Simple poll about mag capacity.

Would A 10-round Mag Capacity Limit Help With Mass Shootings

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • No

    Votes: 94 90.4%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 6 5.8%

  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
How about driving one's car or a truck to kill five people in five seconds? This is quicker than with a gun and can be more effective in a time span of a few minutes.
They accomplished a number of fatalities in a few seconds with vehicles in each of these cities; Berlin, Nice, London, NYC. Politicians are well-aware that multiple murders can be committed by anybody behind the wheel.

Imagine fast sweeps by Walmart, then in front of Target etc.
Trucks and SUVs (like my Subaru Outback) don't seem to worry anybody-but only my legal possession of sport utility rifles "counts" as a politically "korrekt" concern..
Main stream media programming at work.

Over 80 people run over in Nice France--in a single incident-- doesn't compare to the artificial mantra of "guns are evil".
 
Last edited:
The Parkland Florida High School shooter used an AR-15 with a bag full of 10 round magazines. Was the death total there acceptable to the antigun crowd?
Yes it was. ANY death toll meets their needs. Remember, Mayor David Dinkins of NYC called for gun control after a tourist was STABBED.

it's all about bans and confiscations. Everything else is a lie.
 
Absolutely true. But the ban would certainly limit the availability, especially years down the road.
It'd be as wildly successful as those bans on crack, meth and heroin. Of course all of the casualties would be otherwise law abiding people, most likely lower income people without the resources for effective counsel. That of course leaves aside those maimed or killed in "wrong address" raids. But then they don't matter, do they.
 
If sitting around singing Kumbaya worked things would be all sunshine and snackie cakes now wouldn’t it?

To quote the late, great Merle Haggard:

Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon
Underneath that sky of blue
We'll all be drinkin' that free bubble-ubb
And eatin' that rainbow stew
 
Honestly, sometimes I think it would simply because I believe the availability would dwindle. Other times I think mag swaps can take less than a second. I just don’t know. I just wish there was something that could be done without punishing regular citizens or infringing on our rights.
Does Mexico have less crime?

As far as legislation goes everything the anti freedom crowd wants to happen is law there.
 
Ammo belts, high capacity mags, attached opposing mags, rotary, auto, semi-auto, lever-action, bolt action, etc were all designed to give access to additional firepower in a shorter span of time between reloading. Ask a combat soldier if high capacity, extra ammo and fewer reloads count in a firefight, ask if those seconds are important, ask why more rounds faster in a smaller package gives an offensive or defensive advantage. Ask honestly.
In this age of firearms technology, one does not use a muzzle loader for combat, self defense or mass shootings. In my opinion, the anti’s are mathematically correct about high capacity lead slinging but, for the wrong reason and resulting outcome.
 
Ammo belts, high capacity mags, attached opposing mags, rotary, auto, semi-auto, lever-action, bolt action, etc were all designed to give access to additional firepower in a shorter span of time between reloading. Ask a combat soldier if high capacity, extra ammo and fewer reloads count in a firefight, ask if those seconds are important, ask why more rounds faster in a smaller package gives an offensive or defensive advantage. Ask honestly.
In this age of firearms technology, one does not use a muzzle loader for combat, self defense or mass shootings. In my opinion, the anti’s are mathematically correct about high capacity lead slinging but, for the wrong reason and resulting outcome.

I wasn't going to say it, but I'm glad somebody did. Those of us who were in the military, even in the non combat arms, know the purpose and capability of the AR15/M16 rifle. There's a reason Michael Vick trains and fights pit bulls instead of labrador retrievers, and there's a reason mass killers choose AR15s over WInchester 30-30s (unless you're a Canadian mass shooter.) The AR15/M16 was built for the battlefield, not civilized society. (If you can call our society civilized). Having said that, this is the very reason they should be in the hands of the private citizen. It really is a Catch-22.
 
I wonder if there were any CCW/armed bystanders/victims who could have fired back at the shooter?

AR15/M16 was built for the battlefield, not civilized society. (If you can call our society civilized).
Full-auto M16/M4 were built for the battlefield.

Semi-auto AR15 was built for civilians for home/farm defense, sporting, hunting, target shooting/competition purposes.

BTW, this is a GUN FORUM. WAKE UP! If you want to spread liberal anti-gun talk, go to another forum where anti-gun/2A talk is welcome. I say again, this is a gun forum where we talk about supporting gun rights and 2A. Not ways to give up our gun rights and guns.

Are you pro-gun or anti-gun?
Good grief.


Function wise, what really is the difference between 30 round Mini-14 vs 30 round AR15? Magazine release? They are both semi-auto rifle (As defined by BATF) and serve the same purpose. But to arbitrarily treat AR15 as more dangerous firearm than Mini-14 solely on looks and features is not based on rationale thinking rather based on agenda of pushing for eventual gun ban.

AR15 ... they should be in the hands of the private citizen.
And they are, AR15s by the millions. ;)
 
Last edited:
The problem is not the mag capacity, or any of the guns involved.

This is the wrong question, like asking "Do you think that the Boeing 737 Max's seat capacity should be limited to 100 passengers?" in response to the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes.

If you put a loaded, cocked and ready handgun on a table, in a room full of people, that gun won't kill anyone unless someone deliberately picks it up, and starts shooting.

Normal human beings DO NOT kill other people randomly.

The question is (and I use all caps because it has to be asked loudly):

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE NEWER GENERATIONS, THAT SO MANY OF THESE KIDS ARE SO MENTALLY UNBALANCED THAT THEY CAN KILL WANTONLY?

This is the real question. This puts into question societal and educational changes that took place from the 60's-70's.

It's a conversation that liberals DO NOT want to have - but just like an alcoholic won't ever solve his problem until he admits that he has a problem, society won't solve random acts of planned, large scale murderous violence (and NOT "Gun violence", whatever that is supposed to be) until it recognizes that there is a deep problem with the way kids are raised.

There is a fundamental failure to give kids the guidance and upbringing they need to figure out what being human is all about.
 
Last edited:
And people with larger than 10 round magazines could more effectively shoot back and defend themselves/stop the shooter - https://reason.com/2019/04/01/here-is-why-a-federal-judge-nixed-califo/

"[Federal judge] Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban (Large Capacity Magazine) - reducing the lethality of mass shootings - is related to a small subset of "extremely rare" crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a "critical pause" during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape.

Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. "From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family," he says, "the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."
 
Last edited:
Jeez, we’re less than a month from the horrific Japanese arson mass-murder. Yet here we are as a nation, already having discarded that evidence that mass murder is not a firearms-only proposition. If you don’t care about getting away with it, hurting a lot of people is pretty easy.
 
The left is always looking for an easy response. Response, not solution. They like to call their responses solutions but real solutions are too hard for them or real solutions are things that could dismantle the very fabric of leftist ideology.

We don’t have a problem with guns. We have a problem with society. A mag capacity restriction or an AWB is an easy response compared to changing a whole bunch of people (Most of which are perfectly fine)

Same with solving poverty. Give them money. That’s easy. (And doesn’t work) Empowering the impoverished to use the capitalist system to their advantage is way too hard. (Especially when the poor have been getting free money and using capitalism for anything goes against leftist ideals). This is another example of how liberal policies can set the stage for future people control.
 
I do seem to recall a few news articles about banning The Anarchist Cookbook about that time. Of course, McVeigh learned his craft in the Army, I suspect he probably didn't need that book.
The ones I talked to wanted to go MUCH farther. They'd have banned Small Arms of the World if they could have. When I told them that anybody with common machine tools could start churning out Stens, MAC10as and MAC11as, they wanted to license drill presses, milling machines, lathes and sheet metal breaks like machine guns.
 
So constructive! Tell me more!
For the record, I don’t support ANY new gun regs. I was just asking if folks thought it could lessen the damage from mass shootings. Sometimes I think it could, but where to we draw the line? Would giving up some more of our second amendment rights be worth a life? 5 lives? 100 lives? That’s my point. I have no answers. Just wondering what you all thought and if we had any ideas for solutions.


I think my post is constructive. Its an accurate assessment.

I would also make the point that even if limiting magazine capacity did, somehow, magically, reduce the damage from mass shootings, it is still a limitation of my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
Absolutely true. But the ban would certainly limit the availability, especially years down the road.
The fact remains that a mag can be changed in seconds. The >10 round capacity ban doesn't make us safer it just makes felons out of responsible gun owners. The same argument over these "high capacity" mags can be made for banning semi autos and then all handguns. Deranged people intent on murdering will find other ways to do these horrific acts. Against my better judgement I added my 2 cents to this thread before it's closed.
 
Even if they followed the law while breaking the law, no.

Even without any magazine at all.

98637AC9-2644-4EC8-9D40-5302E4ECC5AC.jpeg

I have often wondered why there is no “moral outrage” with the many thousands a year killed by the auto and pharmaceutical industries. A plane crash that kills hundreds gets 45 seconds of news coverage and blamed on “pilot error” and we move on to the next one without banning them, what about the children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top