Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by timmy4, Jan 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    May I ask which study you read?

    Is saving 7 lives in an incredibly rare act of violence is worth the inconvenience it causes to all those who do own high capacity magazines for their firearms in the event that they are the targets of more frequent acts of violence such as murder/rape/assault/burglary/etc?

    [qute](c) The examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech demonstrate that this proposal will not be 100% effective or even 70% effective. In fact, there will be no way whatsoever to prove that it was effective at all if it's put into place, and no way to disprove your arguments that it won't make any difference. I believe it will, but I can't prove a negative. Still, I think that overall lives will be saved. [/QUOTE]
    How do you feel about the War in Iraq to combat terrorism abroad, or the PATRIOT Act and preventing domestic terrorism at the expense of our civil liberties?
     
  2. valnar

    valnar Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,409
    Location:
    Ohio
    There are no such things as high-capacity magazines. The term was invented to describe a limited functionality compared to the original design.

    Making legislation based on something that happens as often as getting hit by lighting is bad policy. You cannot control that. There is a chance I might slip and fall on ice when I leave my house. We should ban that too. Should we build cars to limit their speeds to 55mph because somebody might go 70mph and hit somebody, someday?

    With the price of freedom comes the possibility some people can do wrong, not only to others but themselves. I would not want to live in a country where every permutation possible was accounted for. You wouldn't be able to do anything!
     
  3. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    A Ph.D. candidate who can fill his apartment with booby traps can't learn to reload a magazine in less than three seconds?

    Timmy4 - you really need to learn some of this stuff for yourself. Go to a gun store and ask to handle a semi auto firearm and see for yourself whether or not you could reload as quickly as we say you can, then report back to us.
     
  4. skeeziks

    skeeziks Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    395
    " However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines."

    Because of a "Study" you read in the Washington Post...?
    I can't imagine how a study would be able to get any kind of numbers on the procuration of anything on the black market.

    You can't put your trust in some study. Trust me when I say that you are being lied to.
     
  5. wrs840

    wrs840 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,921
    Location:
    Brushy Mts, NC, growing feed-crops.
    Your pleasure-pursuit, or "hobby" of bullying others through legislation and regulation is far more deadly. I will explain:

    The de-institutionalization of psychotics began with the last law Progressive president JFK ever signed. Wrongheaded meddling by Progressives, who, absent spiritual fulfillment, find satisfaction of sorts by bullying others via laws and regulation, gave us "gun-free zones".

    History proves that these "fish-in-a-barrel" zones present an especially irresistible attraction to psychotics bent on mayhem. timmy4 and Progressives like him are, therefore, accessories to murder.
     
  6. goldie

    goldie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    507
    On nightline last night they actually admitted that most crimes with guns involve stolen guns.Once again, its crimminals that should suffer, not the law abiding citizen. This has been mentoined so many times here i cant even count anymore.I had to run around getting 10 round mags for guns they dont make anymore, because of this nonsense. Try to get a 10 rd mag for a full size walther p88,that was alot of fun,& 40.00 to boot.60.00 for an at22 mag that i have to block at 10 rounds. who is paying the price with these laws & bans;not the crimminals....
     
  7. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,403
    Location:
    TX
    It is wrong.....


    This map goes back to 1982, you can see all but the latest CT shooting, weapons used, etc.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
     
  8. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Yes, we will. If it comes to pass, that is.

    Police chiefs are not county sheriffs, they are not elected by the people. They are promoted/appointed, and they get these by politicking and demagoguery.

    If only it were as simple as "we accept this, but not this". The good people of the UK and AU supported registration, believing they were doing the right thing, and after all, they had "nothing to hide", right? Fast forward a few years, and they saw large scale confiscations.

    Your notion that it's not a slippery slope is fundamentally flawed; You assume that the government will not seek more power, when all evidence the world over for the entire history of man plainly demonstrates otherwise. The "common sense" stuff is incrementalism, period.

    Regulation>Registration>Confiscation>Subjugation. History does repeat itself.

    No, it had a significant effect on cost of the magazines. I came of age in the midst of the ban, and had no trouble getting 15, 20, 30 and 100 round magazines. They were just about 3 times as expensive as they were pre and post ban. There are millions more of these magazines on the market today than in 1994 (largely because of the previous ban).


    You admit to having no experience with firearms, yet espouse knowledge of reloading times and it's effect on violent crime? Non sequiter.

    Myriad studies of the '94 ban prove that you believe incorrectly.

    Hopefully I'll never be affected by any firearm legislation in regards to self defense, because hopefully I'll never need to defend myself or my family with a firearm. But if violent actors ever do target me or my family, I hope I have enough rounds to stay in the fight.

    Assuming that a certain number of rounds is enough to defend oneself from violent actors is assuming to know the impossible. How many hits will each violent criminal require to cease his actions? How many actors will there be? How many times will the defender miss? The list goes on. The reality is that a defender may run out of ammo even with a 15, 17 or even 30 round mag, or he may be killed with rounds still in the magazine. But the possibility of a defender coming up short in an armed confrontation are magnified with restrictions on magazine capacity; Would sure suck to be that law abiding citizen who managed to bring down 2 out of the three assailants with 10 rounds, but was killed while trying to reload by the surviving criminal.

    Again, you don't seem to understand the difference 1-2 seconds of reloading makes for a murderer with soft targets versus a defender. One will be (maybe) minimally inconvenienced by fewer rounds, the other may lose his life.
     
  9. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,798
    I remember Gascon when he was chief of SFPD. He got the chief post because of politics and when the former D.A. was elected to higher office, Gascon was selected by the then mayor to fill the post. Just another politician getting promoted.

    thread being closed for now until Timmy4 returns.
     
  10. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,336
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB that banned magazines and firearms under discussion. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines constitute a tiny fraction of all murders because rifles constitute a tiny fraction of means of committing murder. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.


    If it is a myth that violent crime rates are influenced by banning firearms and magazines they why try to ban them instead of focusing on understanding the actual causes of violent crime and working to reduce the causes.
     
  11. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,339
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I really think the OP is missing the point here. I'd like to assert the following:
    • The weapons under assault right now are those that are most effective for self defense. My initial assertion will be this: what does your average police officer carry on his belt, what is its capacity, and why are the suggested bills exempting police from their restrictions? If said police officer needs a longarm, is he more likely to bring an AR to the fight (or it's full-auto cousin), or a shotgun? Hint: it'll have a 30 round magazine attached, also exempted for use by cops and retired po-po.
    • The weapons under assault right now are those weapons that fit best in the militia role the 2nd Amendment discusses (being the semi-auto version of the weapon every troop for the last 50 years has been issued and trained on). These are also the sorts of weapons that are most rarely used in homicides -- I'll let someone else link to the data, but the last numbers I saw said that out of ~ 18,000 homicides half of those were committed with handguns, and a touch over 300 used rifles of any sort. Hands and feet were used more often than rifles. This makes me wonder what the real fear of ARs really is.
    • The limits you're talking about don't matter. I can swap a magazine on a 1911 faster than you can rush me, especially if I don't shoot it dry. I can throw a messenger bag over a shoulder, dump 5 boxes of 12GA ammunition in it, and shoot for a long time with only a pump shotgun with a 5 round capacity. Assuming, of course, that I'm not an idiot.
    • Explosives make for horrendous casualty rates. They're not hard to make. If suitable firearms aren't available to disaffected youth of reasonable intelligence who brood and plan for 18+ months (like these shooters seem to do), then explosives will be used instead. Hint: the deadliest school killing in US history involved dynamite as the weapon of choice, not a rifle.
    At best you're acting based off of emotion and excessive trust in those who have devoted a significant amount of their lives into disarming the US population (though not themselves, of course.)

    You need to think this through more thoroughly. Violence against the defenseless is a terrible tragedy, and it happens way more than it should. It is worth having discussions on how to reduce this kind of violence, but "we need more of the same that didn't work last time" isn't the answer.

    And at the end of the day we need to weigh the consequences of our need to do something in our grief against the possible harms that come as a result of our actions. How will crime and victimization rates change with increased firearm restrictions? What is the potential harm from a government gone wrong (as we've seen over the last 100 years or so) multiplied by the risk of such a situation developing? How many orders of magnitude greater is that potential harm vs 200 innocents dead per year -- deaths we might not be able to prevent even if we can magically make all firearms disappear?

    This is an important national debate. Decisions shouldn't be made based on the selected letters written by children.
     
  12. SOTSpro21:31

    SOTSpro21:31 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    1: Killing inoccent people is illegal, so why bother with the laws concerning hi-cap mags?
    2: I do obey laws. I might need that hi-cap mag to defend my family.
    3: "Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle." He used a pistol.
     
  13. Claymore1500

    Claymore1500 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    North coast, Ohio
    I am not directing my comment to "Timmy4" I am directing it to the many responders to his threads.

    I have not been able to read all of the arguments against his opinions, but the many I have read, are honest and compelling, yet they are not swaying him any that I can see, He sights studies written by anti's, never by pro gun organizations, and when his beliefs are countered with known facts, he continues to argue against them.

    When I was here on Saturday, and back today, I counted at least 21 pages in at least two threads that effectively countered his arguments, yet they have not changed his stance.

    I submit that he is a troll, and he is being fed a gourmet luncheon.

    Just my opinion, Tom
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  14. splattergun

    splattergun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Location:
    Utah
    20,000 gun laws in the US and this fellow citizens believes more laws will be effective, while at the same time admitting he knows that it won't.
    oy
     
  15. mnhntr

    mnhntr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    MN
    Timmy who's opinion are you trying to change? You are in the wrong place if you think anyone on here is goingto agree with you. The reason is quite simple, as you have no understading of the topic. Like most of the anti gun crowd you do not understand the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the tools used but the person using them. I would simply argue that in each case of the mass shootings there was not an armed person there that was willing and able to stop it. Why is that you ask? Because we have made it easy to pick soft targets. Gun Free zones and how obvious a liberal rally. Suprised there was not an armed person there. LOL In each case there would have been a lot less carnage had there been an armed person that cared enough to keep up their training.
     
  16. splattergun

    splattergun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Location:
    Utah
    Timmy, I have a serious question for you, I hope you don't find it snarky.
    Who the heck are you, or any one else, to tell me or any one else, what I/ we need?

    If I find a need for a 30 round magazine, what business is it of yours or Senator Feinstein? I am a law abiding citizen, I am harming no one.

    I don't see the need for Poli-Sci majors, I believe politics is one of the most vile, destructive occupations on earth, causing untold misery and hardship, yet I'm not calling for a restriction on your education. I see no need to stick my nose into your business. Why do you antis believe you have the right to stick your nose in ours?
     
  17. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,912
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
  18. pacerdude

    pacerdude Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    I have a pacemaker and other heart issues and several scars that make it impossible to use shotguns or rifles with recoil for defense or pleasure. I can not hold up in a physical confrontation, a few well placed hits and I am dead.

    I am 23 and look fairly healthy but that can be deceiving. I own my pistols with high capacity (11 & 15 rounds) purely for self defense. I find it extremely ignorant that you think the magazines are only for pleasure.

    Good day to you!
     
  19. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Timmy arrives, we open the thread. Timmy has to leave, we close the thread. Why exactly have we granted timmy4 such power?

    And to timmy4 -- You never answered my question from the original thread. I'll paraphrase: when you and your family are attacked by three or more thugs, and I'm the only armed person around that can help you, how many rounds do you want me to have?

    OK, it's statistically unlikely that the victim will be you, but on any given day it is statistically far more likely that some family will face this situation than that a mass shooting will occur. So what's your answer?
     
  20. Baby Kaboomer

    Baby Kaboomer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    There are many in LE who are not of favor severe gun restrictions. First of all, they know better than most that such laws are largely ineffective and often difficult to enforce. Also, those in LE tend to have short careers, and they themselves are subject to those laws upon retirement.

    You might be surprised to read the recent letter to Comrade Cuomo from the New York State Sheriff's Association. It is highly critical of the NY SAFE Act and the secretive way in which it was passed. They criticize the banning of assault-styled weapons; and about magazine capacity restrictions they say:

    "The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer."
     
  21. daveinohio

    daveinohio Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    How about we quit attempting to medically muzzle the mentally ill folks who have violent tendencies and euthanize them?

    How about we quit fooling ourselves that we can rehabilitate violent offenders and expeditiously execute them?

    Do it for the children.
     
  22. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    And put the rest of us who choose this option for self defense (as opposed to other reasons) at a life or death disadvantage when we need it?

    Thank you for choosing to punish, once again, the law-abiding rather than the criminals.

    Multiple attackers and the 'average' gun owner....in your home or concealed carrying out in public....if you had ever read of or watched real gunfights (the FBI has some doozies) you'd see why even trained professionals under fire need more more than 10 bullets.

    Have you not seen the classic video where 2 cops pull over a car....and the driver & passenger get out...firing back....and run away...all firing at point blank range...and not one hitting a person?

    There are 'realities' to being attacked that most people dont realize. And submitting and not being attacked certainly doesnt make you qualified. You were only threatened. (If I remember your story correctly).
     
  23. easyg

    easyg Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,867
    Location:
    off-line mostly.
    First we must acknowledge that a free society is never going to be "safe".
    A caged bird is safe.

    Next we must acknowledge that such bans will only effect law abiding citizens.
    Just as criminals obtain illegal drugs they will obtain banned magazines.

    Next we must acknowledge that the only way to stop a murderer on a shooting spree is to shoot that murderer.

    We must stop these stupid politicians from shreading the Constitution and disarming the law abiding citizens of this nation.
    Limiting the capacity of the "good guys" only makes things worse.
     
  24. Utryme

    Utryme Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    34
    Because its silly and irresponsible to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of nut jobs and criminals.
     
  25. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    What medications were each of the shooters on in those "22 high profile mass shootings"?

    We seem to know an incredible amount about, and do a lot of comparisons of, the firearms these shooters used.

    Why don't we know and discuss each of the mental health issues these shooters may have had, and what pharmaceuticals they were being treated with?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page