Magazine Restrictions?

[Rocketmedic]

I have a question- what, if any, compromises would we as a community be willing to accept in terms of magazine restrictions? We have stood our ground and repealed many of the most onerous facets of the gun control laws of the last half-century, but one particular portion of gun control makes sense to me. Namely, magazine restrictions.

I'm active military. An infantry medic, to be precise. I fully understand the need for firepower, and even downrange, we generally run 30-50 round belts, at the most. For sport shooting, I really don't see a reason to have more than 20 rounds on tap. As the Aurora Massacre's reported 100-round drum so graphically illustrated, 100 rounds of ready ammo is pretty far into the realm of "likely to be mishandled." I'm an avid sports shooter and I CCW where legal, and I really can't think of a reason to have more than 20 rounds.

This may be my own $0.02, but I think that we, as gun owners and carriers, should probably offer the olive branch to the American public. Fierce resistance has its place, but so does acknowledging and changing certain facets of our culture to avoid a backlash that would be far, far more restrictive.

I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted. It's a sacrifice, yes, but it may well prevent far more drastic measures in the future, and in all honesty, I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool when compared with the potential harm from their misuse.

Your thoughts?

 

[2DREZQ]

...Sits back and pours a shot of Glenfiddich.


This could get interesting.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I too have thought the same, however when it comes down to it....It isn't about "sporting anything". The 2nd is there for a reason. It is also about protecting your bacon. Sports is secondary or even tertiary as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

If he couldn't find a hi-cap mag he could have built a bomb and killed even more people. You cant stop crazy-

And I like my WASR10+Drum+Slidefire

 

[Zundfolge]

I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted. It's a sacrifice, yes, but it may well prevent far more drastic measures in the future, and in all honesty, I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool when compared with the potential harm from their misuse.

Your thoughts?

Give the antis an inch and they'll take a mile. It won't prevent more drastic measures in the future, it will only ENCOURAGE them.

Banning full capacity magazines or any other accessory or gun does nothing to stop bad people from doing bad things. Period.

Part of the original Clinton AWB was a provision that required the DOJ to study the effectiveness of the ban and even they concluded that after 10 years of the ban there was zero impact on crime and zero police officer lives saved (saving police lives was the excuse used to pass the previous AWB).

If we use the Aurora shooter as an example, you could ban guns (and magically make them all disappear) and this guy would have just firebombed the theater instead.

It would make more sense to ban movie theaters at this point.

 

[NDN-MAN]

Rocketmedic

Are you a closet ( only the police need those kinds of guns ) person?? If not why do you use sport shooting as a bar? So why not say most defensive shootings use less than three rounds ? So why have any weapon hold more than three rounds. It makes as much sense.

When the 2A was drafted sport shooting was not a thought. That is the battle cry of the anti's. ( The Bradys and Bloombergs). Also the published remarks of the founding fathers tell us exactly what the 2A is for and why.

 

[coolluke01]

With some practice a person can reload very fast. Restricting mag size will really do nothing to stop the number of people injured or killed when used to harm others.

 

[Twiki357]

Limiting magazine capacity would do nothing except encourage brady, bloombug, and the rest of the anti-gunners. Any limit placed would only be a step to the next lower limit and so on.

 

[Feanor]

I have a question- what, if any, compromises would we as a community be willing to accept in terms of magazine restrictions? We have stood our ground and repealed many of the most onerous facets of the gun control laws of the last half-century, but one particular portion of gun control makes sense to me. Namely, magazine restrictions.

I'm active military. An infantry medic, to be precise. I fully understand the need for firepower, and even downrange, we generally run 30-50 round belts, at the most. For sport shooting, I really don't see a reason to have more than 20 rounds on tap. As the Aurora Massacre's reported 100-round drum so graphically illustrated, 100 rounds of ready ammo is pretty far into the realm of "likely to be mishandled." I'm an avid sports shooter and I CCW where legal, and I really can't think of a reason to have more than 20 rounds.

This may be my own $0.02, but I think that we, as gun owners and carriers, should probably offer the olive branch to the American public. Fierce resistance has its place, but so does acknowledging and changing certain facets of our culture to avoid a backlash that would be far, far more restrictive.

I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted. It's a sacrifice, yes, but it may well prevent far more drastic measures in the future, and in all honesty, I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool when compared with the potential harm from their misuse.

Your thoughts?

Sorry, but you're not on my team, though I'm fairly certain that this very left leaning site, will provide you with many sympathetic "compromise" types who like yourself, are more then willing to trade liberty for lies.

 

[YankeeFlyr]

Doesn't matter...functionally, it's too late to make a difference.

How many millions of 30 round mags are out there for AKs, ARs, Mini-14s, etc.

You could heavily regulate the sale of ALL firearms in this country...but the barn door (or whatever the rural people say) has been open a long, long time. It wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Rob G]

I had several thoughts on this.

1. The second amendment makes no references to "sporting purposes."
2. A nut job who wants to kill people isn't concerned over the legality of his equipment.
3. If you agree that any magazine capacity is more inherently dangerous than any other you've kicked over the first domino. Eventually it will knock over all the others.
4. The antis want to ban guns, all of them. They're not interested in compromise. We shouldn't be either.

 

[Sport45]

I think we should start by regulating those magazines that have pictures of nekkid people.

No, wait a minute. Those are protected by one of those pesky constitutional amendments too...

 

[YankeeFlyr]

Feanor...this is a "left-leaning" site????




How far right is enough...Stormfront?

 

[Rmeju]

I believe this is a political, rather than legal question.

But, since this thread has not been closed, I will say this. If your stated reason for compromise is to ward off more stringent gun legislation, I would imagine that your strategy will not be effective.

I also read the reports vaguely asserting those huge magazines were involved, but I don't think they have actually confirmed any 100 rounders. I think you should ask yourself what kind of negotiating position you would be in with the American public if you made the above argument, and then it turned out the the Aurora shooter was actually using 20 round magazines.

Not a very good one, I would imagine.

As an aside, thank you for your service.

 

[PoserHoser]

If you give a little they'll take alot. Criminals don't give a rats tail about if it's legal or not. if they're going to kill people i doubt they'lll be stopped by mag capacity. It isn't about sporting it's about defending the rights of this countryand protecting whats yours by whatever means necessary. but thats my opinion

 

[Girodin]

one particular portion of gun control makes sense to me. Namely, magazine restrictions.

It really doesn't make sense.

For sport shooting, I really don't see a reason to have more than 20 rounds on tap.

I'm an avid sports shooter and I CCW where legal, and I really can't think of a reason to have more than 20 rounds.

I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool when compared with the potential harm from their misuse.

Study the purpose of the second amendment. It has nothing to do with your avid "sports shooting," whatever that is.

I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted.

No you would start by treading the constitution under your feet.

Furthermore, the practicality of making magazines a taxed NFA item is beyond silly for more reasons than I care to post in response to what I can other imagine is trolling. Surely if that made any sense it would make more sense just to have all guns be NFA items.

And what is so special about 20 round mags? the difference between 20 and 40 rounds is split second reload. Further whey stop at 20, doesn't 10 make everyone even more safe. Heck, why not preclude detachable mags all together.

In sum, a 20 round limit does nothing to make anyone safer in anyway. But even more importantly the second amendment and the reasons we have it are a terribly powerful argument against this silly idea, and the other NFA restrictions for that matter.

This is either trolling or just some of the most inane reactionary crap I've ever read on this board.

 

[Girodin]

2. A nut job who wants to kill people isn't concerned over the legality of his equipment.

No the CO shooter totally was, as evidenced by the IED he left in his apartment for investigators. . . oh wait, um never mind

 

[mljdeckard]

NO.

They have been losing BADLY for the last several years. It is up to us to keep the momentum on our side. DO NOT BE NAIVE. They absolutely do not care about magazine capacity. They won't be any happier about 10 rd mags than 100 rd mags.

Why do WE have to compromise? Why do WE have to change to accommodate THEM? Why can't THEY compromise? I'm all about compromise. This year, I only want HALF of the useless, ineffective, infringing gun laws repealed. Next year, we can look at the OTHER half. How's THAT for compromise?

 

[Girodin]

Here is the other thing the OP completely fails to account for in his horrible argument.

The shooter in CO could have bought his hundred round mag under your proposed scheme. His only past crime was a traffic ticket. He could have paid his tax, passed a background check and waited and had as many such mags as he wanted.

Of course even if they were completely illegal as all get out he could have found them. There is always a market for contraband and those that want it can get it.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's every bit as ironic as the Brady law, which wouldn't have prevented Hinckley from getting the gun that shot Brady.

 

[rajb123]

...we currently have large magazine restrictions in NY....we had magazine capacity restrictions imposed by bill and hillary clinton for 10 years....

this is not the answer. if everyone in the theatre had been carrying a handgun on their person, the unfortunate event in Colorado would have been largely curtailed or avoided.

Yeh, we need more gun control; requiring all adults to carry a handgun at all times while in public would be a good start.

 

[alsaqr]

I have a question- what, if any, compromises would we as a community be willing to accept in terms of magazine restrictions?

None!!!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Let's see, in real life the murderer who made me take home security precautions killed a woman in the boarding house one block from me, using a knife; he later beat two people to death with a baseball bat. We had a effing punk who felt disrespected at a Waffle House who shot a woman in the face with a "for-tay" -- stolen in a city 90 miles away. No high capacity mags in reallife gun violence that affects my neighborhood.

On the other hand, I shoot modern and vintage military matches, and have three long guns whose standard magazine capacities are 30 rounds. Now, having me pay multiple NFA taxes on 4 AK mags, 4 Thompson mags, and 3 M1 carbine tags, plus the gov't administration costs for the NFA registry that may exceed the NFA tax collected, benefits who and how?

Gun control fails basic cost/benefit analysis. Canada got rid of their long gun--rifle and shotgun--registry after spending 2.7 billion over a 17 year span. No crimes solved, no crimes prevented, four cases where the registry proved corroborating evidence after a suspect with motive and opportunity and other evidence was already in hand. As John Lott pointed out, at $70,000 salary, training and benefits per year, Canada could have had over 2,000 addition full time police each of those 17 years at a cost of 2.7 billion and a projected 34,000 crimes deterred or prevented. The projected deterrence might be dismissed as hypothetical, but the benefit of having the extra manpower to do patrols, investigations, arrests, etc would be real, and of more benefit than the gun registry. The only people who benefited were the computer systems salesmen.

Mexico has draconian gun control. Legally you can buy a gun with elaborate paperwork requirements from the one legal gunshop, run by the Mexican Army, in Mexico City. Restrictions in some ways similar to making all firearms in the US Class III, Title II, NFA. Mexican security consultant Georgina Sanchez estimates there are 12 to 15 million military weapons and 40 million conventional civilian weapon unregistered, unpapered outside the legal control system in Mexico. Americans living and working inside Mexico have described illegal gun bazaars in Mexican barrios that rival the gun bazaars on the Afghani/Pakistani border. Gun control creates black markets and is a dead end street in crime control. Tightly restrict guns NFA-style guns and create an outlaw gun market.

 

[jmorris]

, but one particular portion of gun control makes sense to me. Namely, magazine restrictions

Thats how they get us, divide and conquer. Pit the bolt action guys against the semiauto guys, the shotgun guys against the pistol guys, etc. You might remember after they passed the AWB last time they then turned around and started calling all bolt action rifles with a scope "sniper rifles". The only reason no one cares about machineguns is that there are only a half millon out there individuals can own and a bunch of us own more than one of them.

What do I think about restrictions, No, No and No. Enforce the laws we already have and quit " interpreting" life in prison to mean 8 years with good behavior.

I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool

10 round mags would certainly change the skill set needed in competitive shooting games (with the exception on the only one invented during the AWB IDPA). I would imagine 3 gun would die completely. If you had ever played the game you would know that not only are they a "legitimate tool" for the game they are down right nessessary for the sport.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

The compromise is that you can't buy full auto manufactured post 1986, no? That is sufficient. Everything else is now one trigger pull = one round fired.

And what's this about 'offering an olive branch'? I didn't do anything wrong!

Making law and policy in the wake of a tragedy in a time of emotion is a terrible idea.