proposed federal high cap. mag ban

[22-rimfire]

The 1000 feet thing is almost ridiculous.... it is totally impractical. You couldn't even walk past the court house on the street with a legally concealed handgun. He's from NY. What can I say?

As far as "out of control", things will settle down with the passage of some time. Six months from now, most Americans won't even know who Jared Loughner is without being reminded.

 

[armoredman]

Tuscon citizens took matters into their own hands. Why not give them the tools to do so more effectively instead of treating them like childern?

I can't see what further improvements could have affected this incident, evry non prohibited person present had the legal ability to carry a concealed weapon. The fact that they did not may or may not have impacted the events as they unfolded, but they certainly had the option.

 

[Justin]

Mr. Wisnieski (or others who are ok with "banning" magazines), if you have to equivocate a magazine that fits into a firearm to a nuclear weapon, I'm not sure there's any use in opening a dialog with you as you clearly have an issue with comprehending scale.

That said, there are any number of reasons for why outlawing so-called "high capacity magazines" is a tremendously stupid idea:

1.) The "ban" from 1994-2004 had absolutely no measurable effect on violent crime. None. Even the Violence Policy Center has admitted this.

2.) "High capacity" magazines were not only available during the ban, they were plentiful. Anyone who wanted them could buy them, and I seriously doubt that a mass murderer planning to go out in a blaze of glory is going to fret about paying the inflated cost of these items.

3.) Even without "high capacity" magazines, people intent on wrecking mayhem can do so. Charles Whitman used guns of traditional sporting configuration. The Beltway shooters never fired more than a couple of shots per incident. Seung-Hui Cho had no 33 round magazines, he used one or two 15 round magazines, and additional ban-friendly ten rounders, yet in spite of this, he managed to kill three times as many people as Loughner. Two of the weapons used by Harris and Klebold were completely incapable of taking "high capacity" magazines.

4.) Even if a ban on "high capacity" magazines was effective at removing them from the citizenry, it wouldn't change the number of deaths caused by spree killers, just simply the methods they would choose to employ. These people are dangerous and mentally unstable, not stupid.

5.) In order to support a ban on "high capacity" magazines, you have to support throwing people in jail simply for possessing them. Mr. Wisnieski, if you would care to write a rational justification for why our overburdened legal system should be further bogged down by throwing people in prison simply for possessing a piece of stamped sheet metal and a spring I'd like to hear it.

Perhaps before flying off the handle and acting like a dumb herd animal running from the thunderous sound of the media, some of us would do well to apply some critical thinking skills to the situation at hand.

 

[Carter]

I think its funny how the media simply left out the part where an armed Arizona citizen ran from a store he was shopping in when he heard the shots to stop the shooter. He arrived a few seconds after the shooter was restrained. Even a democratic California congressman stated the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. So, why would you limit the good guy knowing that the bad guy will never abide by any law you impose?

 

[doorman]

I thought those Glock 33rnd stick magazines were originally designed for the select fire Glock 18.

 

[Justin]

They were, but functionally they're the same as a Glock 17 magazine. Most Glock magazines are interchangeable between the various models of Glock so long as they're chambered in the same caliber of ammunition and you're moving a longer magazine to a shorter gun. (Obviously a magazine for a Glock 26 won't work in a Glock 19 or 17 due to being so short.)

 

[stonecutter2]

So, why would you limit the good guy knowing that the bad guy will never abide by any law you impose?

This is generally my argument against most gun laws. Criminals don't follow laws. You really only hurt the good guy, and occasionally get to slap another charge on a bad guy for more jail time or fines.

 

[Panzercat]

I can't see what further improvements could have affected this incident, evry non prohibited person present had the legal ability to carry a concealed weapon. The fact that they did not may or may not have impacted the events as they unfolded, but they certainly had the option.

[strike]Then you either missed or are purposely ignoring the fact that the gathering took place in a firearm restricted area, thus none or very few of the people present could have legally carried into that situation. [/strike]Part of giving the people the tools to do the job is not overly burdening them with regulations that put them at a severe tactical disadvantage.

Again, we demonstrate clearly that the criminal has no concerns for these laws. We won't even get into the overall national policies that actively and passively discourage gun ownership across the country, further reducing the population density nessisary to deal with these situations.

*Cannot substantiate the struck section with factual report. Seems to have been heresay, so my bad. I will however stand by my points of overly burdensome restrictions. If safeway wasn't more than likey you would have had to drive through one or visit a business that restricted arms in some capactity. Even in an open carry state, you are subtly discouraged from carrying.

 

[ol' scratch]

I'm VERY pro 2nd amendment, but I do wonder just what is the purpose of these extended magazines is. Frankly I always thought they looked ridiculous, but thats just me. Granted a 10 round mag would have been just about as bad.

Just wondering what others think about the mags.

The same argument has been made concerning guns in general. I have had people ask me "What do you need a gun for? We have a great police force." If you start asking why you need something, 'they' start asking why you need something else.

Regulation doesn't stop. A ban on hicaps is not going to solve the problem. The real problem here is that a mentally ill person didn't get the help he needed. He purchased the pistol legally through the right channels, bought the mags legally too. A ban on hicaps would effect rifle mags too. One of the benefits of the hicap rifle mags is the cost and the fact that they actually WORK.

This is not a problem caused by availability. These items were all obtained using background checks and using a vendor. Keep in mind millions if not HUNDREDS of millions of hicap mags have been sold.

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Another place where I'm absolutely flabbergasted at Washington stupidity is in this 1000ft ban. Ok, putting aside for a moment the plethora of reasons why a gun/assault weapon/carry/or magazine ban is immoral, unconstitutional, unfeasible and useless, I can at least understand the gut reaction of a person completely unfamiliar with weapons and who really has no "dog in the hunt" insofar as a ban is concerned. There's a horrible school shooting with a pistol? Ok, ban pistols. Attempt to remove them from criminals. It's a bit of a third grade answer to a grad school question, but OK, I can at least understand their ignorant, albeit good hearted attempt.

But, this 1000ft law? Even if this law had been in place prior to the shooting, even if it had been in place for 50 years prior to the shooting, it would have had no effect on the criminal. In fact, ironically enough, the only person effected would have been one of the guys that assisted in subduing the criminal. And not only would this law not have had an effect (positive) on this event, since the killer violated several other far more egregious laws, he probably would not even be facing charges under it. It's kind of like citing a drunk driver that just plowed through and killed a group of nuns and school children in a crosswalk with failing to yield....

 

[heeler]

Panzercat,until reading your post #234 I had no idea this shooting took place at a firearms restricted area.
What was it that made this a restricted area?

 

[Gouranga]

heeler that depends on the AZ laws. I don't know them but in many states (NC, my state included) it is illegal for me to take firearm to such a gathering. That however is a STATE law not federal.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Balrog

No honest man needs a 33 round magazine. A little girl died. If it saves one life isnt it worth it?

In answer to your question - NO.

It is a slippery slope. One that I truly hope this country doesn't slide down.

 

[Justin]

The same argument has been made concerning guns in general. I have had people ask me "What do you need a gun for? We have a great police force." If you start asking why you need something, 'they' start asking why you need something else.

When engaged in a debate, the important point is to shift the focus from guns or magazines, to the actual issue. People want to fixate on guns because most people have an immediate gut response to them.

But if people are advocating for bans or restrictions, they have to be made aware of the repercussions of instituting further regulations, and whether or not they will actually have a demonstrable effect on violent crime.

Furthermore, they must be made aware that advocating for further restrictions have real and measurable effects on many, many law abiding citizens.

 

[Justin]

In answer to your question - NO.

It is a slippery slope. One that I truly hope this country doesn't slide down.

Fairly certain Balrog was being sarcastic with that post.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Really? Are you being serious?

Balrog


Quote:
What's the maximum capacity mag that your honest man uses/needs?

Well anyone can miss, so I think 2 is a reasonable number.

With three, you just start spraying and praying.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Maybe. Need emoticons to tell...

Fairly certain Balrog was being sarcastic with that post.

 

[Justin]

Really? Are you being serious?

No, he is not being serious.

Can we move this discussion forward?

 

[heeler]

Since this is such a serious thread my opinion is jokes and sarcasm will or would be taken the wrong way.
I am still hoping to get some clarification that this Safeway store was off limits to firearms.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I was listening to NPR on the way to work this morning and they had a related story on the increases of Glock sales, magazine sales, and even people going to the range tapping off their Glocks to see how fast they could swap magazines. I just had to shake my head at this...

Question - Are any of you going out and buying extra "hi cap" magazines? If so - WHY?

 

[TexasRifleman]

heeler that depends on the AZ laws. I don't know them but in many states (NC, my state included) it is illegal for me to take firearm to such a gathering. That however is a STATE law not federal.

I am still hoping to get some clarification that this Safeway store was off limits to firearms.

There were no laws against being legally armed at this particular gathering.

 

[Prince Yamato]

A couple things:

1. People never "suddenly go insane". There's always a build-up. Mental illness, whether caused by a chemical imbalance or a brain tumor, is a progressive process and it has symptoms. This fellow in AZ was a textbook case. Instead of tossing his crazy derrière in a mental institution, however, people merely observed he was crazy and "hoped" he didn't "suddenly snap". Except of course, people don't "suddenly snap", there's a build-up, which everyone witnessed, and nobody, in a position of authority or otherwise did anything about!

2. We're too politically correct. To echo an Ellen Degerneres stand-up skit, "Whatever happened to the people who were just crazy?" Today, we label people with fanciful terms, while ignoring the fact that in many ways, those terms are merely suborders/classes/families, etc. of the same kingdom, crazy people. We don't want to offend people's sensibilities. Well, if someone is a danger to society, I say let's call a duck a duck and get that person committed (or get them "help" or whatever the PC term is today).

3. Banning objects will do nothing to deter a crazy person fixated on harming others. The issue is that someone thinks that murder is acceptable. It doesn't matter how they kill their victim or with what implement, it's that they kill someone in general.

 

[RimfireChris]

To answer Onward Allusion's question, yes, but I was planning on it anyway before all this happened. I might pick up a few more extra, but I'm not rushing out buyin a Glock or XD.

 

[heeler]

Well Prince,where and when do you call a person a danger to society??
A 17 year old guy that gets into a fight?
Someone who daydreams constantly?
A person who constantly puts slime green tattoes over his body along with enough piercings to look like a friggin pin cushion??

 

[Black Butte]

But, for the life of me, I can't figure out why we need a 33 round magazine for a handgun that is specifically designed for self-defense. Someone want to enlighten me?

Why are you driving a car with a gas tank that holds more than 3 gallons? Surely, 3 gallons of gas will get you about 45 miles -- more than enough to get you to work or the grocery store. You don't need any more. In fact, people with bigger tanks would be able to run from the police for a longer period of time, covering greater distances, thereby increasing the odds of causing unnecessary traffic fatalities. If a deranged lunatic decided to mow kids down with his automobile, he could hit two schools or parks more than 50 miles apart without refueling with a traditionally sized tank. Yup, we need to ban gas tanks that hold more than 3 gallons. Frankly, I'm appalled that you even have the audacity to go tooling around in your car with a full-sized tank showing such total disregard for public safety. Shame on you.