Why a ban on high capacity magazines will not work.

Use harsh language

 

You want to live in a "Democracy""??? Then go to one we are a Republic!!!

 

Why do we have to justify a need for 30 or higher round clips? We're Americans, if we build it they will come. It exist so I want them, why do people climb Mount Everest or do triathlons?

 

If you do not like our Constitution go to a country where you feel safe and leave the rest of us lone

 

If you like them then please feel free to go

 

Another bad joke. Friend, I have a rifle that all I have to do to reload is press the lever that drops the clip with my right thumb and slap a clip in with my left hand, the weapon has a pistol grip and the bolt is on the left, all in all it takes less than 2 seconds to pop another clip in. With a pistol you push the relise button with you thumb, and pop in a clip with yor left hand and push the slide release down, less than a second and a half. When are the gun grabbing nuts going to learn about the subject their talking about??

 

Why do people need 21,000 sq. ft. houses, for that matter why do they need an 1800 sq. ft. house??? Why does anyone need over 175 horse power??? It isn't a NEED!!! It's our right!! Now, are you going to fork over the money to buy back all the 15, 20, 30, 75, 100 shot clips and drums??? Then keep your hands off.

 

No, but I would back the government buying them back. Cities are buying back guns, why not magazines

 

I bet that shooter in Tucson had a easy one too. But he dropped it trying to reload and got caught. No one is trying to grab your gun.

 

Thats fine, if people want to sell them to buy back programs fine, but don't criminalize law abiding citizen if they become outlawed because you will have a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of enforcer dead. They have to live in our neighborhoods too, and we know where they live. If they plan some sort of confiscation and send cops out to do it, you will see police stations fire bombed all over this country.

 

Ban HCM and look what you'll see pop up!

Make (or print) Your Own AR-15 Magazines

The push to ban standard magazines is insane. It is easier to make a 30 round magazine than it is to grow a marijuana plant. The left is pursuing an unachievable result that will not help stop mass murder.

Rifle magazines are made from plastic, steel, aluminum, or fiberglass. There are 100’s of millions of them in existence in the United States. They are easily made at home. They are just a box with a spring. If you have a few 10 round magazines it is easy to convert them into 30 round magazines. Technology has improved to the point that a person can print out functional AR-15 magazines at home.

Before that, magazines were easily made of sheet metal. Of course, there is little incentive to make a magazine when they are easily purchased. If standard capacity magazines are mindlessly outlawed as they were with the Clinton “assault weapon” ban, the cost for factory magazines increases and the incentive to make them at home increases substantially.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/make-or-print-your-own-ar-15-magazines.html

 

No, no...it would not do the trick. I know you live in a very simplistic world where you are ignorant enough to believe if we ban all magazines for guns, that every criminal will immediately go down to the local police department and turn in their magazines and guns. In theory, your very simplistic ideas sound good, in reality - they have no chance of success. I hope you realize there are people out there who are very proficient with bows and crossbows, and these people who are physically very strong; who once they have locked in on a target at 100+ meters can drop a target effortlessly. These are silent weapons, there is no sound to send people scattering. There is no filling out papers, background checks nor waiting periods for a bow or crossbow. Yet, with a little training, one can be very lethal with either a bow or crossbow.

With your simplistic views, you are only hurting law abiding citizens. You are not going to deter a criminal. The real problem is people like you and your politics, in that you believe criminals are the victim and the victims are the real criminal.

 

Come off if it. You would kill to protect having a 30-100 clip magazine? For what? What the hell do you need it for? Give me a good reason. You guys talk how easy it is to change mags, well it's just as easy to change a ten round mag. What the hell do you think they want to do away with them for? Only to try and save lives, no big deal. What do you want them for? I can't afford to shoot up that many rounds. I'm not Left, I'm a Republican that isn't some idiot trying to protect something we don't need. If we were talking about guns, I'd be the first in line to protect them.

 

It's not been the criminal that has been doing these mass killings. It's been most young people. Law biding citizens until something goes wrong in their lives and they decide to take it out on society. The guy from Tucson went down to the local gun store and bought a 30 round mag for his gun. If they didn't have it he may have bought two ten round clips and dropped the first one trying to change it as he did the 30 round mag. But he would have only gotten off ten shots, not 30 and maybe that would have saved 3-4 more people's lives.

 

It's something called freedom, something you apparently don't understand or comprehend. You and I both know, 30 round mags will never disappear, they will be lost in millions of boating accidents. Ask your self why do you need to speak? Is there a reason why your on the interweb yapping it up asking irrelevant questions from people you don't know and from people who can give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about your burning desire for answers on HCM? Go turn your (*)(*)(*)(*) in and stop worrying about other people, you'll sleep better at night.

 

Um. what?? Are you saying that "criminals" are born and not products of their environment? That's a peculiar position to take.

But that didn't happen did it? You are arguing hypotheticals. You have already been told several times that hundreds of thousands exist in private hands as we speak, and even with the extraordinary safety record of those in existence, coupled with studies that clearly state that the previous ban was ineffective, you still think it would make a difference.

Logic=0

What you are advocating is forcibly removing the ability for the adults in the room to decide what they can or cannot own with no significant evidence to support your desire. To say nothing of the inadvertent softening of the teeth that is the 2nd.

Sorry, but that flies in the face of freedom and as such, unsupportable.

.

 

.... Columbine wasn't a "gun free zone". There was an armed guard who exchanged fire with one of the shooters (twice) before they ultimately killed themselves.

 

I think I said just the opposite.I don't know how you could miss understand it.

Well what did happen is he dropped the magazine trying to change it. That is fact isn't it?
Logic=0

Government does it all the time. Didn't NYC just pass a law that people can't buy those big ounce drinks? Don't they now tell parents what they can give to kids in their lunch for school?

Sorry no it doesn't. They have every right to ban large magazines.

 

You said it wasn't "criminals" doing the shooting. Young people that snap and then mass kill ARE criminals by definition. The most recent is a prefect example. He became a criminal the moment he stole his mothers weapons. And continued that trend when he subsequently murdered those children in cold blood.

"may have bought" and "maybe that would have saved" is not fact as it relates to the shooting you were referring to. You were hypothesizing about ten round magazines as though they would have changed the outcome had he been limited to them. I would argue that it could have been that the weight/bulk of the 30 that was the defining factor and actually saved lives. The tens might have been easier for him to swap and the drop would not have happened.

See? I just hypothesized without any evidence and offered a similar useless justification for the elimination of the ten.

So oppression by those that would know better than the individual is now fine since there is hideous, unrelated precedent? How can you live with yourself supporting this and similar oppression?

Really? Who is "they" in this scenario?

Are you telling me that YOU (the gov't) have the right to tell another human being what they can or cannot own that, by itself, harms no one?

If so, by what authority? In what world is your species superior to mine?

.

 

They are the government.
I see no suppression in banning large cap mags. Your free to have a gun, to buy as many rounds for it as you want. You would only limited in how many you can fire at one time without reloading. No different than them telling you that you can buy a car and all the gas you want, but you have to have a license to drive it. There are restrictions on many things. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to have any type of magazine you want. Only the right to own a gun and that includes the magazine that is sold with it.

 

He wasnt dressed up as the joker, there was no link.

And he stabbed 15 , imagin if he had shot 15, there would be a lot more then 3 dead.

And thats basicly the whole point that legislation tries to do, limit the effects of such nutcases.

There already are strick rules on movies.

 

Yes wich one? Who has more firearm related deaths then the USA? Wich one has more psycho killers attacks?

 

Actually studies arent conclusive in the previous ban. What they do show is that even 10 years isnt enough to have any meaningfull effect.


And fact remains gun related deaths the USA is nr 1 off all western countries and among the top in the world. "extraordinary safety " ? I dont think so, you are several times more like to get shot and killed in the USA then in any western country in the world. Nice safety .

Freedom, always that word.

Then what is your solution? Pump even more weapons into the system? The several hundred million floating around arent enough?

 

Hollywoods finance of Democrats campaigns dwarfs anything the NRA contributes

 

10 years is a long time. I'd be willing to bet the drafters of the legislation were looking for immediate results. Or even SOME results. The JCNRS study states that gun crimes usually are committed with newly purchased weapons (legal and illegal). One would think that a ban on the manufacture and sale of a certain kind would have at least put a dent in.

The subject was magazines. The poster I responded to wants to limit to 10 rounds once again. "Extraordinary safety record" was in reference to the millions in circulation and the relative small amount of use in crime, a point that stands.

Even looking at the rifles themselves, it would seem that they too possess a relative safety record that even doctors, water and autos cannot even come close to matching.

There are an estimated 4 million "assault" style weapons in the U.S.
An average of 10 billion rounds are purchased in the U.S. every year.

If "assault" style weapons make up 1.3% of weapons owned, we'll assume that it equates to 1.3% of the ammo purchased or: 1.3 Billion rounds per year.

Let's go wild and assume that ALL but 1% of those rounds purchased are being stockpiled (I know, a ridiculous number). That leaves 13 MILLION "assault" style weapon rounds fired in any average year.

Less than 4% of crime involve any type of rifle. Though it has been reported that only .8 percent were "assault" style weapons, let's still use that 4% figure. That means that of the average 23,000 gun related injuries (of which 7,040 of that number are fatalities) in the U.S., on the high end, only 4% of that (920) involved rifles.

That means that of 13 Million rounds fired in an average year by "assault" style weapons, a maximum of 920 (.007%) found a human target. and of those (let's err on the high side again and use the average of 11,000 fatalities) 440 (0.003%) of those were fatalities.

12,999,080 shots fired safely, 920 human injuries on average. I'd would indeed say that is an extraordinary safety record.

To put in perspective, you are six times more likely to drown than you are to have perished by any, ANY gun discharge. Good? Yes. Good enough? Probably not, but certainly not worthy of reducing further the freedom of the law-abiding in a proven failure to promote safety.

Don't fear that word. Freedom will never be the tired argument you would like it made out to be. Yes, it can be messy at times but didn't someone once say that they would prefer violent freedom to peaceful slavery? Count me in that group. I find it sad that you are not.

Of course I have never suggested such a thing- points deducted for putting words in your opponent's mouth.

What is my solution? Given the laws of probability (read: how little I need fear being shot), there should be NO rush to do anything outside of enforcing the laws already on the books and perhaps removing the mass-shooter playgrounds.

In addition, I would support mandatory training, as long as it is not cost prohibitive for the lower income brackets.

I have the luxury of nearly a half-century of hunting and a stint in the military under my belt. I think inexperienced gun owners should be so lucky.

.