #1 in my last post: One of the key examples I have been relying upon in the "tackle while reloading" argument has been Jared Loughner. According to the literature which supported my original position, Loughner was tackled while trying to reload. This has also been reported numerous times in the mainstream media. However, according to several people here, Loughner was tackled when his gun jammed.

Obviously, there is a big difference between reloading and jamming- the first helps to justify my previous argument, the second destroys it (especially if the jamming is the result of a higher capacity magazine.) What is the truth about this? I assure you it matters very much.

It really doesn't matter. Neither situation is justification for infringing upon the Second Amendment.

paintballdude902
January 27, 2013, 11:32 PM
im ashamed to share a first name with the OP.


it takes about 3/4 of a second to reload and pistol or rifle as long as you know what your doing. there are guys that can fire revolvers way faster than most people have fire a rifle. its pointless.




time to ban fertilizer and diesel too, its used it high profile bombings. knives are used in high profile stabbings and dont require reloading...


if you dont want STANDARD CAPACITY mags then dont buy them. i will continue to buy them and continue to use them

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:32 PM
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle.

Loughner was using a Glock 9mm which is most likely faster reload then a rifle. The argument that a smaller capacity magazine will save lives is ridiculous. You better hope an unarmed person is brave enough to make a split second decision to attack an armed person who is reloading. Not going to find many of those types.
In his recent editorial regarding this issue, George Gascon makes the following assertion:

Most mass shootings are interrupted when the assailant is attempting to reload.

That's probably not a direct quote; I can't find the editorial and I'm going by memory. Now he doesn't back this up with any study or facts. I accepted it as a true statement, but now I am beginning to wonder. Is there any statistical evidence about this one way or another?

colorado_handgunner
January 27, 2013, 11:32 PM
Good evening Timmy. I want to commend you for having an open mind on the issue. I will admit that when I first read your post I simply wrote it off as some of us call it, trolling. However your last two posts show a willingness to keep an open mind and consider our position. This is something I see very rarely. Thank you for that, and I hope your desire to learn more about our opinions bears fruit for you.

BHP FAN
January 27, 2013, 11:35 PM
the truth is that the higher the capacity of the magazine, the more chances ther are for it to jam. I had a .22 Ruger 10/22 and I bought a 100 round drum magazine in the 80's that was a perfect illustration for this...every ten rounds or so, the thing would jam, and it would take about ten minutes of disassembly and reassembly to get the thing to work again. thirty round ''stick'' or ''banana'' style magazines worked as well as the stock 10 round magazines by Ruger.The stock 30 round magazines used by the AR 15 series work very well indeed. various aftermarket '' drums vary from decent to downright silly. most stock magazines are metal, a lot of aftermarket are ''zytel'', or some form of plastic, yet Russian fiberglass or bakalite magazines seem to work very well. But this could be because they are not drums.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:35 PM
Let me pose a question in return. Most of the folks that come up with these restrictions and bans have even less of a clue about guns, than you, a non shooter [who has at least done some research] so why in the world do they get to decide what we do and don't need, or even what would be ''reasonable''? Do you go to your dentist to get an opinion on what muffler to buy for your car?
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (real estate) is heavily regulated, and not completely by real estate experts.

The issue of gun safety is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it.

Warp
January 27, 2013, 11:37 PM
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (real estate) is heavily regulated, and not completely by real estate experts.

The issue of gun safety is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it.

Are you aware that the United States is a Republic?

And that we have a Constitution?

And that it is not legal to pass statutes/laws that violate that Constitution?

A magazine limit violates the Constitution. If people want to ban certain capacity magazines or types of small arms, legally, those people need to amend the Constitution.

meanmrmustard
January 27, 2013, 11:37 PM
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (real estate) is heavily regulated, and not completely by real estate experts.

The issue of gun safety is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it.
They did, about 223 years ago.

The King of England then is no less shady than the King of America today and vice versa.

It's time for the gent who fancies himself a leader of free men to reap what that sows.

Lucifer_Sam
January 27, 2013, 11:37 PM
Regarding your final objections, all I'll say is look at the direction that the gov't has been moving in. The gov't ls always happy to take rights and freedoms away, if the people call for it loudly enough, or if the people don't do anything. Virtual strip searches in airports, warrantless access to email, hell, Bloomberg want to tell you what drink size you can have. To me, the question isnt "why are gun rights advocates so vocal about the loss of a few rounds of ammo and jealous of their freedom" but more "why isn't everyone more vocal about all the rights that are constantly being usurped?" If we were all more like gun owners about all our rights, things would be much better, IMO. Really, how often do you hear about the gov't voluntarily giving powers back that it has taken?

Well, I will also point out that the slippery slope has been observed in other countries, so it isn't just bootless speculation on the part of gun owners. They all started with "reasonable gun control" and ended up with a populace that has great difficultly gaining access to guns. UK and Australia are both prime examples of this. Reasonable gun control=its soon reasonable for no one to have guns.

skeeziks
January 27, 2013, 11:38 PM
" but now I am beginning to wonder. Is there any statistical evidence about this one way or another?"

None that I'm aware of.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:39 PM
It really doesn't matter. Neither situation is justification for infringing upon the Second Amendment.
That's a separate issue, and one I'm willing to address. While I am no lawyer, I am extremely confident that if there is a ban on high capacity magazines, it will not be overturned by the Supreme Court, because it does not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. The Heller decision, involving trigger locks, was much more intrusive that this ban would be on gun rights, and even that was only reached by a 5-4 decision (and by the way, the dissents in that decision are very strong and make a whole lot of sense.) You would not find 5 justices who share the absolutist view of the Second Amendment that most of you have (only two currently that I can think of: Scalia and Thomas.)

Cesiumsponge
January 27, 2013, 11:41 PM
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (aerospace) is heavily regulated, and not completely by aerospace experts.

The issue of safety regarding falls is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it. Thousands die each year from falling and tens of thousands suffer irreversible and traumatic brain injuries. Therefore I am in favor of mandatory bicycle helmets to be worn at all times whilst in public, for every man, woman, and child in America. If it saves one life, we owe it to ourselves to give it a try.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:41 PM
Are you aware that the United States is a Republic?

And that we have a Constitution?

And that it is not legal to pass statutes/laws that violate that Constitution?

A magazine limit violates the Constitution. If people want to ban certain capacity magazines or types of small arms, legally, those people need to amend the Constitution.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Obviously I disagree. And look, many states have limitations on magazines, including California where I live. And these have not been overturned. Maybe they will be someday, if you're right, but they have not been.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:42 PM
the truth is that the higher the capacity of the magazine, the more chances ther are for it to jam. I had a .22 Ruger 10/22 in the 80's that I bought a 100 round drum magazine in the 80's that was a perfect illustration for this...every ten rounds or so, the thing would jam, and it would take about ten minutes of disassembly and reassembly to get the thing to work again. thirty round ''stick'' or ''banana'' style magazines worked as well as the stock 10 round magazines by Ruger.
This is a very interesting argument, and it's one that the other side never makes. Thank you.

John3921
January 27, 2013, 11:43 PM
WRT public policy - If it were truly a gun safety issue - why wouldn't the schools, school administrators, and public officials take full advantage of the NRA's safety literature (the Eddie Eagle program)?

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:44 PM
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (aerospace) is heavily regulated, and not completely by aerospace experts.

The issue of safety regarding falls is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it. Thousands die each year from falling and tens of thousands suffer irreversible and traumatic brain injuries. Therefore I am in favor of mandatory bicycle helmets to be worn at all times whilst in public, for every man, woman, and child in America. If it saves one life, we owe it to ourselves to give it a try.
Actually, in my state, bicycle helmets ARE mandated. And there is plenty of statistical evidence that it does save lives. If I had similar statistical evidence regarding limits on high capacity magazines, I would have NO problem sticking to my original position on this issue.

meanmrmustard
January 27, 2013, 11:44 PM
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Obviously I disagree. And look, many states have limitations on magazines, including California where I live. And these have not been overturned. Maybe they will be someday, if you're right, but they have not been.
But that was the will of your officials in the State and those who appoint them, not an all encompassing passive aggressive law put into place by the Federal government.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:46 PM
WRT public policy - If it were truly a gun safety issue - why wouldn't the schools, school administrators, and public officials take full advantage of the NRA's safety literature (the Eddie Eagle program)?
That's a separate question. I don't want to give you a detailed answer until I know more. But personally, I'm very uncomfortable with guns being introduced into public schools.

meanmrmustard
January 27, 2013, 11:46 PM
Actually, in my state, bicycle helmets ARE mandated. And there is plenty of statistical evidence that it does save lives. If I had similar statistical evidence regarding limits on high capacity magazines, I would have NO problem sticking to my original position on this issue.
But, you won't find it as it doesn't exist. No more so than finding proof that hi cap mags help end lives anymore so than standard or sub standard capacity.

Your position lies in El Dorado.

Warp
January 27, 2013, 11:47 PM
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Obviously I disagree. And look, many states have limitations on magazines, including California where I live. And these have not been overturned. Maybe they will be someday, if you're right, but they have not been.

4. Look up incorporation of the Amendments, RE: Application to the state governments

So, these states that have limitations on magazine size...what have the positive, crime reducing effects of these limitations been?

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:47 PM
But that was the will of your officials in the State and those who appoint them, not an all encompassing passive aggressive law put into place by the Federal government.
Not sure I see the difference. Either a law is unconstitutional, or it isn't. Brown vs. Board of Education was a response to local laws, not federal laws.

Warp
January 27, 2013, 11:48 PM
That's a separate question. I don't want to give you a detailed answer until I know more. But personally, I'm very uncomfortable with guns being introduced into public schools.

Then you shall continue to have people kill numbers of children in the "gun free" criminal empowerment zones where only the psychopath out to make a name for himself is armed.

Cesiumsponge
January 27, 2013, 11:48 PM
Actually, in my state, bicycle helmets ARE mandated. And there is plenty of statistical evidence that it does save lives. If I had similar statistical evidence regarding limits on high capacity magazines, I would have NO problem sticking to my original position on this issue.

Read again. I want EVERYONE to wear bicycle helmets at ALL times. More people trip and fall on sidewalks and stairs than fall off bicycles and crack their heads open. Everyone walks. Not everyone bikes.

Wearing bicycle helmets only when bicycling doesn't protect your head when you're walking or negotiating stairways.

avs11054
January 27, 2013, 11:48 PM
Good morning. My previous thread is temporarily closed, and since it is devoted to an overall discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I thought I would devote another thread to this specific issue, and why I am in favor of it. First let me make a number of points:

1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.

2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.

The basis of my argument comes from several law enforcement agencies. Here is a partial list:

National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
Hispanic American police Command Officers Association
National Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
National Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Sherrif's Association
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation

All of these national organizations, and many if not most state law enforcement agencies, are in favor of this ban. Their reasoning is pretty simple:

1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

That is the basis for my argument. Obviously there is much more detail, and I look forward to the responses I receive. One thing- I am in and out much of the day. I ask that, even if I am not here to respond, that the moderators not close this thread. I promise that I WILL get back to it. Thanks.

Timmy, I read the majority of the last thread that you started, but I don't have the time right now to read all of this thread, but I wanted to address your OP.

You and others refer to the Laughner shooting to say that people can just take down the shooter when he reloads. This is the ONLY mass shooting that I know of where this has happened. Those people were extremely brave. Why didn't somebody take out Cho when he reloaded? Indications are that Lanza had to reload. Why didn't somebody take him out when he reloaded? Why didn't somebody take out Kleibold and Harris when they had to reload or change guns? The list can go on and on about all the mass shootings that weren't stopped by people who took out the bad guy during a reload. Again, the people who stopped Laughner were very brave, and they could have paid with their lives. Very few people wouuld be willing to do that.

You also mention all these executive police organizations that support a ban, and they all say that it is to keep their officers safe. How many of those people saying that work the streets? Not very many. Virtually all of the officers that I know are 100% against any form of additional gun control. They know that it will not keep bad guys from getting guns, so why keep law abiding citizens from getting guns?

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:49 PM
4. Look up incorporation of the Amendments, RE: Application to the state governments

So, these states that have limitations on magazine size...what have the positive, crime reducing effects of these limitations been?
I don't know. I just asked that question. Do you know?

(I want to add here that those in favor of gun control argue that state laws have little effect because they are too easy to subvert- for instance, anyone who lives in California and wants a high capacity gun magazine can simply drive to Nevada and purchase one. The argument goes on that only federal laws will be effective. I've always considered this to be a strong argument.)

Warp
January 27, 2013, 11:50 PM
timmy4: Do you think making it illegal to bring a gun to a school in Connecticut was beneficial to the Newtown shooting? What did that law help? It was illegal for him to possess those pistols. It was illegal for him to leave the house with those guns. It was illegal for him to kill his mother. It was illegal for him to kill those kids. What does it being illegal for him to have the guns at the school do??

There are states where it's legal to carry a gun on school property, such as Utah. Been that way a long time? WHY IS IT BAD?

skeeziks
January 27, 2013, 11:50 PM
Timmy.... you don't need statistical evidence to know that helmets save lives.
You also don't need statistics to tell you that restricting magazines from 30 to 20 or 15 will do nothing to aid in saving lives in a "mass shooting."

Use the logic that God gave you.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:51 PM
Read again. I want EVERYONE to wear bicycle helmets at ALL times. More people trip and fall on sidewalks and stairs than fall off bicycles and crack their heads open. Everyone walks. Not everyone bikes.

Wearing bicycle helmets only when bicycling doesn't protect your head when you're walking or negotiating stairways.
But is that a fair analogy? Limits on high capacity magazines would of course be for gun owners only. Such a limit would not affect me at all as a non-gun owner. Am I proposing any restrictions that would cover every member of society?

meanmrmustard
January 27, 2013, 11:53 PM
Not sure I see the difference. Either a law is unconstitutional, or it isn't. Brown vs. Board of Education was a response to local laws, not federal laws.
The difference is that the law was made at a State level, by YOUR state. Not mine, not Warps, but your own. They deemed it necessary to uphold a semblance of safety, however ridiculous **** is in that regard.

You take a law that the Fed is hell bent on seeing through that spans an entire nation that in reality is unconstitutional, watch what separate states do.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:55 PM
Timmy, I read the majority of the last thread that you started, but I don't have the time right now to read all of this thread, but I wanted to address your OP.

You and others refer to the Laughner shooting to say that people can just take down the shooter when he reloads. This is the ONLY mass shooting that I know of where this has happened. Those people were extremely brave. Why didn't somebody take out Cho when he reloaded? Indications are that Lanza had to reload. Why didn't somebody take him out when he reloaded? Why didn't somebody take out Kleibold and Harris when they had to reload or change guns? The list can go on and on about all the mass shootings that weren't stopped by people who took out the bad guy during a reload. Again, the people who stopped Laughner were very brave, and they could have paid with their lives. Very few people wouuld be willing to do that.

You also mention all these executive police organizations that support a ban, and they all say that it is to keep their officers safe. How many of those people saying that work the streets? Not very many. Virtually all of the officers that I know are 100% against any form of additional gun control. They know that it will not keep bad guys from getting guns, so why keep law abiding citizens from getting guns?
Your first point goes directly to my question about the Gascon editorial. Until I know the answer to that question, I can't really answer you. Previously, I was under the assumption that Loughner only represents the most famous of many examples which justified my position. Now I'm no longer sure.

Also no longer sure of your second point. I wish some poll could be taken of law enforcement to find out what they really think about this. Virtually EVERY law enforcement agency that has given an opinion on this issue has come out in favor of this ban, which is a big part of the reason I supported it. But that in itself is not decisive, I acknowledge.

meanmrmustard
January 27, 2013, 11:56 PM
But is that a fair analogy? Limits on high capacity magazines would of course be for gun owners only. Such a limit would not affect me at all as a non-gun owner. Am I proposing any restrictions that would cover every member of society?
Should you not?

If I'm told I can no longer own a certain inanimate object due to its proposed and unsubstantiated effectiveness for murder, should you be allowed to speak freely any longer?

If I'm not mistaken, those that glorify these murderers as of late are using their 1A. Following this, more shootings at an alarming rate due to folks ending up on the 5'oclock news.

Timmy, I'd hate to say it, but I think I'm going to march to have your first amendment regulated. It helps cause death.

timmy4
January 27, 2013, 11:57 PM
The difference is that the law was made at a State level, by YOUR state. Not mine, not Warps, but your own. They deemed it necessary to uphold a semblance of safety, however ridiculous **** is in that regard.

You take a law that the Fed is hell bent on seeing through that spans an entire nation that in reality is unconstitutional, watch what separate states do.
But I already did. The AWB included a ban on high capacity magazines. It was in place between 1994 and 2004. What did the separate states do during those 10 years? Did they challenge it? Not to my knowledge. If they had challenged it, would it have been overturned? I doubt it, especially given the makeup of the court then (more liberal than it is now.) So I'm still not sure I see your point.

John3921
January 27, 2013, 11:58 PM
But you are a citizen - whether you actually own a gun or not - so it does affect you. You (presuming you're not a felon) can own a gun. So even if you choose not to, restricting the size of the magazine or the type of gun affects your personal liberty - even if you choose not to exercise that liberty.

paintballdude902
January 27, 2013, 11:59 PM
woops wrong thread

SpazC
January 27, 2013, 11:59 PM
Timmy you know MOST public schools had firearms as a part of their shooting teams untill the 60's .

My grandfather remembers taking his .22 to school and putting it next to his cubby in grade school.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

timmy4
January 28, 2013, 12:00 AM
Should you not?

If I'm told I can no longer own a certain inanimate object due to its proposed and unsubstantiated effectiveness for murder, should you be allowed to speak freely any longer?

If I'm not mistaken, those that glorify these murderers as of late are using their 1A. Following this, more shootings at an alarming rate due to folks ending up on the 5'oclock news.

Timmy, I'd hate to say it, but I think I'm going to march to have your first amendment regulated. It helps cause death.
Again, I don't see your point.

Right now it's illegal for you to possess heroin. That's a matter of public policy. Do you believe that only heroin addicts should be allowed to make a decision about this? Or do I and you as non-heroin users get a say as well?

BHP FAN
January 28, 2013, 12:00 AM
on the ''slippery slope'' portion of the arguement, one of the other members suggested this, but I'm not sure you saw it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

Warp
January 28, 2013, 12:00 AM
But is that a fair analogy? Limits on high capacity magazines would of course be for gun owners only. Such a limit would not affect me at all as a non-gun owner. Am I proposing any restrictions that would cover every member of society?

Don't be so sure.

Gun control effects more than gun owners.

The cities with the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the most violent crime, too. Just look at Chicago.

Other people being effectively and efficiently armed has a second-hand effect on you. The criminals don't know who is armed, who is not, and with what. And the government is more likely to respect your other rights when the people with guns are also concerned with those other rights.

You don't live in a vacuum.

Cesiumsponge
January 28, 2013, 12:00 AM
But is that a fair analogy? Limits on high capacity magazines would of course be for gun owners only. Such a limit would not affect me at all as a non-gun owner. Am I proposing any restrictions that would cover every member of society?

Fair? Since when has anything in this discussion been fair? Punishing the majority for the crimes of a minute minority is hardly fair, but here we are on page 8 of this thread. Besides, who said I was making an analogy? Is it okay to target a specific group of people in the name of public safety, but it isn't okay to apply public safety so it applies to everyone in the spirit of being fair and impartial? Is it distasteful to support legislation that would effect everyone and prevent the deaths of thousands of Americans?

If we all were mandated to wear helmets in our daily life, we'd be saving billions of dollars in hospital and ER visits. We'd be saving thousands of lives and preventing countless people who'd otherwise live as a vegetables because they slipped on an icy stairway and cracked their head open. For $20 per person for a helmet, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable program, if we were to start making the public safety argument.

Less than a hundred people die per year from criminals abusing high-capacity magazines in high profile events. Have you ever taken a look at the CDC mortality data and the hundreds of preventable methods of mortality that have a higher chance of killing you? I'd say cranking up production of bike helmets is a jobs program, saves lives, saves our medical system money, and promotes national morale. What's not to like?

timmy4
January 28, 2013, 12:01 AM
But you are a citizen - whether you actually own a gun or not - so it does affect you. You (presuming you're not a felon) can own a gun. So even if you choose not to, restricting the size of the magazine or the type of gun affects your personal liberty - even if you choose not to exercise that liberty.
Well, exactly. So I DO get a say, right?

G.barnes
January 28, 2013, 12:02 AM
Timmy what would your opinion be if someone told you what computer you could use because of hackers or everyone must ride a scooter because of drunk drivers. What would your opinion be if it was something that affected you. There is no proof that magazine restrictions work for criminals, but because it doesn't affect you you figure what the hell lets give it shot if it works great if not I'm not out anything.

timmy4
January 28, 2013, 12:03 AM
Timmy you know MOST public schools had firearms as a part of their shooting teams untill the 60's .

My grandfather remembers taking his .22 to school and putting it next to his cubby in grade school.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
I'm aware of this, but I think it's more a rural thing. I'm not sure that "most" is the correct term. I have less problem with this sort of thing in a rural environment. In an urban or suburban area, I think the introduction of guns into schools causes a lot of problems. But again, this is uneducated surmise on my part; I don't have a great understanding about this particular subject.

meanmrmustard
January 28, 2013, 12:04 AM
But I already did. The AWB included a ban on high capacity magazines. It was in place between 1994 and 2004. What did the separate states do during those 10 years? Did they challenge it? Not to my knowledge. If they had challenged it, would it have been overturned? I doubt it, especially given the makeup of the court then (more liberal than it is now.) So I'm still not sure I see your point.
Didn't stop pre ban anything from being owned, it regulated ownership of mags and guns made during the ban years and those that manufacture them.

I owned plenty of neato evil crap, perfectly legal. Nothing really to overturn.

What's going on now is different. Look at NY and NJ. This is getting scarily close to infringement of the first degree on a national theatre.

Cesiumsponge
January 28, 2013, 12:05 AM
Virtually EVERY law enforcement agency that has given an opinion on this issue has come out in favor of this ban, which is a big part of the reason I supported it. But that in itself is not decisive, I acknowledge.

Every law enforcement individual I know is against it. This includes law enforcement trainers who train the folks who teach at the academies, train other law enforcement, train the military, and train private civilians. These people are acknowledged as court-recognized expert witnesses who have such an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, they fit this important role. Some of these are people I have trained under. Who has more credibility, the lifetime desk jockey or the guy on the streets?

Please tell me how many law enforcement clubs/groups/associations have you seen that PROMOTE increased freedom? Besides one (LEAP), how many law enforcement groups have chastised the failed War on Drugs? How many have stood up to the phenomena of civil asset forfeiture? How many have stood up against no-knock raids? How many of these groups support educating citizens on their rights to refuse unlawful search and seizure? How many of these groups support openly recording law enforcement? How many of these groups support putting body cameras on cops for accountability?

Rattling off a list of law enforcement clubs and associations is counter-productive to almost any argument.

timmy4
January 28, 2013, 12:07 AM
Timmy what would your opinion be if someone told you what computer you could use because of hackers or everyone must ride a scooter because of drunk drivers. What would your opinion be if it was something that affected you. There is no proof that magazine restrictions work for criminals, but because it doesn't affect you you figure what the hell lets give it shot if it works great if not I'm not out anything.
Your examples, like so many of the others, tend to be all inclusive, and thus aren't applicable to the discussion IMO.

As far as your second point, you are incorrect. Unless I am reasonably certain that these limitations have a decent chance of being effective against bad guys and saving lives, then I'm not going to support them. The same goes for any proposed gun restriction. I realize there are some gun control people who simply want a gun free society and will do anything to get it- not as many out there are some of you THINK, but there are some. I am not one of them. Whatever I propose had better make sense to me, or I won't propose it.

skeeziks
January 28, 2013, 12:08 AM
He's NOT a troll. And if you keep using that word the Mod's will end up giving you a warning.

~ Just a friendly heads up. :)

G.barnes
January 28, 2013, 12:10 AM
Remember all these politicians have to do is make themselves believe they're right and they wil limit everything they can. In New York Bloomberg has put limits on food and drinks served at restaurants like its his job to tell you how to eat. Obama with his obamacare. Maybe I don't want Obamacare. Look at the cities these people have passed their "protect the people gun laws" they have the worst murder rates in the country. If they know what's best for us why aren't their laws making people safer?

jbkebert
January 28, 2013, 12:11 AM
But is that a fair analogy? Limits on high capacity magazines would of course be for gun owners only. Such a limit would not affect me at all as a non-gun owner. Am I proposing any restrictions that would cover every member of society?

I will start by saying that I have not read this thread in its entirety. I also did not read through your previous thread in its entirety. I also probably will not devote the time in doing so. With that being said.

The problem I have with your concept; is the fact "that it does not effect you at all" So your argument stands as well with me and someone saying. That my kids are not allowed to pray at school or to even say the Pledge of Allegiance. The large majority of people in this country believe in these things. Yet they have been demonized by the few who whined the loudest. I do not own a AR style rifle so the ban on hi-capacity magazines does not effect me. Yet as a firearms owner I will be darned if I am going to roll over. Because the few decide to whine.

BullfrogKen
January 28, 2013, 12:17 AM
Timmy,

Look.


You said you'd take a break for a few days.


Frankly, we all need a break from this for a few days. Us here on Staff. We've had to watch this thread and keep it on topic from personal attacks all weekend. We're not going to solve the world's problems in a week.


Can you do what you said you promised, give this a few day's rest?


We're not saying you can't come here.


We are saying the Staff is overwhelmed with monitoring a heated debate - especially with what you full well know our membership has dealt with the past couple weeks - and give us some peace before you return?

Like you said you would?


We aren't going anywhere.

1911Tuner
January 28, 2013, 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by timmy4 View Post
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload.

I'd like to address timmy directly on this point. I'll ask you to read this carefully and in its entirety.

First...rushing an active shooter while he pauses to reload does happen occasionally, but for the most part...it's pure Hollywood fantasy. It's also a good way to get killed.

Let's do a hypothetical.

I have a 1911 pistol and several 7-round magazines. 7 rounds is politically correct and acceptable...at least for now. I also have a magazine scabbard that holds four magazines. With two more fresh magazines in my left front pocket...and topping off the chamber of the pistol...I have a total of 50 rounds of ammunition at my disposal.

If I enter a classroom at the community college, bent on murder...pistol in one hand and a fresh magazine in the other...at the distance involved, hitting everybody I shoot at with one hand isn't a problem...especially if they're crawling around on the floor.

I can shoot the gun empty...reload it...and have it back up and running in about one second. Then, while I select another target, I can reach for another fresh magazine and carry on. And, timmy...I can reload that pistol and put it back in battery without even lowering it from point.

The average human reaction time is 1/2 to 3/5ths of a second. Assuming that anyone in the room is even aware that the gun is empty, that gives them 1/2 to 2/5ths of a second to get up and rush me before I can have the gun loaded and ready to fire another 7 rounds. Lather-rinse-repeat until I've shot 20 people. Total time...maybe 30 seconds...and I've still got another 30 rounds on tap.

So, timmy! During those one-second lulls while I reload...and again assuming that anybody even realizes that the gun has gone empty...who is going to make a run on me? You? The girl next to you who is trying to make herself as small as possible...hoping that I won't see her? Who, timmy?

Assuming that you even realize that I'm reloading, I can have the gun kill ready again before you can get to your feet...and I'll shoot you before you advance three steps from the farthest corner of the room where you've gone frantically trying to find a crack to hide in.

You're kidding yourself, timmy. You've been watching too much television.

So. Let's assume that the above senario did take place. The call would go up to ban 7 round magazines...and then 5 round magazines...and then all magazines and autopistols.

Then, when the shills discover how quickly a little practice with a speed loader allows a revolver to be reloaded...a ban on speed-loaders will be passed...and then on revolvers...until they've got us down to single-shot .22 pistols...and they'll eventually get around to those.

It's not about crime control, timmy. "They" don't give a rotund rodent's rump about you or me or anybody else, and they will use these tragedies in order to further their agendae. It's not about crime control or gun control. It's about control. Period.

EDIT TO ADD:

Timmy...If you're within driving distance of Lexington, NC...I'll be happy to demonstrate the actions that I've described, so that you can see just how far your fantasy departs from reality. Your call. Standin' by.

345 DeSoto
March 24, 2013, 09:42 AM
I am in FAVOR of "High Capacity" magazines for the same reason the police are...to defend myself and my family...

DammitBoy
March 24, 2013, 11:03 AM
I'm aware of this, but I think it's more a rural thing. I'm not sure that "most" is the correct term. I have less problem with this sort of thing in a rural environment. In an urban or suburban area, I think the introduction of guns into schools causes a lot of problems. But again, this is uneducated surmise on my part; I don't have a great understanding about this particular subject.

Nonsense. I went to high school in Alexandria, Va right next to Washington DC and carried my rifle to school every wednesday and stored it in my locker because wednesday night was rifle team practice at Fort Belvoir. This was from 1974 - 1978 and no problems arose from this practice.

Pilot
March 24, 2013, 11:11 AM
Tuner makes good points. I would also add that nothing stops an assailant from having multiple, seven round (or higher) capacity firearms, so instead of reloading, he/she can just pull another gun and continue. Many of these shooters do have multiple guns, and use them. What stops someone from carrying a "brace of pistols"? However, the fallacy is that these people will follow laws and keep to lower capacity firearms. :rolleyes:

Carl N. Brown
March 24, 2013, 12:06 PM
Millions of people like myself have participated in the Civilian Marksmanship Program (the successor of the Army's National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice established over a century ago) that promotes practice with military service rifles.

I continue to participate in modern and vintage military matches at the local gun club. For that end I own a small number of military guns (and two replicas):
o M1 carbine, three 30 shot magazines, five 15 shot, one 10, and two 5.
o M70AB2 rifle, with four 30 shot magazines, one 20, and one 10 blocked to 5 but restorable.
o TM1 Thompson semi-auto carbine, with four 30 shot magazines, three 20.
o AutoOrdnance .45 pistol, six 7 shot magazines.
o H&K USP pistol, five 10 shot magazines.
o Mauser C96 pistol, several 10 shot clips.
o Webley .45 revolver, several 6 shot moon clips.

Millions of Americans own one or more military guns with standard magazines of 15, 20 or 30 rounds. Unlike you Timmy4 or me, most of them pay little attention to debates on gun control. which to them is only supposed to be aimed at criminals, at people who do bad acts (malum in se) with guns, and not at law abiding gun owners.

Making possession of standard issue capacity magazines a crime by making "large capacity" magazines illegal (malum prohibitum) will ensnare millions who have done no bad acts. And some of us will simply choose to ignore the ban, expecting either a sunset or repeal, or decide to treat foolish laws with contempt. Quite frankly, I have lost trust with this administration over its use of bogus stats like "90% of mexican crime guns come from US shops" and "40% of gun sales are at gun shows with no background check" and would have no respect for a magazine ban from the same source.

Given that you say:
"2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general."
Wouldn't the cost of the law exceed any possible benefit?

EHL
March 24, 2013, 12:12 PM
Guys,
I think Timmy has left the building.....:scrutiny: I don't think he took 1911 Tuner's offer and that was that.

Carl N. Brown
March 24, 2013, 12:13 PM
Or a law targeting the V-8 Ford, automobile of choice of Depression era bank robbers.

Oh, it was the New York City ROTC that had rifle practice in NYC high schools; you can find several accounts by people who went to school in NYC and recall from the 1950s and 1960s taking their .22 target rifles to school and checking them in at the gym before class. That was before children were Pavlovian conditioned to think guns = kill your classmates and teacher.

Torian
March 24, 2013, 12:19 PM
timster,
you keep coming here under the guise of information gathering and asking questions as if you actually possessed the desire to learn, then you continuously tell those people they are wrong. Interesting passive-aggressive tactic you have going on.

Are you working on a college paper? Gov't employee? News "journalist" ? You are certainly not who you pretend to be.
Exactly what I was thinking. This thread has many indicators of being conducted for "research purposes".

1911Tuner's post kind of ended things I think.

Queen_of_Thunder
March 24, 2013, 12:48 PM
Dear OP.

If the people listed in your post did their friging job we wouldn't have gun violence. Why come after the lawabiding gunowner and not felons and gang members. Could it be that its easier to mess with law abiding gun owners than the very people who violate the law.


BTW please explain what one does during that period from the time a 911 call is made,providing one can make a 911 call and the time the police show up.

Please explain how I provide for my own protection if my car breaks down outside of my County. Keep in mind you may not see a police officer for 24 hours or more outside of my County. In fact there are a lot of areas out here in the West where there is no cell phone coverage and you may not see a police officer for some time.

BigBore44
March 24, 2013, 01:29 PM
Timmy,
I agree with some that say you have brass. But there have been SOOO many replys that state why the magazine ban has no bearing whatsoever that you cannot seriously, with any tangible thought, refute them. We are legal, law abiding, gun owners on THR. We don't go on killing sprees or mass shootings. Some of us are hunters, recreational shooters, competition shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, military personell, newly awakened concerned citizens, or some or all of the above. We love our guns. They contain memories of our past with friends or family. And they ensure future memories.

You have to understand that criminals will obtain whatever weapons/magazines they want whether by buying them ILLEGALLY or stealing them. And therefore will posess them illegally. And they will use them to do bad things to good people. And a ban on mags of any kind will not stop criminals from getting them. Do you really think that the criminals will just say "Awe shucks, they banned my already illegal posessed magazines. Guess i gotta buy 10-15 round mags now when I go out and rob and kill people." Of course not. All a ban on mags does is weaken the law abiding citizen.

But make no mistake. The ban is just a stepping stone of the government to see how far they can push. The AWB didn't make it so they want to try something smaller like mags. And like Sam said above, it will only bring more and more restrictions until one day we have no way to defend any of our rights protected under the constitution. The 2nd Ammendment is the one and only right that gives the power of the people to the people. It's the only right that keeps our democratic republic from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship.

There are countless members from other countries that have unbelievable bans on guns in their homelands that are screaming at us (through type) to defend our 2A with everything we have. That we should not allow ANY type of infringement whatsoever. Why would they do this? It doesn't affect them. It's because our government is doing what theirs did to them and they can see it from the outside looking in. It's always clearer that way. And they know what it does to a society and a country when the citizens have nothing to keep their government from running rampant. And they don't want it to happen to us.

I could type much more. But I'm sure if I/We haven't changed your mind, we aren't going to.

gripper
March 24, 2013, 01:44 PM
FWIW, although I carry a Glock23 at work, off shift, my Makarovs& Tokarevs get a lot of carry......I still don't get Timmy's point...not a troll, but maybe too much the fanboy/ groupie of our " public servants"... been stated already, but even with the heel mounted magazine catch on the Makarov, I can and have changed magazines/ released the slide a LOT faster than he could " close the gap" on me...and, he' s also assuming that there are no active shooter types that can fight.
Best deterrent, IMHO ; to an active shooter( 7 or 75 rounds) is the following:
1) Awareness/ Alertness, both situational and physical

2) EDC of a firearm, knife, OC, cellphone etc with the willingness/ ability to use all
3) No more" gun free zones"- they're magnets for these dip**** malcontents
4)Obey " Malta prohibidorum", statist control freak laws, remaining " lawful but helpless"? Or ignoring/ disobeying any and all unconstitutional, anti freedom " laws" as you can- you decide, I already have.

brickeyee
March 24, 2013, 01:48 PM
The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not.
You meed to learn how the SCOTUS works.

It answers THE question asked, and tries to include as little extraneous decision making as it can (look up 'dicta').

Dicta is 9at the most) a guide to lower courts trying to interpret the affects of the decision, without being part of the law itself.

Magazine capacity was NOT an issue before the court in Heller.
Thus no part of the ruling needed to deal with it.

Kiln
March 24, 2013, 03:26 PM
You guys are still wasting your time on this guy?

I can literally change a magazine in less than two seconds. Limiting magazines isn't going to make a difference. I took my CZ75 to the range with four mags and loaded them to only ten rounds each. I was still able to get off fourty shots in less than a minute accurately including reload time.

I did this only to prove that the ten round capacity doesn't make us any safer. I took the video and used it to disprove an anti gun guy's theory that mag capacity will make a difference at a mass shooting.

berettaprofessor
March 24, 2013, 03:39 PM
Quoting Justin; Holy Thread Necromancy! Can we let this one die, please? "Timmy" is long gone.

Kiln
March 24, 2013, 03:44 PM
Please,with sugar on it! :D
I agree. If he's been inactive for that long then please lock this thing down. There's no point in this thread anyways and the idea of limiting mass shootings by limiting mag capacities has been disproven multiple times.

ShamboPyro
March 24, 2013, 03:45 PM
Sir, it is an infringement on the second ammendment, no matter who sais what, or what twisted Ideas have entered your head. I loose my rights because sum nutcase shoots up a school? How about guards at the school? CCW? Someone smart enough to not support a mag ban?

Warp
March 24, 2013, 03:46 PM
I am in FAVOR of "High Capacity" magazines for the same reason the police are...to defend myself and my family...

Did you realize this thread hadn't been posted in for two months?

mdauben
March 24, 2013, 03:52 PM
I'm aware of this, but I think (shooting teams in schools) it's more a rural thing.
When I attended the University of Illinois, Circle Campus, which is just blocks from the middle of downtown Chicago during the 1970's, they had an indoor shooting range in the PE building, shooting classes and a school shooting team. Hardy rural.

Larry Ashcraft
March 24, 2013, 03:57 PM
Can we let this one die, please?
Done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!