Do magazine capacity limits make sense to regulate by law? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Do magazine capacity limits make sense to regulate by law?


ithaca_deerslayer
01-25-2011, 10:38
Let me try to be open minded and present an anti-gun view point to see if any of us on GT think limiting magazine capacity could be a good idea.

My personal view is there should be no magazine limits. But let's put the personal views aside for a moment to see if the anti-gun view has any merit.

Two scenarios.
A. Joe Killer has 4 magazines, each holding 10 rounds. He has one 9mm evil black semi-auto handgun, and he wants to kill as many as he can at the local mall. He draws his handgun from beneath a trench coat and shoots as many people as he can. He runs out of ammo after 10 rounds, then changes to a fresh magazine and so on, until he is either forcibly stopped or shoots all 40 rounds.

B. Same Joe Killer situation, but now with 1 magazine of 40 rounds. Since the magazine is made by RELIABLETECH, it does not jam. He draws his handgun and shoots as many as he can, until he is either forcibly stopped or shoots all 40 rounds.

Questions.
1. Are more people likely to be killed and wounded in scenario B than in A?
2. If yes, then is it worth it in terms of public safety versus freedom to pass a 10 round magazine limit law?

My own analysis:
I believe that on average, more people would be killed or wounded in scenario B than in A. This is because scenario A allows more instances for people to either flee or to forcibly intervene against Joe Killer.

I do not believe the difference in killing and wounding between A and B is enough impose upon our freedoms. Thus, I do not believe a magazine limit should be the outcome.

But what if there was a scenario C with a 250 round belt-fed magazine and a fully automatic gun of some sort. If such a rig were legal to carry, would Joe Killer be able to kill enough people to change my mind?

Since I am pro-gun, I'd like it to be legal to own a fully automatic gun firing from a 250 round belt-fed magazine. I'd want it legal to carry such a gun around. What would keep Joe Killer from legally taking such a rig to a mall and getting ready to kill as many people as he could?

Scenario C is the one I struggle with. Many will say it is too hypothetical. But I believe that if enough people voted like me, it would be legal to own and carry such a rig.

Cody Jarrett
01-25-2011, 10:51
The whole concept is stupid. I'm in NYS where 10 rounds is the law. So I carry an extra mag. That reload barely slows me down. If the 10 round rule should ever become law, the next legislation will make carrying an extra mag illegal.

Remember, when you're out of Bud, you're out of beer. Same holds true for ammo.

Jerry
01-25-2011, 10:59
Here’s the rub to both scenarios. A. Joe Killer has a gas tank that holds 10 gallons. He wants to kill as many as he can at the local mall. He starts his car and runs over as many people as he can. He runs out of gas after 2 hours, then changes to a reserve tank and so on, until he is either forcibly stopped or runs out of gas.

B. Same Joe Killer situation, but now with a tank that holds 100 gallons. Since the automobile is made by RELIABLETECH, it doesn't stall or overheat. He drives his car over and threw as many as he can, until he is either forcibly stopped or runs out of gas.

Perhaps we need to limit fuel tank size. :upeyes:

What is my point? It does matter if a nut job can get a gun or not or if it’s limited to 1 round or holds 1000, the gun nor the magazine capacity is the problem… the nut job is. And they will do what they will do with or without guns or “standard capacity” magazines. :faint:

ithaca_deerslayer
01-25-2011, 11:03
The whole concept is stupid. I'm in NYS where 10 rounds is the law. So I carry an extra mag. That reload barely slows me down. If the 10 round rule should ever become law, the next legislation will make carrying an extra mag illegal.

Remember, when you're out of Bud, you're out of beer. Same holds true for ammo.

I live in NYS, too. Fortunately I have pre-ban full capacity mags :) The bills hitting Congress would try to outlaw the transfer of such mags :(

If one reload barely slows you down. Would 3 reloads still barely slow you down? And is the average Joe Killer as good with a quick reload as you and I are?

Still, however, your position appears to be that there would be no difference in violence between scenarios A and B. Thus no need for mag limits :)

dkf
01-25-2011, 12:13
So "Joe" has no problem murdering as many people as he can (obviously illegal) however he wants to comply with the 10rd mag law. Think not.

Full capacity mags are out there by the millions and people have the technology and the brainpower to make high capacity mags. Whats next only allowing ammo to be sold in 10rd boxes.

ithaca_deerslayer
01-25-2011, 13:13
So "Joe" has no problem murdering as many people as he can (obviously illegal) however he wants to comply with the 10rd mag law. Think not.

Full capacity mags are out there by the millions and people have the technology and the brainpower to make high capacity mags. Whats next only allowing ammo to be sold in 10rd boxes.

"Joe" is a psycho, and will likely use whatever is available. He'll probably go to a gun store and legally purchase the gun and magazines there.

NYS adopted the 10 round limit in 1994. If you walk into a gun store today, you can still find full capacity magazines, but they cost more and aren't always available.

The federal mag limit bill the antis are pushing now does not allow transferring ownership. That would make it even more difficult to find full capacity magazines. They wouldn't be available in the gun store that "Joe" might walk into.

1gewehr
01-25-2011, 14:15
Opposing scenarios:

A: -
Granny Applegate has arthritis, so reloading can be a bit slow. She bought a new FN FiveSeven and a couple of aftermarket 30rd magazines to compensate for this problem. One night a gang of twelve dope addicts is bemoaning their lack of cash to get their next fix. One of them remembers when his parents forced him to help Granny Applegate carry in her groceries, he saw a huge silver tea service. So they head out to rob and beat up the old lady.
Who in their right mind would mind if she fired twenty-eight rounds without reloading when the scumbags came bursting in?

B: -
Bob has a carry permit, but in his state only 10rd mags are permitted. He carries one loaded rd mag in his Glock 19, with another in his pocket.
One fine Saturday afternoon, he is in the mall with his family when six terrorists armed with AKs and shotguns burst into the mall and start shooting indiscriminately.
Bob immediately starts to shoot back. After Bob takes out one of the terrorists, the rest realize they are under fire. They immediately rush under cover and return fire. bob exchanges shots for a minute and then looks in horror at the Glock in his hand. The slide is locked back, and he has fired out both magazines! The terrorists quickly realize what happened and run over and kill Bob and his family before continuing their terror spree.

Letting politicians make critical decisions for you is as smart as walking through toxic medical waste barefoot.

ithaca_deerslayer
01-25-2011, 14:23
Opposing scenarios:


If I may summarize, I believe you are saying the good guys might need full capacity magazines for a variety of scenarios. I agree with you.

The anti-gun people are only focused on Joe Killer, and how he was tackled after trying to reload. They figure if he had to reload at 10, then there'd be less carnage than letting him legally use 30 or 40 round mags.

XDMerciless
01-25-2011, 14:40
Questions.
1. Are more people likely to be killed and wounded in scenario B than in A?
2. If yes, then is it worth it in terms of public safety versus freedom to pass a 10 round magazine limit law?


This reminds me of something I saw while flipping through the channels, on MSNBC - The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. A congressman from Arizona, Trent Franks, was asked if he wished Lougher had not had a high capacity magazine, and the anchor prefaced the question with a comment that if Loughner had to reload, the people whom tackled him down could have reacted sooner, and thus lives could have been saved. The congressman replied that he wished Lougher never had a gun in the first place, the politicization of the tragedy from the left, and used an analogy of remedying DUI, by limiting the fuel tank. And then discussion evolves to conceal carry, with Trent Franks making a previous comment that he wished someone with a conceal carry license been there. The anchor makes the contention that even police officers miss their targets, always miss :upeyes:, and thus he argues is extremely reckless to have more guns there. Well here, is the video without me paraphrasing the words:

(Commentary starts at 1:12)
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/19/5877829-the-battle-over-bullets-on-last-word

My View:
After tragic events like what we saw in Arizona occur, we shouldn't be surprised that there are discussions regarding if we should change our gun laws. Although there are still lingering questions about why an individual would commit such violent or heinous act, the media often shifts focus from the psychological or social economic reasons to the the weapon used. It's suddenly portrayed as if the weapon is solely at fault, that if Congress would pass a gun ban criminals and deranged individuals would suddenly vanish, intercity violence would disappear, or in this particular case restricting the capacity of the magazines would be the key solution. No matter what your position is on gun control, the cold hard fact is there is little the government can do to stop the deranged and mentally disturbed. What it took were the heroes we saw in Tuscon, individuals, people whom fought back, people like those on Flight 93, people like those that refuse to be victimized - we need far more these individuals than any gun control measure could ever accomplish. Yet it could be argued that these string of shooting massacres is unfortunately uniquely American. Are there merits to gun control advocates position that it is too easy for someone to gain access to a firearm? If so, what can we do to prevent the next tragedy?

at_liberty
01-25-2011, 15:39
I don't think this is really any different than drum magazines for Thompson submachine guns. That mag limit effectively eliminated that gun as a favorite for gangsters. I have heard many of the arguments but what is really suspect and hard to defend is someones motives for wanting to own an extremely high cap mag. Yeah, we like to blow stuff up, but a restriction is not really going to hurt anyone. The real danger is amendments hung on such a bill and any precedent it sets for later action. The fundamental problem is that the law making process has no real integrity. Thus we try to quell all efforts to pass gun related restrictions.

Jerry
01-25-2011, 17:44
I don't think this is really any different than drum magazines for Thompson submachine guns. That mag limit effectively eliminated that gun as a favorite for gangsters. I have heard many of the arguments but what is really suspect and hard to defend is someones motives for wanting to own an extremely high cap mag. Yeah, we like to blow stuff up, but a restriction is not really going to hurt anyone. The real danger is amendments hung on such a bill and any precedent it sets for later action. The fundamental problem is that the law making process has no real integrity. Thus we try to quell all efforts to pass gun related restrictions.

So wanting the ability to defend against the government is suspect? Are we going to limit the military and law enforcement magazine capacity also? Are the motives of The Forefathers enumerating the Second Amendment suspect also? The Second isn’t about hunting, target shooting or wanting to blow things up. What is suspect is the motives of those wanting to limit our right to the same weaponry as solders and law enforcement.

HotRoderX
01-25-2011, 19:45
to me saying Joe psycho will limit him self only to the local gun shop is very very narrow sited. There is always the possibility for Joe psycho to use the Internet. Do I think a 10rnd mag limit is smart not even in the least. All a law like that will do is punish law abiding citizens while the criminals will continue to get a hold of what ever they please.

Cody Jarrett
01-25-2011, 21:09
I live in NYS, too. Fortunately I have pre-ban full capacity mags :) The bills hitting Congress would try to outlaw the transfer of such mags :(

If one reload barely slows you down. Would 3 reloads still barely slow you down? And is the average Joe Killer as good with a quick reload as you and I are?

Still, however, your position appears to be that there would be no difference in violence between scenarios A and B. Thus no need for mag limits :)
You're lucky to have the mags. I have one pre-ban but don't carry it. My experience is that "Joe Killer" is generally a bad shot. In NY he generally carries illegally and doesn't get a chance to practice. A couple of quick shots in a vacant lot and then he has to scoot before the police arrive. A well trained licensed shooter has put many thousands of rounds downrange. He has taken PP courses. His techniques are refined and he is an experienced shot. He knows how to move. This type of honest citizen usually ends the encounter more quickly... hopefully with 2-3 shots.

But if I need 2-3 reloads I'm possibly fighting a whole group and yes, it would slow me down some. But if you practice regularly with both tactical and empty reloads it becomes a smooth operation. As an instructor I teach slow is smooth and smooth is fast... gross motor skills only. For the trained shooter; distance is his friend so his tactical approach may include creating distance while shooting to cover. However, I would still like to carry more than 10.

Cody Jarrett
01-25-2011, 21:14
Opposing scenarios:

A: -
Granny Applegate has arthritis, so reloading can be a bit slow. She bought a new FN FiveSeven and a couple of aftermarket 30rd magazines to compensate for this problem. One night a gang of twelve dope addicts is bemoaning their lack of cash to get their next fix. One of them remembers when his parents forced him to help Granny Applegate carry in her groceries, he saw a huge silver tea service. So they head out to rob and beat up the old lady.
Who in their right mind would mind if she fired twenty-eight rounds without reloading when the scumbags came bursting in?

B: -

Bob has a carry permit, but in his state only 10rd mags are permitted. He carries one loaded rd mag in his Glock 19, with another in his pocket.
One fine Saturday afternoon, he is in the mall with his family when six terrorists armed with AKs and shotguns burst into the mall and start shooting indiscriminately.
Bob immediately starts to shoot back. After Bob takes out one of the terrorists, the rest realize they are under fire. They immediately rush under cover and return fire. bob exchanges shots for a minute and then looks in horror at the Glock in his hand. The slide is locked back, and he has fired out both magazines! The terrorists quickly realize what happened and run over and kill Bob and his family before continuing their terror spree.

Letting politicians make critical decisions for you is as smart as walking through toxic medical waste barefoot.
(A) - A: Granny only need drop one or two. In my experience the rest scatter, leaving their fallen comrade to rat them out for his plea deal. Indians carried off their dead but dope heads run.

(B) - Bob's tactics got him shot. You don't take on several terrorists with AK's if you only have a 9mm and 20 rounds unless you're moving and shooting to escape. As Clint Smith at Thunder Ranch teaches, "If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not loadin', you should be movin', if you're not movin' your better get movin' or some scumbagg's gonna cut your head off and put it on a pole." And don't forget to ziggity-zag.

:wavey:

Palmguy
01-25-2011, 21:18
I don't think this is really any different than drum magazines for Thompson submachine guns. That mag limit effectively eliminated that gun as a favorite for gangsters. I have heard many of the arguments but what is really suspect and hard to defend is someones motives for wanting to own an extremely high cap mag. Yeah, we like to blow stuff up, but a restriction is not really going to hurt anyone. The real danger is amendments hung on such a bill and any precedent it sets for later action. The fundamental problem is that the law making process has no real integrity. Thus we try to quell all efforts to pass gun related restrictions.

Just curious as to the origin or meaning (to you) of your screenname.

1gewehr
01-26-2011, 08:08
(A) - A: Granny only need drop one or two. In my experience the rest scatter, leaving their fallen comrade to rat them out for his plea deal. Indians carried off their dead but dope heads run.

(B) - Bob's tactics got him shot. You don't take on several terrorists with AK's if you only have a 9mm and 20 rounds unless you're moving and shooting to escape. As Clint Smith at Thunder Ranch teaches, "If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not loadin', you should be movin', if you're not movin' your better get movin' or some scumbagg's gonna cut your head off and put it on a pole." And don't forget to ziggity-zag.
:wavey:

You can second-guess scenarios all you like. Fact is, when you are out of ammo, you are done shooting. What about the handicapped? They may have limited movement ability. Are they less deserving of self-defense? If a Glock is all you have, you would advocate running away and leaving your family to die? And restricting magazine capacity is pointless and stupid.

BuckyP
01-26-2011, 08:38
The Second isn’t about hunting, target shooting or wanting to blow things up. What is suspect is the motives of those wanting to limit our right to the same weaponry as solders and law enforcement.


:goodpost:

Bingo. These people have a fixation on taking peoples guns away. Typically they want to eliminate any self sufficiency, like the ability to defend ones self, to make for more reliance on a bigger government. It's all about power and control. This "for our own safety" or "for the children" doesn't fly, when every they should be doing to protect us like securing the borders or tougher sentences / longer jail time for violent criminals is just not on their agenda.

dkf
01-26-2011, 09:55
"Joe" is a psycho, and will likely use whatever is available. He'll probably go to a gun store and legally purchase the gun and magazines there.

"Joe" would use the method that is easiest to obtain what he is after. Take the local shop out of the equation and he will go to the next easiest method. More than likely "Joes" acts would be premeditated just like the recent Tuscon incident was.

NYS adopted the 10 round limit in 1994. If you walk into a gun store today, you can still find full capacity magazines, but they cost more and aren't always available.

So in other words the law was pretty much pointless. NY residents can still drive to a neighboring state and pick up high capacity mags or get them shipped in from a private party willing to do so. Then you have the people moving into NY from other states. Yep sounds like NY dem idealogy to me. Runs right up there with the thinking that only LEOs should own guns which a former NYC commissioner supports with a passion.

The federal mag limit bill the antis are pushing now does not allow transferring ownership. That would make it even more difficult to find full capacity magazines. They wouldn't be available in the gun store that "Joe" might walk into.

Whats from keeping the FFL from replacing the high cap mags in a gun they have come in with 10 rounders and selling the high cap mags seperately? The mags have no serial numbers and ways to track them.

To me saying Joe psycho will limit him self only to the local gun shop is very very narrow sited.

I would have described it more harshly. Ignorant, moronic and stupid were the more civil things that popped into my mind.

BuckyP
01-26-2011, 10:27
The federal mag limit bill the antis are pushing now does not allow transferring ownership. That would make it even more difficult to find full capacity magazines. They wouldn't be available in the gun store that "Joe" might walk into.


Whats from keeping the FFL from replacing the high cap mags in a gun they have come in with 10 rounders and selling the high cap mags seperately? The mags have no serial numbers and ways to track them.



This begs to ask another question. As individuals, most of us buy magazines for our own or family use. (Admittedly, it's reasonable to think others may have bought them as investments after the 1994-2004 oppression.) However, what is to become of the private store, wholesaler, or online warehouse that specifically bought the magazines for resale? Should it be expected that they should be allowed to sell them? Should the government reimburse them for their losses? Think about a Brownells or CDNN that has 10s of thousands of magazines in inventory? That is some pretty serious money that is now in question!!

TexasFats
01-26-2011, 10:44
The proposed magazine capacity limits are like any other gun restriction that will be put forward for the forseeable future. They are designed to not work so that there will be an excuse for even more onerous restrictions in the future. My take is that we need to fight this tooth-and-nail and not get complacent. Write you congressional representatives and senators now.

dkf
01-26-2011, 10:50
This begs to ask another question. As individuals, most of us buy magazines for our own or family use. (Admittedly, it's reasonable to think others may have bought them as investments after the 1994-2004 oppression.) However, what is to become of the private store, wholesaler, or online warehouse that specifically bought the magazines for resale? Should it be expected that they should be allowed to sell them? Should the government reimburse them for their losses? Think about a Brownells or CDNN that has 10s of thousands of magazines in inventory? That is some pretty serious money that is now in question!!

That is a very good question indeed.

Surely the magazine manufacturer cannot be expected to take the mags back. So the retailer, warehouse and etc has a choice. Take the loss, try to find a loophole in the law allowing them to sell them or sell them unlawfully. Or is the US goverment (aka taxpayer) expected to reimburse the company stuck with the mags.(Which will happen anyway if said company reports the now illegal mags as a loss on their tax return)

ithaca_deerslayer
01-26-2011, 11:08
Whats from keeping the FFL from replacing the high cap mags in a gun they have come in with 10 rounders and selling the high cap mags seperately? The mags have no serial numbers and ways to track them.





As I understand the new bill (which might not go anywhere), the 11+ magazines would not be legal to sell anymore to non-LEO.

You might have a bunch of 15 round mags that fit my pistol, and I might want a bunch of them, but you wouldn't be able to sell them to me. The manufacturers and wholesalers might have a bunch of of 15 rounders, but they wouldn't be able to sell them to me either.

As for the current NYS law, I can only buy 15 round mags if they were made before a certain date in 1994. I can buy them from anywhere, any state, any mail order company, but they have to be made before that date.

dkf
01-26-2011, 11:21
As I understand the new bill (which might not go anywhere), the 11+ magazines would not be legal to sell anymore to non-LEO.

You might have a bunch of 15 round mags that fit my pistol, and I might want a bunch of them, but you wouldn't be able to sell them to me. The manufacturers and wholesalers might have a bunch of of 15 rounders, but they wouldn't be able to sell them to me either.

As for the current NYS law, I can only buy 15 round mags if they were made before a certain date in 1994. I can buy them from anywhere, any state, any mail order company, but they have to be made before that date.

Understood and I don't forsee the ban making it into law on a federal level, however it has to be taken seriously. The law would only pertains to people that want to follow it. A would be murderer I would think would not have much regard for the law.

Would the "Non LEO" restriction also pertain to Military personnel? Remember the shooting down in TX where the shooter was a military man.

ithaca_deerslayer
01-26-2011, 11:41
Would the "Non LEO" restriction also pertain to Military personnel? Remember the shooting down in TX where the shooter was a military man.

I don't know who exactly would count as LEO.

DeltaNu1142
01-26-2011, 11:52
So "Joe" has no problem murdering as many people as he can (obviously illegal) however he wants to comply with the 10rd mag law. Think not.
DING DING DING DING DING... here's the fatal flaw in knee-jerk legislation like the "1000-ft no-carry radius" BS discussed last week. Murder carries with it as heavy a punishment (oh, sorry, correctional stay) as you can expect to rack up... yet they'll be deterred by an imaginary 1000' perimeter that at worst results in a modest fine?

These are the products of the brilliant minds we're voting into office...

Cody Jarrett
01-26-2011, 18:28
You can second-guess scenarios all you like. Fact is, when you are out of ammo, you are done shooting. What about the handicapped? They may have limited movement ability. Are they less deserving of self-defense? If a Glock is all you have, you would advocate running away and leaving your family to die? And restricting magazine capacity is pointless and stupid.
I don't abandon them, I take them to cover with me if possible. That's a given. If I can't then I make the stand when and where I have to. But to think you can outlast three AK's because you have 15 rounds instead of 10 is a stretch. The handicapped person has a legitimate argument for higher cap. He can't get away and he may have difficulty reloading.

I don't like to "second guess" scenarios. When I train my students I teach them a skill set. They must adapt that skill set accordingly based on the threat. I agree that restricting the capacity does nothing to make anyone safer.

Cody Jarrett
01-26-2011, 18:37
These are the products of the brilliant minds we're voting into office...
That part scares me more than the lunatic. How could such ignorance exist in seemingly intelligent people.

ElectricZombie
01-27-2011, 01:41
1. Are more people likely to be killed and wounded in scenario B than in A?

No.

2. If yes, then is it worth it in terms of public safety versus freedom to pass a 10 round magazine limit law?

No.

Life isn't worth living when you're a slave.

But what if there was a scenario C with a 250 round belt-fed magazine and a fully automatic gun of some sort. If such a rig were legal to carry, would Joe Killer be able to kill enough people to change my mind?

No, not to me anyway. There is no amount of life that trumps freedom. Joe is a nut, the gun is a tool.

This isn't a realistic scenario. What if Joe ran over a bunch of people in his truck? Ban trucks?

But I believe that if enough people voted like me, it would be legal to own and carry such a rig.

Too heavy! I wouldn't mind having one mounted on a vehicle though!

LawAbidingMan
02-06-2011, 10:23
Let me try to be open minded and present an anti-gun view point to see if any of us on GT think limiting magazine capacity could be a good idea.

Scenario C is the one I struggle with. Many will say it is too hypothetical. But I believe that if enough people voted like me, it would be legal to own and carry such a rig.

The magazine limit makes no sense so long as 10 round .50 BMG magazines are "allowed" or are available.

Any sort of weapon limit, including Scenario C, makes no sense so long as diesel and fertilizer are "allowed" or are available. Yes, a psycho killer could kill quite a few folks with a machine gun, but that will pale compared to a mad bomber. A single person with one match could kill more people than a guy with a machine gun and infinite ammo. A madman doesn't even need a match - a magnifying glass and a sunny day will do. Add a crowded theater or school and some chains/locks on the exit doors and the death toll will be greater than Mumbai.

As for owning machineguns - I share that dream with you. I expect thought that I'll be able to afford to buy one under the NFA before we get the NFA repealed...oh well. This is what I plan on buying for my first MG http://www.impactguns.com/store/MGT-HK21SHORTY.html. (http://www.impactguns.com/store/MGT-HK21SHORTY.html)

Some might say that's way too expensive, and granted it is a bit, but I am quite content to drive a used car or no car and I have no cell phone and I won't pay a dime towards television so even if I remain poor that should be within my budget in time.

Glockin21
02-15-2011, 12:21
How about this.Citizen A is the only one around with a gun,and chooses to protect citizens B-Q from criminals A-F until the police arrive.The citizen could really use more ammo.

GMB
02-15-2011, 22:23
The very question is flawed because Constitutional rights, as outlined, were not intended to be weighed against hypothetical risk to any given person.

The framers' intent is for the American citizen to possess military arms for the purpose to defending himself and the populace against domestic and/or foreign oppressors.

This statement holds true regardless of civilian gun deaths. Whether 2 people die yearly in shootings, or 2,000,000 die, it is not relevant.

The framers of the Constitution considered armament against governmental oppression to be so critical a concept that they excluded any clauses or reasoning that might seek to limit it, regardless of latent societal consequences. In plain words - they could care less what the crime rates were, because the right itself was more important than these concerns.

Even if mere gun ownership alone caused mass casualties and massive public risk to a majority of individuals (and we know it does not), the framers' intent still stands - "shall not be infringed".

BuckyP
02-16-2011, 06:17
The very question is flawed because Constitutional rights, as outlined, were not intended to be weighed against hypothetical risk to any given person.

The framers' intent is for the American citizen to possess military arms for the purpose to defending himself and the populace against domestic and/or foreign oppressors.

This statement holds true regardless of civilian gun deaths. Whether 2 people die yearly in shootings, or 2,000,000 die, it is not relevant.

The framers of the Constitution considered armament against governmental oppression to be so critical a concept that they excluded any clauses or reasoning that might seek to limit it, regardless of latent societal consequences. In plain words - they could care less what the crime rates were, because the right itself was more important than these concerns.

Even if mere gun ownership alone caused mass casualties and massive public risk to a majority of individuals (and we know it does not), the framers' intent still stands - "shall not be infringed".

:goodpost:

Cody Jarrett
02-16-2011, 09:05
And then discussion evolves to conceal carry, with Trent Franks making a previous comment that he wished someone with a conceal carry license been there.

What it took were the heroes we saw in Tuscon, individuals, people whom fought back, people like those on Flight 93, people like those that refuse to be victimized - we need far more these individuals than any gun control measure could ever accomplish.

If so, what can we do to prevent the next tragedy?
One of the two men that tackled the perp was carrying a concealed firearm. He came out of the drug store, heard the shooting and took his gun off safety. If Jared had been able to reload is there any doubt this hero would have ended it right there? You won't hear that on MSNBC.

Can we prevent the next tragedy? In a word, no. No gun control measure, not even the complete confiscation of all firearms will prevent insane people from doing insane things.

One could rent a large SUV and run down students on campus or shoppers at a mall or any other of a variety of scenarios. So shall we ban the Ford Expedition? Shall we ban steak knives? Soon we'll need a permit for a plastic SPORK.

Kegs
02-16-2011, 09:33
We should either learn to love or ban humanity.

G23c
02-16-2011, 10:05
its not the mag, its the MWAG.

BuckyP
02-16-2011, 11:31
One could rent a large SUV and run down students on campus or shoppers at a mall or any other of a variety of scenarios. So shall we ban the Ford Expedition?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of those that want to do just that, admittedly for different reasons.

Gossettc68
02-23-2011, 23:58
I had read an article a while back, can't seem to find it for you guys but the argument that the anti-guns were swinging was the fact that if the " bad guy " has less round capacity then the law enforcement would have an easier time taking the bad guy down..Because he has to reload etc...It was a stupid agrument.

What about me?

Bad guy has a 40 round clip..I wan't that same option to defend myself. Seems how I am a law biding citizen I should have the right to defend myself with the same tools as the criminal. That's my thinking.

Not to mention this just falls back to the same story we've all heard a thousand times. If you limit our magazine capacity...Criminals won't follow the rules leaving us handicapped against them.

ithaca_deerslayer
02-10-2012, 10:03
The very question is flawed because Constitutional rights, as outlined, were not intended to be weighed against hypothetical risk to any given person.

The framers' intent is for the American citizen to possess military arms for the purpose to defending himself and the populace against domestic and/or foreign oppressors.

This statement holds true regardless of civilian gun deaths. Whether 2 people die yearly in shootings, or 2,000,000 die, it is not relevant.

The framers of the Constitution considered armament against governmental oppression to be so critical a concept that they excluded any clauses or reasoning that might seek to limit it, regardless of latent societal consequences. In plain words - they could care less what the crime rates were, because the right itself was more important than these concerns.

Even if mere gun ownership alone caused mass casualties and massive public risk to a majority of individuals (and we know it does not), the framers' intent still stands - "shall not be infringed".

Doesn't the Supreme Court often allow what they call "reasonable" restrictions? Seems like that happens all the time. Then everyone debates what reasonable means.

My literal read is "shall not be infringed" has no allowance whatsoever for a permit system. Yet most of the country has a permit system for handguns.

Jerry
02-10-2012, 12:35
The Supreme Court was/are not granted the power to “change” the Constitution. Only the congress or states can do that. Soooo any “improper interoperation” is unconstitutional. Of course the LEO’s will enforce it. Anyone that doesn’t follow the “illegal” law will be considered an outlaw by the government. But then so were the founders!

What I find funny (sickening) is. The “government” now picks and chooses what law to enforce and which not. If you are a citizen you must follow “ALL” firearms laws. If you are here illegally or a politician or LEO given orders by a politician you don’t need to follow any law. :steamed:

1911austin
02-11-2012, 15:24
Let me try to be open minded and present an anti-gun view point to see if any of us on GT think limiting magazine capacity could be a good idea.

My personal view is there should be no magazine limits. But let's put the personal views aside for a moment to see if the anti-gun view has any merit.

Two scenarios.
A. Joe Killer has 4 magazines, each holding 10 rounds. He has one 9mm evil black semi-auto handgun, and he wants to kill as many as he can at the local mall. He draws his handgun from beneath a trench coat and shoots as many people as he can. He runs out of ammo after 10 rounds, then changes to a fresh magazine and so on, until he is either forcibly stopped or shoots all 40 rounds.

B. Same Joe Killer situation, but now with 1 magazine of 40 rounds. Since the magazine is made by RELIABLETECH, it does not jam. He draws his handgun and shoots as many as he can, until he is either forcibly stopped or shoots all 40 rounds.

Questions.
1. Are more people likely to be killed and wounded in scenario B than in A?
2. If yes, then is it worth it in terms of public safety versus freedom to pass a 10 round magazine limit law?

My own analysis:
I believe that on average, more people would be killed or wounded in scenario B than in A. This is because scenario A allows more instances for people to either flee or to forcibly intervene against Joe Killer.

I do not believe the difference in killing and wounding between A and B is enough impose upon our freedoms. Thus, I do not believe a magazine limit should be the outcome.

But what if there was a scenario C with a 250 round belt-fed magazine and a fully automatic gun of some sort. If such a rig were legal to carry, would Joe Killer be able to kill enough people to change my mind?

Since I am pro-gun, I'd like it to be legal to own a fully automatic gun firing from a 250 round belt-fed magazine. I'd want it legal to carry such a gun around. What would keep Joe Killer from legally taking such a rig to a mall and getting ready to kill as many people as he could?

Scenario C is the one I struggle with. Many will say it is too hypothetical. But I believe that if enough people voted like me, it would be legal to own and carry such a rig.

I have a “A” “B” scenario myself.

A: A person understands the meaning of the Second Amendment and the importance of preserving it.

B: All others, like gun grabbing liberals or so called “Second Amendment” supporters who engage is stupid ideas like “sporting purposes” or “magazine limits”. You are either with us or against us…there is NO middle ground.

Don’t be so damn quick to be “open minded” with MY liberties. I have an individual right to keep and bear arms despite what the statistics say.

How about adding a scenario “D” to your idea?

D: Joe pulls out gun and starts indiscriminately shooting innocent folks. After the first few, another citizen puts a 230 grain HST between Joe’s eyes. Who cares how many rounds are left in Joe’s magazine?

AA#5
02-11-2012, 16:08
If I may summarize, I believe you are saying the good guys might need full capacity magazines for a variety of scenarios. I agree with you.

The anti-gun people are only focused on Joe Killer, and how he was tackled after trying to reload. They figure if he had to reload at 10, then there'd be less carnage than letting him legally use 30 or 40 round mags.

I don't think it matters because people would be trying to get away & would be in no position to tackle him during the 1-2 seconds he'd be reloading.

jeffyjeff
02-11-2012, 22:51
Doesn't the Supreme Court often allow what they call "reasonable" restrictions? Seems like that happens all the time. Then everyone debates what reasonable means.

My literal read is "shall not be infringed" has no allowance whatsoever for a permit system. Yet most of the country has a permit system for handguns.

of course, a piece of paper doesn't actually stop the government from doing whatever it wants. when all three branches agree on breaking the rules, there's no one left to stop them (except the people.)

a population can only tolerate so much, and if things continue on in this way, we're going to end up with a new list of intolerable acts. :whistling:

ithaca_deerslayer
02-12-2012, 06:33
I have a “A” “B” scenario myself.

A: A person understands the meaning of the Second Amendment and the importance of preserving it.

B: All others, like gun grabbing liberals or so called “Second Amendment” supporters who engage is stupid ideas like “sporting purposes” or “magazine limits”. You are either with us or against us…there is NO middle ground.

Don’t be so damn quick to be “open minded” with MY liberties. I have an individual right to keep and bear arms despite what the statistics say.
. . .

There already are all sorts of infringements on your liberties. So you are living in a middle ground, and you are likely voting for middle ground politicians.

If we can't get the votes then the liberties you cherish will be even further eroded. Seems to me that one effective way to get votes involves discussion with the people on the other side and trying to understand their viewpoints.

HexHead
02-12-2012, 06:43
I don't think this is really any different than drum magazines for Thompson submachine guns. That mag limit effectively eliminated that gun as a favorite for gangsters.

This is a really dumb statement unless you're being sarcastic and facetious.

"Hey Vito, leave that drum behind. You know we can't use that to whack Santino, those are illegal.". LOLOLOLOLOL

1911austin
02-12-2012, 11:52
There already are all sorts of infringements on your liberties. So you are living in a middle ground, and you are likely voting for middle ground politicians.
I agree with the first part of your statement but anyone I vote for must absolutely support the Second Amendment.
If we can't get the votes then the liberties you cherish will be even further eroded. Seems to me that one effective way to get votes involves discussion with the people on the other side and trying to understand their viewpoints.

I discuss things with the other side regularly. I just don’t debate them of a false premise. If they start trying to disagree on grounds of “public safety”, “sporting purposes” and other such arguments, I explain to them why we have the Second Amendment without apology. Why should we negotiate with our civil liberties? That would be like trying to negotiate with a mugger about how much of your cash he gets to take.

fx77
02-12-2012, 12:53
The posted alternative scenerios are excellent.

But don't U get it...logic does not work on libtard antigunners?

Glockdude1
02-12-2012, 12:54
Here’s the rub to both scenarios. A. Joe Killer has a gas tank that holds 10 gallons. He wants to kill as many as he can at the local mall. He starts his car and runs over as many people as he can. He runs out of gas after 2 hours, then changes to a reserve tank and so on, until he is either forcibly stopped or runs out of gas.

B. Same Joe Killer situation, but now with a tank that holds 100 gallons. Since the automobile is made by RELIABLETECH, it doesn't stall or overheat. He drives his car over and threw as many as he can, until he is either forcibly stopped or runs out of gas.

Perhaps we need to limit fuel tank size. :upeyes:

What is my point? It does matter if a nut job can get a gun or not or if it’s limited to 1 round or holds 1000, the gun nor the magazine capacity is the problem… the nut job is. And they will do what they will do with or without guns or “standard capacity” magazines. :faint:

:agree:

series1811
02-12-2012, 12:56
No, laws against magazine capacity, don't make any rational sense to anyone who understands how firearms work.

ithaca_deerslayer
02-12-2012, 16:33
No, laws against magazine capacity, don't make any rational sense to anyone who understands how firearms work.

Might be a myth, but didn't Bill Ruger suggest those laws in the first place? And didn't he make it pirposely difficult to get high cap mags for the mini-14?

He certainly understood how firearms work.

ithaca_deerslayer
02-12-2012, 16:39
. . . anyone I vote for must absolutely support the Second Amendment.



I can't even remember the last pro- Second Ammendment President.

Don't think there have been any in my lifetime.

series1811
02-12-2012, 16:52
Might be a myth, but didn't Bill Ruger suggest those laws in the first place? And didn't he make it pirposely difficult to get high cap mags for the mini-14?

He certainly understood how firearms work.

That's news to me. But, do you really think someone like Ruger, if he did say that, did it for logical, instead of political, reasons?

Jerry
02-12-2012, 17:10
Might be a myth, but didn't Bill Ruger suggest those laws in the first place? And didn't he make it pirposely difficult to get high cap mags for the mini-14?

He certainly understood how firearms work.



He also admitted he made a mistake. Since the vast majority of his firearms carry 10 rounds or less perhaps he was thinking more about trying to handicap other firearm manufactures than how firearms work. He sure wasn’t thinking about how the firearms buying public would react. It cost him a LOT of business. Rightfully so!

NEOH212
02-12-2012, 17:39
Do magazine capacity limits make sense to regulate by law?






NO! Not at all!

NEOH212
02-12-2012, 17:41
Here’s the rub to both scenarios. A. Joe Killer has a gas tank that holds 10 gallons. He wants to kill as many as he can at the local mall. He starts his car and runs over as many people as he can. He runs out of gas after 2 hours, then changes to a reserve tank and so on, until he is either forcibly stopped or runs out of gas.

B. Same Joe Killer situation, but now with a tank that holds 100 gallons. Since the automobile is made by RELIABLETECH, it doesn't stall or overheat. He drives his car over and threw as many as he can, until he is either forcibly stopped or runs out of gas.

Perhaps we need to limit fuel tank size. :upeyes:

What is my point? It does matter if a nut job can get a gun or not or if it’s limited to 1 round or holds 1000, the gun nor the magazine capacity is the problem… the nut job is. And they will do what they will do with or without guns or “standard capacity” magazines. :faint:

You hit the nail square on the head.

:thumbsup:

ithaca_deerslayer
02-14-2012, 12:18
That's news to me. But, do you really think someone like Ruger, if he did say that, did it for logical, instead of political, reasons?

At this link, it mentions his open letter to Congress. Guess it was 15 rounds as the limit he was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Ruger#cite_note-8

No idea why he did it. But seems like Congress ran with the idea, and selected 10 as the limit. NYS is still stuck with that limit.

John Rambo
02-15-2012, 08:02
As with most gun laws nowadays, it does not make sense.

1. One bullet comes out every time you pull the trigger no matter how many rounds are in the magazine.

2. Someone using their weapon for an unlawful person is a CRIMINAL. Criminals don't generally abide by laws. Not even magazine limits.