*** 10-round magazine limit argument ***

The ten round magazine limit is a lie on its face. The only goal of it is that once they get it, then can then show that it isn't the capacity but the ability to quickly reload it that is dangerous so they can go after the really scary semi automatic weapons with detachable mags. The idea they care whether or not high capacity magazines are dangerous, or they care about stopping crime, of making anyone safer is giving them too much credit. The only have a childish fear of guns and want to get rid of them. The magazine limits are a means to an end, thats all.

There's really no basis, to anti's it's just that; a magic number that stops people from killing.

Arbitrary number that someone picked. Has no basis in anything, other than being a limitation that can be imposed.

I think that you are looking at this backwards. 10 round magazines, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, these all make little to no difference to the functionality/lethality of a firearm, and the politicians know that. But they have to be seen as doing something. So these bans go into place. whether they are effective in stopping the tragic deaths of innocents or not, the politicians have done their part to get re-elected.

Gregg28 said:

10 round magazines, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, these all make little to no difference to the functionality/lethality of a firearm, and the politicians know that.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. I think many politicians who are calling for an AWB really have no idea about any of those details, nor care.

Need we re-post Carolyn McCarthy's "barrel shroud" video clip?

Need we re-post Carolyn McCarthy's "barrel shroud" video clip?

Click to expand...

Oh Yes! Let's do!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

It brings me much joy and sadness at the same time...

Seems to me it doesn't matter what number is chosen the question of "why 10?", "why 25?", or "why 8?" will still come up. Point being is they aren't likely to waist time arguing over "why 10?" because they know that no matter what number they choose, it will be called into question. So, like the tired parent says it's "because I say so".

Hacker15E said:

... I think many politicians who are calling for an AWB really have no idea about any of those details, nor care...

Click to expand...

Precisely my point. They are not really interested in the effectiveness of the regulation, but rather the perception that they are doing something.

Not meaning to be the devils advocate here, but if I was somewhere there was a shooter, and I got to choose whether he had a 50 round magazine or a 10 round one, I'd choose the 10 round one because somebody might be able to get him while he changed mags.

Also I've heard many people argue FOR big magazines so they aren't outgunned by somebody with a bigger magazine here in the gun community.

So I'm not sure that arguing about whether the 10 round limit being bandied about is arbitrary or not is really a good one.

I don't have any military knock offs. And I only have 2 guns that can hold over 10 rounds and I don't use either for home defense.

I know most people feel either an AWB or a clip limit is onerous, and I'm not convinced that either could pass congress anyway.

But if people had a choice of either would they rather see the militaristic knock offs be banned or limited, or big clips?

The 10 round nonsense came from the lips of that fool Bill Ruger that was part of mthe deal he cut with the devil to keep the Mini off the naughty list. He's dead now, and his company now sells standard 20 and 30 rounders for the mini. But THAT is where that crap came from. The 1994 so-called ban.


Plus, we have a 'base ten' number system, and so on and so on. It's all lies and crap.

and I got to choose whether he had a 50 round magazine or a 10 round one, I'd choose the 10 round one because somebody might be able to get him while he changed mags.

Click to expand...

I'd rather he be armed with nothing more dangerous than a wet noodle, but prohibitions don't work (see war on drugs and alcohol for details), and even if they did work the sacrifice of freedom, in the case of firearms, is not worth the benefit. Certain lives may be saved in some instances if prohibition was acheaved, but when we give up the ability to defend ourselves we become subjects at the mercy of the governement.

It will be cut down to six because "WEll revolvers only hold six, why do semi autos need to hold more?". Then it will be three because "Well duck hunters can only use three in their shotguns?". See where this is going. So called compromising is what hurt Australian and UK shooters.

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what is to stop a criminal from making their ''high capacity clip" by cutting the top and bottom off two magazines and attaching them together or hammering out and indentations in a reduced capacity magazine?

The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, used only 10 round magazines. He reloaded 18 times. He murdered more human beings than Adam Lanza did.
The 10 round limit is political BS.
Soon they will be after all detachable mags, then all rifles that can hold a number of rounds....

Gregaw said:

but when we give up the ability to defend ourselves we become subjects at the mercy of the governement.

Click to expand...

And the buck stops there my friend, I will NOT give up the ability to defend my family and property. Cause as my pastor has said in the past "criminals will always have their's and he being a former KCPD Swat member(battering ram/breaching) also said you can't depend on your local LEO to get there in time to apprehend or dispatch the intruder to save yours or your loved ones lives.

Gregaw said:

I'd rather he be armed with nothing more dangerous than a wet noodle, but prohibitions don't work (see war on drugs and alcohol for details), and even if they did work the sacrifice of freedom, in the case of firearms, is not worth the benefit. Certain lives may be saved in some instances if prohibition was acheaved, but when we give up the ability to defend ourselves we become subjects at the mercy of the governement.

Click to expand...

This will not be sold as a prohibition to the public, it's a limit. 60 MPH comes to mind.

I will use what is best to protect myself. If i feel that is a 17rd handgun, that is what i will use or a 30rd AR.

Agreed, the number 10 is a meaningless and arbitrary swag at achieving an unachievable goal.

The anti's don't like "10" any more than we do. They'd like "zero" but are using 10 as an interim step, like slowly building a fence around the spot where you feed the wild pigs.

This will not be sold as a prohibition to the public, it's a limit. 60 MPH comes to mind.

Click to expand...

Fine but lowering the speed limit from 60 to 50 won't stop people that drive 90.

The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, used only 10 round magazines. He reloaded 18 times. He murdered more human beings than Adam Lanza did.

Click to expand...

This is an important point to make. I think we really need to stress that "assualt weapons" aren't fundamentally much different than any other firearms. In the ten minutes in which the shooting occurred, 26 people died. That breaks down to a bit over 1 death per 30 seconds. In that setting, almost every firearm manufactured within the last 100 years would be capable of reaching that number.

Assuming the AWB passed (or hell, even that they banned all semi autos) and worked flawlessly, at best it would reduce the potential rate of fire by a few rounds per minute (I don't know what the average RoF for a semi auto is vs a bolt or lever action, but I'd be really interested to see what it really works out to). That couldn't possibly reduce the death toll of such shootings by much, maybe 1.2 deaths per 30 seconds instead of the 1.3 we saw at this last one? Assuming that's correct, their ideal solution is to reduce the death toll by .2 deaths a minute. The best they've got, in an ideal world where all their plans worked perfectly and all the evil guns magically disappeared, is to reduce the number dead by some tiny fraction. They need to be called out on that.

It is arbitrary and ridiculous. As a law abiding NYC permit holder I am subject to this already. Both a friend and I shoot Sig P226's with 10rd reduced cap magazines. Shuttling back and forth from range point to lounge to refill magazines is disruptive to our range sessions and to other members organizing their sessions. Often we would each bring 5 magazines and load them twice for two 50 round sessions on a range visit. While sitting at the table after finished loading mags we both looked at a table of full of 10 round magazines and commented "but having just one 15 round magazine is illegal?" :banghead:

Plus, we have a 'base ten' number system, and so on and so on.

Click to expand...

Since when did we go to the metric system?

I digress......

I think Jon in WV hit it on the head. This time, even seemingly insignificant legislation could just be the beginning. Any concession whatsoever opens the door to the possibility that guns really are the problem.

If their first efforts don't drop crime rates, we may not be so lucky as to having them simply abandon the laws, like back in '04. They might just say, "Maybe we weren't aggressive enough with our legislation." It's not at all a far-fetched scenario, especially if massacres like this keep happening.

If Congress allows incoming legislation to focus on controlling objects, rather than people, rest assurred that this style of violence will continue.

mavracer said:

Fine but lowering the speed limit from 60 to 50 won't stop people that drive 90.

Click to expand...

Maybe so but speeders and federal firearms felons rarely share the same housing.