proposed federal high cap. mag ban

[Redneck with a 40]

I'm pretty confident the chances of this bill making it out of a GOP controlled congress is pretty slim, Boehner (probably mispelled) knows the magazine capacity is irrelevant in this crime. He's 100% supported by the NRA and has an A+ rating. The GOP won't piss off a large constituency that got them elected.

 

[Apuuli]

Would this be less of a tragedy if he had used a 10-round magazine and only killed and wounded half as many people?

Why yes, yes it would be less of a tragedy if fewer people had been killed and it would have been more of a tragedy if more people had been killed.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

Something was thrown about earlier about a law saying you would have to surrender your magazines over 10 rounds. They would have absolutely no way to enforce that. Magazine sales are currently not regulated-you can buy them over the internet. They couldn't find out if you have the magazines so that kind of law would make no sense. And without that addition, another hi-cap magazine ban would make no sense.

The reaction of the anti-gunners is understandable. If we had the chance to get more gun rights or hunting rights or something, I'm sure we would jump at the chance too. We're all opportunists at heart, deny it if you will. Some of us would utilize the chance in a less obvious and possibly offensive way given the situation though. I find anyone who tries to use the death of 6 people, including a 9 year old girl with a lot of potential, to advance their own goals out of believed self-righteousness to be despicable, but I can understand the principal of it.

However, there has been a bad response from the right as well. We gun owners seem to have jumped the gun as far as speculation and worry, and have probably escalated this whole event higher than it should go. Panic buying etc. is just immature. Things are most likely not going to change.

In the end, the response of the left and specifically the gun control advocates comes down to two causes:
Opportunism and the fear of the unknown. We all want to forward our agendas, and we tend to use the opportunities we get. The left side of politics tends to try to block out what they fear or do not understand by flinging legislature at it. What this is is not a gun control issue, though that is what they choose to see it as. What this is is a tragedy caused by a freak. There will always be freaks, and there is no way to prevent that.

So, take the high road. I for one can understand the choices the gun control advocates have made, and they are choices that we put in their shoes would likely make too.

For the record however, I hope that if they have not already the Feds take over the investigation and that this man gets the death penalty. He doesn't deserve the life that prison would afford him.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

actually, we really aren't allowed to have any more cool stuff than a private citizen. just fyi. in fact, gun regs are even more strict with us. if you live on post, it must be registered with the provost marshall.

I think what archigos meant is the stuff you use while on the job.

 

[ants]

On political rhetoric, extended magazines, and mental health.

This tragedy should never be about limiting the freedom of speech – nor the current climate of elevated political rhetoric. Compromise on the First Amendment will not solve the problem.

This tragedy should never be about limiting the right to bear arms – nor the capacity of any extended magazine. Compromise on the Second Amendment will not solve the problem.

This should be about health. Mental health. Compromise will not solve the problem here, either.

Is it truly a controversial issue to identify the mentally ill and get them treatment? I don’t know why it should be controversial. This is a matter of humanity and caring. If someone is ill, I care enough to help them get treatment. Mental illness is no different than any other illness. It is only made politically controversial by those who strive to make everything controversial. Clearly people who do that have no intent to compromise, nor need to compromise.

This tragedy is about health, and having the humanity to identify those with mental illness and get them help.

 

[Justin]

With that reiterated again I still wonder about the extended mags.

Open-class IPSC and 3 gun competitors often run handguns with magazines that hold upwards of 30 rounds in them.

Practically any division in 3 gun allows magazines that hold around 20 rounds for handguns, and 30-50 rounds for rifles. I personally run two Tripp Cobramags for large round count rifle stages. The ability to eliminate even a single reload can save upwards of two seconds on a stage.


Of course, this is America, where a citizen shouldn't have to justify their ownership of a particular piece of property if their intentions with it don't harm anyone else.

If anything, the people who wish to institute magazine capacity limits should have to articulate a rational and reasonable defense for why I should be prohibited from possessing such items.


In short:
Why is it worth threatening me with a felony conviction and/or jail time simply for possessing a couple pieces of stamped sheet metal and a spring?

 

[wannasupra]

I think what archigos meant is the stuff you use while on the job.

oh, lol, roger that. meh, that stuff's not too fun either. if i'm shooting that at someone, it means they shot at me first. not too much fun there.

 

[Tomcat47]

I made sure yesterday that my NRA membership was up to date!


Dig In!

 

[Old krow]

I find anyone who tries to use the death of 6 people, including a 9 year old girl with a lot of potential, to advance their own goals out of believed self-righteousness to be despicable, but I can understand the principal of it.

That's pretty much my take on it as well. The part where they admit that they "need" to push it right now is absolutely shameless. They're basically saying that we (the public) should be addressed while frightened in order for the agenda to be properly pushed on us.

To answer jcwit's question about the mags, personally I do not have any handgun magazines with a capacity that high. They just don't seem practical for me. I agree with 22-rimfire though, legislating them wouldn't help with criminals. I don't particularly want to see them banned anymore than I want to see foods that I do not like banned.

 

[22-rimfire]

Mental illness is no different than any other illness.

This is THE issue that I am concerned about relative to firearm ownership. Many/Most people often treat mental illness much differently than other illness. Why? In most cases, you're never cured.

 

[ny32182]

Opportunism goes both ways folks. If someone was using the shooting to support some expanded CCW bill I'm sure everyone here would think it a great idea.

As far as the "need" for 33rd mags? I'm sane law abiding individual, and I want them. That is all the "need" I need to demonstrate to anyone. That is the beauty of a free country.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Why is it worth threatening me with a felony conviction and/or jail time simply for possessing a couple pieces of stamped sheet metal and a spring?

I am not advocating a high cap magazine ban. However, it is clear to me that had he been using a 90 round magazine more people would have been killed and had he been using a 10 round magazine fewer people would have been killed.

Trained combat shooters can change magazines fast.
Mass murderers seem to get tripped up when they have to change magazines in crowded places.

 

[Mike Sr.]

---------------

"I have a CCW and carry everyday. I own shotguns, rifles, pistols and revolvers. I'm an ex- Navy Submariner and I believe in the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And believe me, I surely don't want my rights trampled on by a bunch of do-gooders. 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?
------------------------------------------------------

Joh Q used a 8 " barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning 8" barrels solves the problem.


Joh Q used a 6" barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning 6" barrels solves the problem.


Joh Q used a 4 " barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning 4" barrels solves the problem.


Joh Q used a 3" barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning 3" barrels solves the problem.


Joh Q used a 2" barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning 2" barrels solves the problem.

Joh Q used a 1" barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning 1" barrels solves the problem.

Joh Q used a revolver .5" barreled revolver to day to wak 6 people at Times Square today....

A new law banning .5" barrels solves the problem.

When does personal accoutability become accountable?

Where does it stop?

It doesn't until there is no more constitution............how can you not see this?

 

[22-rimfire]

As far as the "need" for 33rd mags? I'm sane law abiding individual, and I want them. That is all the "need" I need to demonstrate to anyone.

I agree even though I am unlikely to ever purchase a 33 round magazine for a Glock. But I did purchase them for a Uzi-Carbine. They may have been even larger capacity. Don't recall. I got rid of the Uzi after a couple of months and the mags went with it.

It all goes back to "reasonable gun control" measures. The fact is there are no reasonable gun control measures as the measures mostly impact honest people. Dishonest people or criminals do not play with the same cards as honest gun owners.

 

[dec41971]

I have a CCW and carry everyday. I own shotguns, rifles, pistols and revolvers. I'm an ex- Navy Submariner and I believe in the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And believe me, I surely don't want my rights trampled on by a bunch of do-gooders. 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?

Im with you sir! At some point we have to see the absurdity of things. It is such absurdity that makes it hard to defend our positions to the average voting people who indirectly determine what happens by who they elect. And everyone going nuts about coming guin ban, relax! Potus has no interest in a looser legislation such as this. He's a politician and a good one at that.

Now you all know pendulum been swinging our way for a while... don't you? Think about that, what would you do if you were [....]?

 

[Justin]

Im with you sir! At some point we have to see the absurdity of things. It is such absurdity that makes it hard to defend our positions to the average voting people who indirectly determine what happens by who they elect.

Again, the issue isn't one of whether 30-round magazines are practical or not. Or whether you think they're quote-unquote absurd.

If you are ok with a proposed magazine ban, how should that ban be enforced?

If you are ok with such a ban, ask yourself this:

Are you ok with your fellow citizens being arrested, charged, fined, and/or imprisoned simply because they have such a magazine in their possession?

In what world is it rational to imprison someone because he harmlessly owns some stamped sheet metal, extruded plastic, and a spring?

 

[lions]

RE: 33 round mags.

They way I see it, we do not have to defend the use of such magazines. The ones who should have to defend their position are the ones trying to take away anyone's rights or privileges. This extends to anything, not just 33 round mags, but they will be my example.

What is it going to do to ban 33 round magazines? Will it be effective?

If they stick with the previous ban, pre ban mags will still be available to anyone who really wants one, perhaps at an inflated price.

If they ban all 33 round mags, pre ban or not, some criminal enterprise will see a market and make those mags available to those who really want one.

If they manage to destroy all 33 round mags in the country, more will be smuggled into the country to fill the desire of those who really want one.

If they seal the border and shut down the illegal importation, some enterprising criminal will find a way to manufacture 33 round magazines in the US and sell them to those who really want one.

If anyone can think of one item in history that has been effectively banned, please share. All this would do is cost mountains of money to enforce and it would end up not being effectively enforced.

All this trouble simply because we refuse to recognize the responsible party... the person, not the object.

 

[brandon_mcg]

it would be ridiculous for this bill to go through. politicians already have enough footholds in the gun control arena.

 

[clance]

In this case if he had a ten 10rd mag he may have been stopped sooner. I understand he was reloading when they got to him...

What I understand, the reason they were able to stop him during the reload was due to the magazine hanging up in the pocket of his coat. Had the mag been of standard size, the result might have been different.

 

[jobu07]

I am not advocating a high cap magazine ban. However, it is clear to me that had he been using a 90 round mahazine more people would have been killed and had he been using a 10 round magazine fewer people would have been killed.

Trained combat shooters can change magazines fast.
Mass murderers seem to get tripped up when they have to change magazines in crowded places.

This is not neccessarily true. For you're argument to be true everyone on that street corner would have had to been able to react to the sight of a gun and sounds of gunfire inside of 10 rounds?

Being shot at creates a certain amount of suprise in you, even if you're expecting it. A person's reaction time could be stunted and slowed. There are a lot of variables that go into this that we can not answer simply by stating a 10 round magazine would have allowed for fewer people to be wounded or killed. I can completely envision people standing, mouths hanging open in shock, while the gunman reloads.

Conversely, if he were on the corner with an AR-15 and beta cmag, someone could have tackled him after the first round or before he even was able to turn the weapon on the crowd.

All i'm saying is that it isn't as simple as 10 rounds meaning he'd be tackled while reloading sooner.

Thoughts and prayers to the families of those who didn't make it and the wounded.

 

[Spec ops Grunt]

Ugh, flipped over to Rachel Maddow for five seconds, she had a verbatim Brady script.


That's not good for my health.


That said, I'm not too worried about this passing. Between the R-house, and the pro-gun senators (think Rand Paul), not to mention that Harry Reid probably knows that such a thing is political suicide in his state.


Did I mention they have more important things to care about? Like the economy?

 

[gc70]

However, it is clear to me that had he been using a 90 round magazine more people would have been killed and had he been using a 10 round magazine fewer people would have been killed.

Think anyone would have noticed a concealed handgun with a massive 90-round drum magazine attached ... even before he started shooting? Bigger is not always better.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's gibberish hot air. Boehner won't even let them read it on the floor.

 

[blakdawg]

Other than for sport, the purpose of a 30 (or 33, or whatever) round magazine is to be able to fire 30 rounds without reloading. This is likely to be either for suppressive fire or to engage multiple targets.

This is true without regard to the moral/legal context of the encounter.

A 30 round mag can be a powerful tool in the hand of a good person. And it can be an equally powerful tool in the hand of a bad person.

Some people can't imagine owning a gun. Some people can't imagine owning a gun and using it for self-defense. Some people can't imagine using a gun for self-defense against more than one assailant, or outside of their bedroom/home. Some people can't imagine not carrying two guns, or three. Some people can't imagine walking around without one or two guns AND and an edged weapon AND pepper spray AND one or two spare magazines.

We all fall somewhere in that spectrum - if you ask the people in one direction about your choice, they think you're a paranoid loon because you're more concerned about firearms and security than they are. If you ask the people in the other direction, they think you're a carefree idiot who obviously has no regard for your own safety or that of your loved ones, or you'd be as prepared as they are.

This is true no matter who you are - there's always going to be some guy who's less "tactical", and some guy who's more "tactical", and they'll probably both have arguments for why your choice is wrong, just coming from different directions.

So I'm not going to criticize some other guy's belief that a 33 round Glock magazine is important to his security. As it happens, I don't currently have a place in my plans and preparations for any magazines like that; but maybe the tactical scenarios I consider when thinking about defense are inadequate, or at least inadequate to describe risks that the other guy faces.

It's taken us awhile to dig out of the hole that was dug in 1986 with the assault weapons ban, where we ended up designating some guns as "too scary" which effectively meant that large-capacity magazines got really expensive. I paid close to $100 each for high-cap Glock mags in the weeks prior to California's 1/1/2000 cutoff. Let's try not to do that again - I'm not going to agree, literally or symbolically, with taking away guns or components that others find helpful, even if they're not personally interesting or relevant to me. I hope that I can expect the same level of cooperation and discretion from other gun owners.

 

[JoeSlomo]

do these people honestly have no shame....using a tragedy to push their own agenda

No.

No they do not.