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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
timmy4 said:
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.
 
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?
 
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.)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
timmy4 said:
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top