LA Bans Possession of Standard Capacity Magazines

Yea, it's not like they can just go to the next closest city and buy them. Oh wait, they can just go to the next closest city or buy them from Eric Holder.

 

Question: Do you honestly think that anybody except law-abiding people (who would never harm anybody without legally just cause) will be turning in the over 10-round magazines? Do you really think that the Crips and the Bloods will take out their nines and forties, and turn in the 14 round magazines with them? Do you think that the Hell's Angels will do that?

Of course not. The only people that will turn in their over 10 round magazines will be the law abiding good people who are really the people you would want with the extra firepower.

This is a stupid law passed by stupid people elected by stupider people.

 

Tell the Korean Shopkeepers in South Central LA at the time of the Rodney King riots that.......

That, and I love my kids and my hearing too much to fire three inch magnum buckshot in my house. IMHO, the ideal home defense weapon is the modern 9mm or .40 semi-auto, with a 14 round magazine.

 

Basically speaking, anything that is good for self defense is good for offense. There is no way around that fact. The problem is if you ban something for use, the result is that only the criminal type will be able to use it. I do think that it's useful to have a gun with over a 10 round magazine. I also think that criminals think the same thing. However, I don't think it's a good thing to prohibit me from having this, when there is no way that a criminal will be doing the same thing.

Or in other words, realistically speaking, who is going to give up the over 10 round magazines? Is it going to be somebody like me--law abiding family man, or is it going to be the gang banger with muliple violent felonies? Of course, I'm going to be the one that loses the usefulness of the over 10 round magazines. The criminal is still going to have his.

 

My two brothers and myself had access to probably twenty weapons as teens. Every one of my friends did as well. Heck, in high school, we would go home, pick up our guns, and go hunting WITHOUT PARENTS. We were raised in a gun culture, much more than today's. Nobody got hurt by them.

 

Easier to target shoot, with fewer reloads necessary. However, self defense and defense of family is the main reason. Any weapon that is good for use in self defense is also a potential massacre/crime gun. It's just the nature of weapons.

Huh? There is no practical difference between handling the same semi-auto pistol with a lower than 10 round magazine and a 14 round magazine.

And it still will do nothing to stop criminals from having guns with high capacity magazines.

 

Please use your ethnic slurs correctly. LAPD cops are very rarely rednecks.

 

I bought explosives for recreational use just before New Year's..... I heard plenty of recreational explosives on Independence day....

 

The worst mass shooting at a college used low capacity magazines. The VA Tech shooter used 10 round magazines, and had a higher body count than any other college shooter.

 

You clearly do not understand anything about firearms.

Changing magazines does not require much time, I do it in less than three seconds.

 

maybe if you let the empty hit the ground (or table) but certainly not putting it back into your belt and assuming a 2 hand grip

 

That's what I do, I dump them on the ground.

 

The "out of control riots" seem to be happening a lot more frequently these days. I'm thinking of the Baltimore mayor, and the Baltimore police chief, Ferguson, etc.
As mentioned above, I'm sure the gang bangers will turn in the magazines for their illegal guns.

 

We'll, beyond reminding us that your racist two colors fits all comment, and the fact your questions have already been hashed out and re-hashed, I have no real interest in entertaining those questions based on the fact, you must have joined the party late.

 

And how is an old lady or someone in a wheel chair incapable of using such a weapon, in their home, going to protect themselves from the likes of you, if they had to? You are making a case for some to gain a huge advantage, when it comes to their safety, while others wouldn't stand a chance with such fire power.

 

Lets knock it down to five shall we. Maybe next time, five out of the ten will make it. Your example is more of an excuse, rather than a good argument.

 

My bottom line is that I want ANY advantage I can get in order to keep my family safe period and non-negotiable. What you want to do is entirely up to you.

 

You are again demonstrating your lack of understanding.

The capacity of this firearm is 12, two more than what is allowed in LA:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57911_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

The capacity of this firearm is 17, seven more than what is allowed in LA:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57911_757910_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

You are imagining "such a weapon" to be some large and awkward firearm that an elderly or disabled person is incapable of operating. Which is stupid. Suggesting that someone needs a firearm due to my presence is especially stupid.

These silly magazine laws impact firearms of all types, including handguns that are commonly used for self-defense, not just the scary boogyman firearms that exist only in your mind.

 

So in other words...

...you don't like what I have to say, but you cant refuse it, so you cry racist and walk off into the sunset high-fiving yourself.

 

Actually your argument is based on ignorance, and perdidochas makes a valid point: the worst shooting in US history was committed with one 9mm Glock and one .22LR P22.

Your argument and shrill cries are irrelevant as a case has been demonstrated in which a deranged shooter used "low capacity" magazines to commit 32 murders.

 

I never said the problem would be solved over night. You first must establish laws about the manufacture of high capacity magazines. I own and have owned many guns. Some are old and are wearing out. Magazines will wear out as well. Bottom line, this would be a combined effort with law enforcement. Stop the manufacture and sale of high capacity magazines and slowly we will see positive results. Most developed countries have laws in place today, and they are seeing positive results.

The question is, how do you enforce this? And I would simply answer with another question; what happens when you do not try? So here's where the common sense comes into play; what justification do you have of continuing the same culture where those illegally or legally have such an overwhelming advantage over those who will not or cannot use a high capacity weapon to fight back with in case they had to? What happens with those people? You can't arm school children at a middle school with AK-47's. You can't arm an old lady with such a woman in her own home. You can't arm an old man in his own home with such a gun, who is sitting in a wheel chair. What happens when you go to a mall and half are armed and the other half are not armed because they physically can't use a weapon like that?

So, to answer your question, many law abiding citizens who are left, are really the ones incapable of using such weapons. When you ask the question, how do you enforce this, that isn't really the question you are asking. The question you are really asking is, how do I enforce a law that restricts high capacity magazines to keep them out of the hands of criminals to keep "me" safer. And why should I worry about the rest of the population, who can't use these same weapons to begin with. That to me is the whole picture. Most of these high capacity magazine advocates only see through the lens of their own safety and selfishness to have what they want, while creating a huge disadvantage for the youth, the elderly, and the disabled. And this is where the common sense comes in. If I as one human being can slowly through time, limit the magazine capability of another Newtown shooter, it would have been worth the effort to "TRY". "TRY" is the key word here, because the next time a Newtown shooter shows up, maybe his or her magazine, won't look quite as long, and fewer little kids will die.

 

So you want to take way anyone's capability of leveling the playing field? Sounds just like gun-free zone where the majority of these mass shootings take place.

Why not? Under these capacity laws she can't use a 15 round Glock either? Poor lady, stripped of any chance of survival.

Why not?

What usually happens at the the mall? People buy stuff, go to the food court and have lunch, walk around, etc. Probably half the people in the mall are armed today and half not. What's your point?

So you want to punish me for the Newtown shooting? What crime did I commit that deserves your oppressive law? "Most of these high capacity magazine advocates only see through the lens of their own safety and selfishness"....I could say the same about people who want to restrict magazine capacity.

What about the Century 16 shooting? If the gunman hadn't had a high capacity magazine that jammed his gun more people would have died there.

 

I wish they would institute a ban on members single family households from owning firearms. Demonstrate some responsibility somewhere in your own life before we start giving you easy access to guns. Who's kids do people think are doing all of the shootings after all?

 

Did I say that in that sentence? No!

That's the twisted belief that you have.

A real nonsensical argument if there ever was one.

Unbelievable!

Again, you want me to respond to respond to such a ridiculous question?

You have made it so easy for reasonable people to see through so much of the nonsense with your arguments you make.