Should extended magazines be banned?

[Bandit]

Is there anyone on DU that will defend in a logical manner why we need extended clips? Why does anyone need more than ten bullets in their handgun at any one time?

[FSogol]

1. What if 11 armed criminals have broken into your house and are hiding behind your fridge?

:crazy:

[Bandit]

3. That's why machine guns need to be legalized.

:shrug:

[Recursion]

8. They are, but it takes a Federal firearms license

including a strict background check, a $200 tax stamp, and permission of local law enforcement. That's part of why a machine gun hasn't been used in a homicide in the US in something like 50 years. The other part is that, counterintuitively, machine guns aren't actually made for killing people and aren't very good at it; they're made for making people take cover.

[Bandit]

18. Have you ever fired a machine gun?

They can be extremely accurate if need be..:shrug:

[Recursion]

21. Yes; I carried and fired my platoon's M240-G

And no, they can't, not compared to a rifle or pistol.

[Bandit]

32. I was a door gunner on a gunship in Vietnam

We worked only with Special Forces and small four or five man teams and it was imperative that our support be within a few meters of the men on the ground. To be able to provide such close suppression I used solid tracer rounds instead of the normal four ball and one tracer. We could suppress within a couple of feet of the men on the ground while flying at eighty miles an hour...So I would say with experience behind me that machine guns can be extremely accurate.

[Recursion]

38. You got a foot-wide grouping with an M-60 on a gunship moving at 80mph?

[Bandit]

80. I did not say I got a foot wide grouping

The men on the ground would usually be in a bomb crater or other very small clearing and the enemy would often be within a few meters of the men. We would suppress around their group with bullets hitting within a few feet of their location. It was imperative we could ring their position with rounds so an extraction could be accomplished. We also would put rounds as close to the blades on the extraction ship as humanly possible without actually striking the ship..:shrug: it was a job...

[Recursion]

82. Ah, sorry, I misread that

I was taught you fire to suppress and can target something vehicle sized, mostly. My fire was to make the enemy keep his head down while one of the fire teams moved forward to kill him.

[FSogol]

56. Note to self: Don't joke around with Bandit.

:hi:

[Paladin]

Proof That Gun Control Programs Work. (n/t)

[Recursion]

24. Yes, the NFA has been very effective

Because it effectively banned a class of firearm that was already vanishingly rare.

[badtoworse]

61. I don't believe machine guns were particularly rare in Chicago during prohibition.

I believe the NFA came about largely because of public outrage over gang violence, most notably the St. Valentine's Day massacre.

[one-eyed fat man]

104. A bit of history

The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar
There were surprisingly few of them built, and even fewer were sold. Colt built 15,000 Thompson submachineguns and in 1936 almost 13,000 still remained unsold. From its inception, the Auto-Ordnance company marketed their gun to police, express and security agencies. "Sold only to Those on the Side of Law and Order." Many a small town police agency bought a "Tommy gun" as a sign they were progressive.



This book, The American Legend: First Submachine Gun, now out of print, lists the disposition of all the Colt guns by serial number from factory records in one of its appendices. Most of the guns sold went to big companies, many of which folks would consider "Fortune 500." Remember, this was at a time when people were almost universally paid in cash, so having company guards or an armored car for the payroll was not uncommon. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post at one time owned Thompsons. The two that used to belong to the Post never turned up again after the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. The Chicago mob set up a dummy corporation in Minnesota, the "Gopher Mining Company" to buy three.

True, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and the use of stolen military weapons by motor bandits, like Bonnie & Clyde were aggressively and sensationally publicized in magazines like Collier's. Homer Cummings, Roosevelt’s Attorney General, the force behind repeated attempts at Federal handgun registration before the WW2 exploited the notoriety and included all pistols and revolvers in his draft of the National Firearms Act.

Attorney General Cummings also said in Congressional testimony, “We certainly don’t expect gangsters to come forward to register their weapons and be fingerprinted, and a $200 tax is frankly prohibitive to private citizens.” On another occasion, he said, "Show me the man who does not want his gun registered, and I will show you a man who should not have a gun."

It was the outbreak of World War 2 that changed that. The Thompson was actually an obsolete design by then, but tooling existed and it was put into production. Despite eliminating the elegant machine work, fine checkering, and craftsmanship of the Colt's, it was still an expensive gun to produce and several changes were made to the design to speed war-time production and reduce costs.

The British and French did order some but at least two shipments of Colt built guns were lost to U-boats. The only other large scale user of the Thompson gun was the Irish Republican Army. Cornelius Ryan who was the money behind Thompson's venture was sympathetic to the Republican cause and diverted guns to the IRA. It is a tribute to the how well the guns were built as when the IRA finally started decommissioning the guns worked as well as they did 85 years ago. Another interesting aside is Ryan was close friends with an Irish Boston bootlegger named Joe Kennedy.

[badtoworse]

117. Very interesting post! Thanks for the history lesson.

[YllwFvr]

137. i wish they werent so rare

because I cant afford 5-20 thousand dollars. Well I suppose I could, but I cant justify the expense, plus ammo?!?! no way

[shadowrider]

146. Then buy one for someone needy

I'll send you my address. Imagine how good you'll feel

:D

[YllwFvr]

150. wish this forum had rep features

that was worthy!

[shadowrider]

152. rep features? huh?

[YllwFvr]

154. if you like someones post

give em a thumbs up, or I approve of this button. there "rep" or times they are given a thumbs up is by there name. They can be thumbs downed too. Overall approval rating in other words.

A few other forums I frequent use that feature

[shadowrider]

155. Ahhh. A "rec" button. Same thing only different.. n/t

[YllwFvr]

157. apologies

ive been lurking for a long time, but Ive only recently posted. Im not familiar with the rec system, though Ive seen it mentioned.

[blondeatlast]

5. Hey, it could happen--ever seen "A ChristmasStory?" That was based on Jean Shepherd's

own experiences, ya know.

[michreject]

7. You should always have one up the pipe

And a fully charged mag.

Problem solved. :)

[Paladin]

25. Find A New Pick-Up Line....... (n/t)

[michreject]

31. I guess that was suppose to be whitty

FAIL.

[Shagbark Hickory]

16. The police always say: Do not try to be a hero. Just give them what they ask for.

A wallet and cash is replacable. Lives are not.

[Brilliantrocket]

Yeah ok

Why not just bend over and spread your cheeks? If everyone thought like that we would be a nation of wimps.

[Shagbark Hickory]

105. A nation of living wimps is preferable to a nation of dead toughguys.

[bossy22]

84. that doesnt always work

my father back in the 80's was approached by a man with a large knife. The man demanded my fathers wallet and car keys. My father complied. What did the man do next? Well he took that knife and stabbed my father in the shoulder (my father claims that he was aiming for the neck but that he was able to move out of the way enough for the knife to miss the neck area).

The police say this because its the easiest thing to sell PR wise. so in other words- they are full of shi*t

[Shagbark Hickory]

107. Good thing neither party had a gun.

[YllwFvr]

143. yeah, it would be a shame

if the crook was alive to stab someone else :/

[Statistical]

87. and when they kill you anyways? Do you get a do-over? n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

108. Most of the time, all they want is your cash so they can go score some drugs. Just give it to them.

You'll live to tell about it.

[Statistical]

125. and the time they don't? Roughly 20% of all homicides occur in the comission of another crime.

Robbery, Burglary, Rape, Assault, etc.

[benEzra]

122. I would not use a firearm to protect cash.

Only to stop an imminent threat of death or serious injury. A wallet and cash, as you point out, is replaceable.

[one-eyed fat man]

127. Like these clerks?

Just give them what they ask for.

Rare? "Robber executes clerk" produces about 752,000 results (0.37 seconds)

"The police always say: Do not try to be a hero."

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

"Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first." And unlike the police, the victim does not have to resolve the ambiguity of who is the bad guy.

You tell us when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but rely on the criminal's good nature and simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, do you still expect her to, with great dignity and poise, simply "get up off that pussy?"

The suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want," is stupid beyond belief!

[YllwFvr]

142. as an every day carrier

I may just do that too.

[michreject]

2. In case I mugged by 12 bad guys

It's not a case of why, but why not. I haven't broken any laws.

[Shagbark Hickory]

13. If you get mugged, it is best if you just comply with the demands of the mugger. Attempting to use a

gun on 12 bad guys will not turn out well for you.

[michreject]

26. Then I die nt

[Recursion]

4. There are millions of them in the country. How are you going to get them?

That's my main argument against it.

[Bandit]

9. Make them illegal to be sold

If you have one that is fine, but no one should be able to sell one either in a store or a gun show....That is how the Bill is worded I believe..

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

15. And when an owner of the magazines dies?

Do they magically get collected by the magazine fairy?

I don't think magazine capacity is nearly as important as most people on either side seem to, so I've got nothing in principle against the ban, I just don't see how it's going to have a practical effect.

[SteveM]

130. Magazine size: deck chairs on the Titanic. nt

[right2bfree]

161. Its simple. If you get cuaght with one, you get a pre-determined jail sentence, say ten years, nt

[Recursion]

177. That wasn't the deal

Upthread the poster said people who own them now can keep them, but you can't transfer them to anyone.

[right2bfree]

179. I wasnt reffering to thier ideas. One large magazine=10 Years!

[Abq_Sarah]

180. Your username seems to be in conflict

With your opinions on this particular subforum.

[benEzra]

116. If transfer is illegal, what happens when you die or transfer your guns to your adult daughter/son?

Confiscation, yes?

The state of California managed barely a 10% compliance rate with their own asinine magazine ban, IMO (which I believe is confiscatory along the lines of what you are suggesting), and that was a decade and a half ago when fewer people owned 20-30 round rifles and 15-20 round handguns than in 2004 or 2011.

[SteveM]

128. Hmmm, "gun show?" How about over the kitchen table?

You realize that the mythical "gun show loophole," so reverentially believed in by some controllers, will come back to bite you when one discovers that non-dealers at gun shows could just as readily sell their firearms over the kitchen table.

BTW, I don't think this bill will go anywhere. On another note, for purposes of discussion, before the Tucson shooting, how many people have been shot with guns using this type of magazine?

[Tippy]

19. Yoe you are correct but we have even more since Bush

made the legal again....BUT IF save one life is it not worth it?

[Brilliantrocket]

30. If we repealed the fourth amendment

and then we instituted a police state with government surveillance in every home , I bet we could save thousands of lives a year. What you are saying is completely idiotic. If we banned cars we could save 40,000 lives per year. If we went and banned things just because it saved lives we could ban pretty much everything.

[Tippy]

52. But we are not talking about cars we are talking about

something we really have no logical use for unless it is to kill people and a lot of them....I won't post to this topic again....I know when a mind is closed...

[shadowrider]

83. So do I n/t

[SteveM]

131. Actually, these magazines are used by those who...

like to shoot many rounds at one time; both to see how their aim holds up, and because it is fun. Frankly, I don't know of anyone before the Tucson shootings who has been killed by guns employing this extended magazine. Laws should address real social problems in a measurable and verifiable manner, not because we think it might save "one life:" Cho killed far more people using rather standard magazines (he just carried extra ones, re-loading in a few seconds).

Here is a suggestion: Congresspersons (and other notable figures) should encourage their entourage to carry-concealed. This may not prevent an assassination, but it can cut down on the number of attendant casualties. The actor Jodie Foster is very much anti-gun, but when she was threatened, she had to hesitation in keeping her "entourage" (bodyguards) on hand when she was in school. They were armed.

[Statistical]

78. Bush didn't make the legal.

You could read the other dozen threads you were corrected in for more facts.

No matter how many times you say a false statement you can't make it turn true.

[beevul]

93. Bush did not make them legal again.

Congress did not renew a law that had a built in sunset clause, to put on bushs desk to sign.

[Tippy]

6. Extended Magazines keep the NRA happy?

[elocs]

10. Yes, there are those here at DU who will defend the need for extended clips.

They will soon be climbing the stairs from the gungeon to respond. As Radar used to say, "wait for it".

[beevul]

94. Its not a matter of simply defending a need.

Itsalso a matter of not allowing anti-gun politicians any legislation to build from.

[SteveM]

133. And the gun-controllers will spur the manufacture and sale of these magazines.

You knew that, but hey! what's more important: more extended 'clips' (magazines), or the warmth of moral rectitude?

[YllwFvr]

149. i dont "need"

extended magazines. Just like you dont "need" to open your mouth outside of your home. But if you werent allowed to speak outside your own property you would feel your first amendment rights were being infringed. Rights have little to do with need. You dont "need" to be free to live. But its part of being free. Welcome to America, we have guns.

[Shagbark Hickory]

12. Yes! Of course.

It is the least that can be done. To reinstate the assault weapons ban including this extended bullets clip which has no practical use except for things that are illegal.

[beevul]

95. I love it...

I love it when people that aren't knowledgable about things, claim that those things have "no practical use except for things that are illegal."

Ranks right up there with those that have no uterus telling those with a uterus what they should or shouldn't do with them.

[Brilliantrocket]

14. Here's a good example of why they shouldn't be banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_armed_resistance_in_the_Los_Angeles_riots

"Defending the armed response of the Koreans, Mr. Rhyu said, "If it was your own business and your own property, would you be willing to trust it to someone else? We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup. But when our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response."<3> Jay Rhee estimated that he and others fired 500 shots into the ground and air. "We have lost our faith in the police," he said. "Where were you when we needed you?"

[The Straight Story]

17. Is that the magazine for enhanced male performance? I think I read it once

Not sure it was bad enough to ban though.

[Kingofalldems]

20. It's settled Law! I want my guns!

[Kali]

22. do you need organic tofu at $20/lb from the yuppie market?

does somebody NEED anything beyond some rags, a hut, and some gruel? who the fuck gets to be the decider about what people do and want in terms of hobbies or other pursuits?

Why does anybody NEED? is not the question to ask.

the question to ask is how can we create the conditions where people don't have to lash out with violence in order to get their real NEEDS met?

it isn't going to be from trying to impinge on other people's rights.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

27. Why does anyone NEED more than three bullets? One?

The problem isn't a question of whether people NEED more than 10 bullets. Most gun owners will tell you flat out that it's rare to fire more than two or three shots at a time.

The PROBLEM is that 10 is an arbitrary number. Why not 12? How about 8? There is nothing magical about 10 that makes it a logical solution, which leads to the objection: Once it is decided that magazines can be limited at a particular number, it's legislatively trivial to start notching that number down every time something horrible happens.

"Why does anyone NEED more than three bullets?"

[doc03]

28. I am a gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment

as far as a 30 round magazine I have no problem with outlawing them. My CCW has a 17 round capacity and I have never loaded more than ten rounds. The problem is you limit it to 10 rounds today and tomorrow someone shoots 10 people they will want a lower limit to 5 and so on until all guns are banned. That is the goal of the anti gun groups if they were truthful.

[BzaDem]

29. "they will want a lower limit to 5 and so on until all guns are banned"

:rofl:

[Brilliantrocket]

34. Dems don't learn from their mistakes...

The 1994 assault weapons ban cost them losses for the next 12 years. Ask yourselves, was an experiment that proved to have zero effect on crime ( DOJ stats) worth the Iraq war and Afghanistan war? A $1,136,859,002,848 experiment....

Do it again and we're looking at 8 years minimum of republican rule.

[doc03]

35. That's the goal and you know it. n/t

[BzaDem]

41. Nope. Nice try though :)

[doc03]

47. Here you go, post number 48 proves my point n/t

[BzaDem]

48. How does my post prove your point? I simply said that you are wrong about the slippery slope.

If you are talking about post 48, well you might have a point if post 48 was a representative sample of all those who wanted to ban 30 round magazines. Except it isn't.

[doc03]

49. I made a typo #48 n/t

[doc03]

50. That is the ultimate goal of most of the anti-gun people. As far

as anyone needing a 30 round magazine I agree with you 100%.

[one-eyed fat man]

159. See post 141 nt

[benEzra]

123. The Brady Campaign introduced a 6-round limit in 1994 (H.R.3932/S.1878, known as "Brady II").

They were absolutely serious. It would have been confiscatory, as I recall.

[SteveM]

134. Take a look at #123. When you are through laughing, of course. nt

[beevul]

138. Some proof.

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993



Still laughing?

[TwilightGardener]

37. So common sense is overridden by vague slippery slope imaginings.

[doc03]

39. That is the gun lobby position, anyway it is a non-starter

if you haven't noticed the Republicans control the House.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Of course. Paranoia about gun grabbing keeps us from doing ANYTHING rational

to prevent mass murder.

[doc03]

44. I agree. Nobody needs a 30 round magazine but as long as

their is a NRA it won't be changed.

[SteveM]

136. Cho killed far more with much smaller mags; he just carried extras.nt

[beevul]

153. Perhaps you will read post 138...

"Of course. Paranoia about gun grabbing keeps us from doing ANYTHING rational."

Perhaps you will read post 138, and see its NOT paranoia.

[SteveM]

135. #123.nt

[one-eyed fat man]

141. I have a question

The whole anti-gun movement has been based on shifting goalposts and changing rules. Time and time again they redefine what they claim are "reasonable" or "common sense" prohibitions while in all cases every one of the organizations' charters calls for the complete elimination of civilian gun ownership. In their own words:

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

They even outlined a few of the intentional deceptions they planned on using to achieve their eventual goal.

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarmann, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Their naive apologists piously bleat about preventing gun crime, yet their leaders boldly proclaim:

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, 1996, Washington Post

Leaders of the gun control movement have unashamedly and publicly proclaimed how they intend to reach their goals. They have plainly said deceit and deception are the justifiable means to their end. They have shown themselves to be complete, total and absolute liars, except for ONE TRUTH:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

So the liars already know they are lying; those who simply hate guns will always hate them, and they are counting on deceiving people in large numbers to achieve their goals. Do you mean to tell us we are just imagining what they have been telling the world for decades?

Simply put, "Wuz y'all lying then or are y'all lying now?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. Your explanation of why I need only 10 shots is as much conjecture as my argument that I need 30...

Explain to me why I only need TEN rounds.
I don't want to hear why you don't think I need THIRTY.
I want to know why, specifically, you think I need TEN (or fewer) rounds.

And then I want to hear you explain why my carrying 3 TEN round magazines doesn't defeat proposed extended-magazine bans. Please keep in mind that nearly every modern fullsize semiauto 9mm pistol carries 17 rounds in a standard (non-extended) magazine. If you answer these two things, I will give you a quantitative reason why I want THIRTY rounds in my magazine.

[BzaDem]

43. Because reloading is not a big deal for legal uses of guns

but is a big deal for illegal uses (since there is a heightened chance they will be thrown to the ground while trying to reload)?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. "it's not a big deal"...

So you concede that it may be an inconvenience for law abiding gun owners... it's just not a big deal. Correct?

It's not such a bad answer but I feel it assumes too much about legal gun owners and about the usefulness of hi cpaacity magazines. For example, many legal users of guns use them for competition where it is not uncommon to find 9mm pistols with 28-30 round magazines. Obviously, in a competition environment, a large magazine can be a big deal. Also, as I mentioned before, nearly all fullsize 9mm pistols carry 15-17 (or more) rounds.

On the other hand, in the real world magazine changes take less than about 2 seconds. Cho demostrated this when he killed MANY more people using magazines of 10 rounds and standard capacity - changing mags several times. Plus, reports of the story in Tuscon indicate that the extended mag caused a jam (extended magazines can be more unreliable) and allowed bystanders to tackle him. Had he been using a more reliable standard magazine... could he have killed more people?

In my opinion, inconveniencing (otherwise known as infringing) the rights/priveleges due to the actions of a few unlawful individuals for little or no social benefit seems questionable. I would like to know that when the rights/priveleges of every american are curtailed... the sacrifice is meaningful.

(I intend on holding up my end of the question answering, I'm just trying to understand your concise answer and continue discuaaion.)

[BzaDem]

60. Oh, I'm not saying it would necessarily save people in every instance.

I'm just saying that it increases the chance in various instances that they might be tackled. Obviously, if no one is close to the shooter, or if there are other circumstances in play, it might not help in a given instance.

I would also dispute your equating inconveniencing and infringing. No one has a constitutional right to a 30 round magazine as opposed to a 10 round, just like no one has a right to violate financial regulations or keep 100% of what they earn above a certain amount, etc. Under your logic, every law in existence is an "infringement."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

71. Well, the constitutionality remains to be seen...

Technically, any restrictions could be seen as infringements. It's an action or freedom that becomes more regulated. Since magazines (and ammo and guns) fall under the title of "arms" then such a ban MAY be considered an infringement. As of yet, SCOTUS has not ruled on that issue so it's up to the states to decide for now.

I think the real analysis comes in weighing the cost of liberty versus the social benefit. There are literally millions of people in the US that own Hi-Cap mags and use them recreationally withotu breaking any laws. I have no problem with that. In fact, i shoot competitively and use them on occassion. But how often in the past have legally obtained 30+ round mags enabled a crime or allowed it to be worse? Maybe a few, a dozen, times at most?? If we're talking about handgun large mags, like the kind used in tuscon, this is the first time I ever heard of anyone using a 30 round mag in a pistol for a mass shooting.

I just think that the events of 30+ round mags being used in crime are so rare that banning the sale of new ones wouldn't have much of an impact on shootings but WOULD effect the freedom of others to use them in a lawful manner. I certainly don't think a law as ineffective as a hicap mag ban is worth costing democratic votes.

[Statistical]

91. Well technically yes. All laws that restrict rights are infringements.

However the courts have ruled that government can infringe upon rights WITH DUE PROCESS.

That Due Process is called Strict Scrutiny. An arbitrary ammo limit of 10 rounds without proving why 10 rounds is a "compelling government interest", why it it needs to be 10 rounds, not 12, or 15, or 20 "narrowly tailored" or why a different method wouldn't be as effective "least restrictive means to accomplish the goal" is an Unconstitutional infringement.

Then again the government might get away with it, this country rarely respects the Constitution anymore but that isn't a good thing.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. To answer the OP's question about why I feel I might need 31 rounds:

Using a firearm under duress can be difficult. While a good shot at the firing range (95%+ on a human target in a competitive environment) my combat accuracy may only be 40% depending on lighting, moving targets, and evasive maneuvers. Also, a good practice is to fire two shots into the target in rapid succession (double tap) and assess the situation. Because 9mm is a fairly diminutive round a determined attacker or home intruder, especially one under the effects of narcotics, may need engaged up to twice with a "double tap" to quickly end the threat. It's also not unreasonable to expect that there may be a second or third accomplice engaged in the home invasion or robbery. Four attackers may be on the fringe of imagination, but three is more within the realm of possibility.
Added up, that's 12 successful shots/hits requiring 30 total expended rounds (at a 40% hit rate).

Personally, I don't carry my 30 round mags because they stick out of the gun awkwardly but I have carried a 30 round as a spare mag in my pocket (or keep it in my glovebox of the car). More typically, I carry 15+1 rounds in my Glock and a spare 15 round magazine for a total of 31 rounds.

Also, keep in mind that common shooting competitions may allow allow extended magazines. I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting "9 major" in the open class had upwards of 29 rounds in a magazine. In a competition, not having to swap a mag is a HUGE advantage.

[Statistical]

90. Like it was a problem for Cho. Who was smart enough to use 2 guns.

One loaded to prevent counter attack while he loaded the other.

He reloaded 4 times and killed 32 people. Only reason he didn't kill more is he took his own life.

[L0oniX]

36. What are you posting this crap here for? Flame bait?

[TwilightGardener]

40. It's a reasonable question, in light of all the mass shoot-em-ups we have every year.

Not sure why it's flamebait to ask why extended clips are necessary. Obviously there's a good logical reason why someone needs to shoot 30 bullets without reloading, we just haven't heard it yet.

[petronius]

57. It's not flambebait, it's just the wrong question. When proposing a ban, the onus

isn't on the people who want something to defend their "need", it's on the people proposing the ban to prove it's necessary. In the case of high-capacity magazines, there's no credible, substantial, measurable data to suggest that a ban would do anything at all to improve safety. It's all based on guesses, assumptions, and hypotheticals...

[TwilightGardener]

58. It's not a "wrong" question. It's never wrong to explore ways to keep the body count lower

when public mass shootings occur. In fact, I think it's wrong to decide that the question can't be asked and discussed.

[petronius]

59. It's fine to ask and discuss, it's wrong as a starting point for discussing a ban

You frame it as "ways to keep the body count lower", but you're approaching from the wrong end. People who own high-capacity magazines don't need to explain their desire, people who want to ban them need to demonstrate that the ban would realistically affect the body count. That hasn't been done, and so the "need" question is irrelevant...

[BzaDem]

64. Why shouldn't people who own high-capacity magazines explain their desire?

There is no constitutional right to high capacity magazines anymore than there is a constitutional right to keep 100% of what you earn.

[petronius]

68. Why should they have to? It's really a basic question about the philosophy of

governance: if Person A wishes to ban Activity X that is enjoyed by Person B, is the onus

1) on Person A to justify the ban, and if they can't the ban is rejected, or
2) on Person B to demonstrate a need, and if they can't the ban is just fine?

As a liberal I will always go with '2', not matter the issue. If someone wants to limit a freedom or a choice, then they need to demonstrate (not hypothesize, not guess, not imagine) a clear and substantial societal need for the restriction. If they can do that, then it's useful to call on Person B to see if compelling over-riding need...

[beevul]

98. For the same reasons that those who wish...

For the same reasons that those who wish to have an abortion should not have to explain thier desire.

[NewMoonTherian]

156. Your question has swayed me.

I feel I need high-capacity magazines in case I ever have to engage a large number of enemies in armed combat.

On a sidebar, I think you're very wrong regarding a constitutional right to high-capacity magazines. They are in common use by infantry troops, and they most certainly fall under the heading of "arms". To classify them as being too dangerous to be protected by the constitution would be arbitrary(though that didn't stop the Hughes Amendment, which is also grossly unconstitutional).

[TwilightGardener]

65. How can anyone decide that it won't make a difference if we can't even question

why anyone would NEED such shit to begin with? Circular argument--don't discuss whether limits on ammo might be necessary, because no one has successfully proven that limits on ammo might be effective...because we can't discuss it. Bizarre. How about let's try it, and see what happens? Fuck, drop-side cribs are now banned because they've been implicated in the deaths of a relative handful of infants. My right to buy a brand new drop side crib is gone.

[petronius]

73. It seems that we have two very different attitudes toward law. I believe that

bans of any sort - limits on freedom and choice - are only appropriate if those proposing the ban can demonstrate a clear need for the ban. You appear to think the exact opposite.

And no, it's not a circular argument at all; you can ask about need all you want, but the need/desire for the magazines has no relevance whatsoever until the need for the ban is demonstrated. Which it hasn't been...

[TwilightGardener]

81. I don't know, if this guy, or anyone, was able to kill more people specifically

BECAUSE he used this type of ammo, I think it might be time to study a ban on that type of ammo. We've already conceded that nothing in this country will stop mass gun murders. I've conceded that. We love our guns too much. So you win, gun lovers. Now you want me to accept that we can't even look at ways to limit the raw numbers of people killed in such incidents. Again, common sense being overridden by slippery slope fears. Can't even APPROACH the topic of how to lessen the impact of these EXPECTED violent rampages.

[beevul]

97. He would have killed more people firing a shotgun at close range into the crowd.

Time to study a ban on shotguns?

"Again, common sense being overridden by slippery slope fears."

Common sense does not apply in an environment in which people want to ban something they detest, know nothing about, and have no interesting IN knowing about.

[TwilightGardener]

99. I don't care if anyone studies a ban on shotguns. As the owner of a shotgun.

(Well, it's my husband's, but still...) If shotguns are used in killing large numbers of people in a single incident, study away. Study how to avoid such events from happening in the future. Studies shouldn't scare anyone.

[beevul]

101. I rather prefer...

I rather prefer that government respect the restrictions that we the people have placed upon it, and find solutions to problems real or percieved, that do not break those rules.

[TwilightGardener]

110. Sometimes solutions = laws.

[beevul]

118. Because as we all know...

Because as we all know, people like the shooter in tuscon obeys laws, like those against murder, right? :eyes:

First explain why that law failed, then explain why some new one wouldn't.

[TwilightGardener]

129. Hmm. Yep, I still want reasonable laws. Even if they're not a deterrent, they are

helpful for prosecution and justice after the fact.

[beevul]

140. First...

First, pardon me if I don't think people who pro control should be defining reasonable.

Second, murder is against the law. laws against it are useful for prosecution and justice after the fact.

Third, why would you want the mags to be illegal so that someone be punished for owning one, after the fact?

Its not what people have, its what they DO with what they have, that should be unlawful.

That seems a good middle ground that satisfies both our concerns.

[one-eyed fat man]

148. Big whoop, and a clue

"....helpful for prosecution and justice after the fact."

All prosecution is after the fact. There was that lame Tom Cruise movie, but the Bureau of Pre-Crime doesn't yet exist.

Are you going to drown all male babies because they could grow up to be rapists? They got the "equipment"?

The news today is all full of reports some Game Warden stopped the shooter after running a red light that morning...and LET HIM GO??!!

"Where are you going in such a hurry, a fire?"

"No Officer, I'm going to gun down my Congresswoman and anyone else happens to be around and I don't wanna be late."

I suppose I shouldn't be flippant. He should have given him a ticket so when they are done trying him on all the murder charges they can add this too.

[PavePusher]

178. If I kill someone with a chain saw...

are you going to want to tack on an extra punishment because of the tool I used to commit the murder?

Why or why not? What makes one tool more heinous than another tool?

This is something I've asked, but never had answered before, I'd really like your perspective.

[petronius]

120. Look at it from the other direction: if it could be demonstrated that banning

high capacity magazines was in fact a substantial and effective public safety measure, would/should anyone care that some gun owners still wanted them? Not so much - unless those gun owners could demonstrate that there was a genuine harm as a result of the ban. In other words, if the need for the ban is established, then the the need/desire for the banned object may be over-ridden. But until the need for the ban is established, it's irrelevant to question why someone might want something.

No one is telling you you can't explore, discuss, or approach anything you want. What you're being told is that a lot of people find the notion of a ban on anything, without a substantial and demonstrable justification, to be unacceptable. And, no matter the item in question, if a valid reason for banning it exists it will be possible to demonstrate that reason with no reference whatsoever to the strength or validity of anyone's desire for the thing.

In other words, it's not good enough to justify a ban just by concluding that someone's need for something is insufficient - you need to show why a ban is beneficial. Who cares why someone wants something? But if you want them not to have it (by legislative act), you need to explain why. And vague appeals to 'common sense' or hypothetical outcomes don't cut it...

[SteveM]

139. Show us how an "extended" magazine will "keep the body count lower"...

in light of the multiple re-loads of Cho during the VT murders. The burden is on those wanting to make an affirmative action to show how such law and public policy will address a social problem. That has not been done by the OP or anyone else in this thread.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

72. "All the mass shoot 'em ups" with extended "clips"...

I can't think if many AT ALL aside from Tuscon.

How many mass shootings have been committed with these 30 round extended clips in the past 6 years since the AWB expired?

[TwilightGardener]

Then let's not even question the wisdom of allowing them to be sold to the public.

Because lord knows we're allowed to buy and sell whatever we like in this country, with no regulations in place for public safety, right?

[Statistical]

79. Strawman. There are roughly 20,000 laws regarding firearms in this country.

Nobody is claiming a system with no laws in place, but of course you knew that.

[TwilightGardener]

85. And when new incidents show that certain items result in higher body counts,

perhaps they should be targeted in new laws. Because law and society and public safety are fluid things that change as new events happen. I don't give a fuck if 20,000 laws are already on the books for anything. Might be time for 20,001--especially when we're talking about something that is specifically designed for killing large numbers of people.

[Statistical]

86. There is no evidence and ATF, DOJ, and CDC all did studies

that larger capacity magazines increase number of death.
There is also no evidence that banning them reduced number of deaths.

A news story is an anecdote. Public policy should be based on evidence, statistics, facts.

[TwilightGardener]

89. Laws get initiated or changed based on new events. Always. That's how it works.

New laws are proposed to protect public safety all the time--if they are found to be unconstitutional or unnecessarily restrictive or not useful, then they won't be passed, or will eventually be changed. That's the way it works. No harm whatsoever in discussing what can be done to save lives and protect public safety, and proposing new laws--that is the job of state and federal elected officials.

[Statistical]

92. However a law that did nothing before is unlikely to magically be useful the second time around.

Given the AWB costs Democrats control of Congress for a decade.

It is a huge gamble to pass something with no evidence it would help (and plenty of evidence it won't) when the last time a stunt like that was tried Democrats lost control of Congress.

Show me that banning high capacity magazines (and sorry 11 rnds isn't high capacity) will reduce fatalities and I will support it.

[TwilightGardener]

96. Not asking you to support it. But I'm being told it's not even worth discussing.

Of course it's worth discussing, and it's worth our lawmakers and law enforcement taking a second look. Or a third look. Or a fourth look. That's their job. They need to weigh the cost of depriving an individual of his/her right to buy something against society's need for safety. They need to do this over and over again.

[SteveM]

144. Discuss away. I just don't like junk legislation...

which can end with more Democratic losses.

Frankly, some of these mass killings are committed for the killers' celebrity benefit, and MSM is too willing to lavish more attention on those smiling faces.

You continue to NOT show how "...depriving an individual of his/her right to buy something" will benefit "...society's need for safety." I am opposed to feel-good laws, and the public demonstration of some people's moral rectitude, esp. when the blow-back from such is so demonstrably destructive.

[PavePusher]

175. It's not worth discussing, for reasons that have already been given to you.

1. It's been tried already. For 10 years. Didn't work.

2. Prohibition has a very long track record of... not working.

3. It will kill the influence of Democratic political party for at least several elections cycles. Cycles in which far more lives can be saved through better health care, mental health initiatives and maybe, just maybe, if we get up off our asses, getting out of some wars.



Seriously, relative effectiveness and all that, extended magazine bans are like trying to legislate against lightning deaths, lots of effort for no return.

[beevul]

100. Not quite.

"save lives and protect public safety, and proposing new laws--that is the job of state and federal elected officials."

First and foremost, the job of state and federal elected officials, is to protect the rights of the people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


Then, it is to follow the rules which govern government. Namely the bill of rights.

Only after those things, is saving lives and protecting public safety the job of state and federal elected officials.

[TwilightGardener]

102. Right--and when your right to buy and own something interferes with my right

to make it through Safeway with my milk and bread and NO bullets in my brain, then it's their job to sort that out, isn't it? Public safety is every bit as much of a "rights" issue as is ownership of something.

[beevul]

106. False dichotomy.

"Right--and when your right to buy and own something interferes with my right to make it through Safeway with my milk and bread and NO bullets in my brain, then it's their job to sort that out, isn't it?"

Interesting characterization, however inaccurate.

Nobody has bullets in them because of someones rights.

To think otherwise, is to think people have a right to unlawfully shoot others. Which they clearly dont.

A large disconnest, to say the least.

When your right to make it through Safeway with milk and bread and NO bullets in your brain is interfered with, yes, its governments job to sort it out, without breaking the rules that we the people have placed on government. And without abandoning thier primary purpose which is to protect our rights.

I would have thought that much was obvious.

You are aware, no doubt, that elected state and federal officials take an oath to obey the laws which govern thier governance, and that that oath does not end with the words "except in cases of public safety".

[TwilightGardener]

111. My right to safety overrides your right to buy, possess, manufacture, or

use certain things in certain contexts.

[beevul]

113. Thats arguable.

What isn't arguable, is that some things which you are likely including when you say "certain things in certain contexts", have been protected from governmental interference by and large, by restrictions placed upon government by we the people. Those things can not be interfered with, without a damn good reason, and even with one, the interference must be narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive way to achieve the governments goal/purpose. So sayeth the doctrine of strict scrutiny, where civil rights are concerned. It is a well established doctrine btw.

[benEzra]

121. The "in certain contexts" is key.

Someone cannot legally threaten you (weapon or not), cannot even point a gun in your general direction unless you are illegally and violently attacking them, etc. No one contests that.

Someone who by their past history (criminal record) or mental state (adjudicated mentally incompetent) cannot even possess a firearm at all, or even a single round of ammunition, because they are a demonstrated threat to your safety. Nobody is contesting that, either.

Your right to safety does not, however, entitle you (or proxies) to root around in my gun safe and remove the items that offend or concern you, since I demonstrably pose absolutely no threat to you. That is true even of items that aren't constitutionally protected, never mind items that are specifically protected by the Bill of Rights under D.C. v. Heller by virtue of being "in common use for lawful purposes." We're not talking about WMD's here; we are talking about NFA Title 1 non-automatic civilian small arms that have been on civilian market for decades.

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. What does this perceived "right to safety" entail, and where is it enumerated?

Not that you shouldn't be safe, but you no more have a "right to safety" than you have a right to police protection.

[PavePusher]

176. His right to do so has not endangered you.

Did he aim a gun at you recently?

[bowens43]

45. yes as should sale of ammunition to civilians. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

112. You going to ban wheel weights?

How about fire or cave dirt?

One of the best known of the many caves of Kentucky is Great Salt Peter Cave. For several decades during the past and on into the present century, this cave has been as well known as is Mammoth Cave. Both caves supplied much of the saltpeter used to make gunpowder during the 18th and 19th century.

Milling machines? Micrometers?

You going to lobotomize everyone who can use a lathe or a drill press?

Maybe the Mexicans who are using machine guns, grenades and RPG's to kill each other won't figure out crooks here would pay big money for them. Do you think they won't drag them through the same San Diego tunnel they use to haul your dope.

Prohibition during the Twenties was a failure.

The "War on Drugs" is a failure.

Third time's the charm, huh?

[SteveM]

145. Prohibitionism. It's what's for dinner; slippery slopes are for dessert. nt

[steve2470]

46. Prescription for Democratic defeat, no matter the logic....

This is a no-win propostion for we Dems and we should permanently avoid gun control. It's like trying to ban the drinking of wine in France, not gonna happen.

[slackmaster]

51. You've started the discussion on the wrong foot by invoking "need"

Need has nothing to do with most things that people own, say, and do.

[RamboLiberal]

54. No they should not be banned

Where there any mass shootings during the last ban? Hell yes.

I know of many sport shooters who use extended magazines in competition shooting and have for a couple of decades.

There are hundreds of these competitions every weekend throughout the United States conducted safely and with no mass killings.

This knee jerk legislation cannot ensure our safety. Many of these mass shooters take multiple guns & multiple magazines to the crime scene.

[john donathon]

62. stop

stop trying to get everything banned because one wing-nut finally went crazy, who didn't see something like this happening soon.

[Lucian]

63. Banning extended magazines isn't going to solve the problem.

While I agree that a person doesn't need more than ten bullets in a handgun, banning extended magazines won't solve the problem.

What they need to do is get stricter gun measures to prevent the wrong people from getting guns.

[immoderate]

66. No. And not just because I own a couple.

I have owned a Browning Hi-Power (P-35) 9mm for more than 30 years. It's one of those great combinations of beauty and utility, like the Brooklyn Bridge, or Hoover Dam, that defines the industrial age.

The venerable gun, the last design of genius John Browning, holds 13 rounds in the magazine, and you can have one "in the pipe." I have never had any intention to use this gun for personal defense, or hunting, or against any living thing. I was indifferent about guns until a friend took me out "plinking" in the desert. Plinking is shooting at random targets, like pebbles and twigs. Sometimes we bring along dispensable items like rotten fruit, and other things that will display nicely when shot.

Loading a P-35 magazine requires a strong thumb. You don't want to spend range time loading magazines, or have to load them in the wilderness, so I bought extras, about ten of them over the years. At a gun show, I bought a magazine that holds 20 rounds and another that holds 30. I have used each of them once, and then relegated them to the "museum" section of my possessions. They are mostly useless. By protruding from the grip, they hinder good handling, and make shooting uncomfortable, and impede accuracy. Carrying any gun that size concealed is a chore, with a big magazine, you may as well have a sling.

To those who want to ban them, I won't miss them, except when I whip them out for show and tell with people I think would be interested. Mine are legal, anyway. (Fetish-fetishists junior psychoanalyst section.) I am skeptical about those who say the carnage would be less if the ban was in effect. Who knows what this amateur would have scored with a normal magazine and better aim? A trained fighter can swap magazines in a second, while covering you with a round in the chamber!

I think that limiting magazine capacity will have little effect on the body count. A national mental health initiative would work, well, it would. :shrug:

--imm

[Cleita]

70. How about both. n/t

[badtoworse]

124. Very nice gun! I own one as well.

[immoderate]

67. Wow! This tread must be deep in unrecs.

--imm

[Cleita]

69. Absolutely.

The only reason I could find to justify an extended clip is if you are in the army and are in combat or any other such official capacity like being a member of a police SWAT team. Frankly, I don't understand why people need a handgun at all unless they are in a dangerous profession and need to carry a concealed weapon.

[SteveM]

147. Ah, yes the "slippery slope" in action...

While some objected when the motivations of gun-controllers/banners were called into question -- i.e., banning "extended clips (sic)" would lead to further restriction -- you have clearly demonstrated a fine down-hill slalom ending in MORE restrictions and bans. Thanks for proving the point.

BTW, is the gun-controller Jodie Foster in a "dangerous profession and need(s) to carry a concealed weapon?" She doesn't. But her bodyguards do.

[Cleita]

151. Her body guards should but only by permit. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

160. Is there something about her body?

Is there a reason she rates bodyguards and you don't? What if someone thinks they should be able to guard their own body?

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

Some tell us do not resist, and simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, do you still expect a woman to, with great dignity and poise, simply "get up off that pussy?"

A criminal threatens lethal violence but we are supposed rely on the criminal's good nature: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want."

[GSLevel9]

74. extended stupidty should be banned. nt

[ManiacJoe]

75. Why the artificial number of 10?

Playing the game: Why not just limit the mag to their natural capacity while ending flush with the pistol grip (for the mags that are inserted via the pistol grip)?

Not playing the game: Why should a person be prohibited from owning such an unwieldy, expensive magazine?

[Statistical]

76. Why do cops carry STANDARD CAPACITY magazines?

Most incidents that involve suspects have 1 or at most two suspects. Why not have cops limited to 2 round magazines.

Why does the bill which bans use by non-cops provide an exception for cops.
If there is no use then cops shouldn't mind going back to 10 rnd magazines (or 2 round magazines).

[shadowrider]

77. LOL, and I suppose you're the judge on a "logical defense"?

No thanks, it's an argument that can't be won.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. I am of a mixed mind on the issue.

I certainly believe that "high capacity" magazines are appropriate for civilian-legal battle rifles, such as the semi-automatic AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, as the intent of the second amendment is for the civilians to be armed with small arms appropriate for infantry use.

But I am not so adamant about such magazines for pistols. In principle, I could support a magazine capacity limit for handguns.

Except.

Except that I know, because I've asked people on this forum what they think the capacity should be set at, that for many people, the answer is zero. So I am very afraid of allowing any sort of magazine capacity restriction because this will be letting the camel put his nose inside the tent - before long the entire camel will be inside.

I'm not a big fan of "extended" magazines that protrude beyond the stock pistol grip. But I do like firearms like the Springfield Armory XDM 9mm, which holds 19 rounds of 9mm ammunition inside its standard-sized pistol grip.

When I go to the shooting range, I like to spend my time shooting, not reloading magazines. But I suppose I would be willing to settle for a 10-round magazine. After all my Ruger rifles and my 22 pistols are all limited to 10 rounds with the magazines I have today anyway.

But I'm really not prepared to give an inch on this issue because I'm afraid it will be used for more encroachments on the right to keep and bear arms.

[rrneck]

103. Here's one way to look at it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=358661&mesg_id=358661

[Xela]

109. No.

no txt.

[benEzra]

114. Given that the majority of civilian pistols hold more than 10 rounds,

asking about extended magazines while advocating a ban on standard-capacity, flush-fitting handgun magazines is a bit disingenuous. Most full-sized 9mm's are sized for 15 to 20 round magazines to fit flush with the grip, not stubby 10-rounders.

You do ask what I assume is a serious question, i.e. why would you want a handgun holding the normal 13-20 rounds? I'd point out that for a defensive gun, a non-LEO civilian will often have only the ammunition in the magazine if your alarm goes off in the middle of the night, and if a typical defensive "shots fired" is 8 rounds (consistent with typical police use), then you are left with a gun with only 2 rounds left while waiting for the police to arrive.

For the much more common use, target shooting, the benefit of a 17 to 20 round magazine should be pretty obvious, outside of Olympic-style free pistol or something.

Having said that, the real issue here isn't extended (over-20-round) pistol magazines, it's standard-capacity 20- and 30-round rifle magazines, used in the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. And given that Americans own a couple hundred million of the magazines you wish to outlaw (for both pistols and rifles), you are not going to be able to turn the clock back to the 1860's on magazine capacity. It is simply not going to happen.

[ileus]

115. It's nice not reloading every 13 seconds while doing drills.

[spin]

119. No. Banning extended mgazines is a "feel good" law ...

it accomplishes nothing and costs our party votes.

[SteveM]

126. How many people have been killed using "extended clips?" nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

158. False assumption. The STANDARD magazine for most of the newer handguns is 14-19

And if you have learned nothing here in the Gungeon, its MAGAZINE not CLIP

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

163. Abso- FRACKING- lutely not

So here is what I propose......The anti-gunners get to have a national gun registration with a law that says all private sales must be made through a licesned gun dealer. That solves a LOT of problems

Given that most criminals don't get their guns in legal sales (private or otherwise) what problems are solved?

Registration is a perfect precursor to confiscation. You will never get a majority of gun owners to go for that

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

165. So, your idea solves nothing

and hands the Brady Campaign a perfect tool to use against us.

speaking of tools....

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

167. Do you want to actually discuss this

or are you just here to disrupt?

There's a pizza in your future

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

169. Good bye NT

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

171. Damn that was quick NT

[Callisto32]

172. Last I checked, prohibitionists have the burden of proof.

[shadowrider]

173. I agree, however

THEY want to ban something and somehow put the onus on pro-2A people to justify why it shouldn't be banned. Of course, THEY are the arbitor of what is and what is not a valid reason.

Since they don't want to listen to good reasons, it's an argument that simply can't be won.

[RSillsbee]

174. It's been done

From 1994 to 2004 it was illegal to manufacture magazines that held more than 10 rounds (except for export and police/ military use). The law did not prohibit ownership or transfer and after 10 years there was no evidence found that it had any effect on crime. To my knowledge extended magazines have been used in exactly one mass shooting to date.


Given the above why don't you logically defend why we need yet another law against extended magazines