Simple poll about mag capacity.

In a perfect world restricting magazines to 10 rounds would reduce casualties in mass shootings (although it would likely be by a small amount). The problem is that this isn't a perfect world. A perfect world would mean that there was some way of getting all high capacity magazines out of the hands of criminals. It is true that the amount in criminal hands would dwindle over time, but we would likely be seeing a lot of home brew high capacity magazines by that point. We also have to take into account all of the magazines that people that are otherwise not criminals would squirrel away. Some of those will certainly make it into criminal hands as well. Then comes the magazines that law enforcement will have. We either have to limit them to 10 rounds as well or paint them as prime targets for theft. In all honesty I lean more liberal than I do conservative in most areas other than guns and I don't believe in any of the "government wants an unarmed populace to get away with their evil deeds" mumbo jumbo that a lot of gun owners do, but the facts tell me that gun control won't work. Save for a few that just really hate guns, even the politicians that want to push for gun control have to realize that it won't work and are just posturing for their supporters.

There have been a few cases where magazine capacity appear to have aided the shooter but that doesn't appear to be a factor in most of these cases.

The comment I wish we could post here and get discussion on is the gun community either needs to be proactive in coming up with a solution or we will have to live with the solution lawmakers come up with on their own.

Slappy White said:

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.

Click to expand...

Edged weapons, bombs, vehicles and chemicals, arson have been used in mass homicide. Your question only deals with a tool.

D.B. Cooper said:

Yep. I often wondered why there was no huge outcry to ban diesel fuel and fertilizer after the Oklahoma City bombings.

Click to expand...

Why? because that would not give Political Proganda machines like CNN any fodder for their political side. A I really believe, most probably do know that banning of firearms is just political. Guns, are just a symbol to them as a tool. The theme that only bad guys carry or shoot guns and the good guys all want guns banned. Republicans vs Democrats. It makes for simple. Yes, of course they will actually have people that believe this nonsense. And if all the guns in the world did not exist, their would still be the same nutcase that blames the world for his pathetic little life and he would just use another device. Pipe bomb etc. And I believe it will eventually go to bombs in the future.
What are the outcomes of a person that commits these crimes. They love Facebook etc. The result is, they become popular, they become recognized, they become somebody.

Democrats will always blame the gun as a solution. Yet there will always be the pathetic nutcase that wants attention and will kill to get it. Banning guns, magazine etc. will have no effect on future mass murders.
Dems will never ever focus on the root cause. That is not how they are going to lead their sheepal followers.

Slappy White said:

Do you guys think a 10 round mag capacity limit would help lessen the damage from mass shootings. The ban I’m talking about would NOT grandfather existing mags. Would mean all 11+ mags are now illegal to own and manufacture.

Click to expand...

In all seriousness, a pocket full of shotgun shells and a single shot shotgun with an ejector would cause an unacceptable amount of deaths.
I used to duck hunt with one and it wasn't uncommon to get 2 ducks when jumping them from ponds. People are slower than ducks at escaping...

Slappy White said:

The only thinking with that would be limiting availability.

Click to expand...

Availability would not be a problem, even with a "no grandfather" ban. There are millions and millions of high-cap mags out there. People have been stocking up on them ever since the expiration of the previous AWB. The existing ones will not be turned in. They will be bought and sold in the underground economy, just as illegal drugs are now.

In the previous AWB (with grandfathering), the main effect was to drive up prices. Availability was never a problem, even with a smaller number of existing magazines than we have now. In a new ban without grandfathering, prices would be expected to go up more, because the transactions would be under the table. But the huge existing inventory would also tend to hold prices down.

In any case, someone bent on mayhem would have no problem supplying himself with all the magazines he needed. The only effect this would have would be on otherwise law-abiding people.

Gov't agencies can clean up their act somewhat by taking flagrant warning signs more seriously E.G. South Park Elementary.

There are some political changes that can be made ie.
- arming teachers,
- more testing and treatment for mental disorders,
- more testing and restrictions on drug prescriptions for their affects on mental health

But, fundamentally, it's a societal problem cause by the increased isolation of individuals by TV, Computers and video games which leads to a lack of respect for other people

Until we can find a way to come together to solve these problems they're not going to be solved.

The only thing that restrictions like magazine bans do is separate groups by pitting them against one another.

So, no, an 'xyz' ban only serves to alienate 'xyz' owners.

Slappy White said:

Do you guys think a 10 round mag capacity limit would help lessen the damage from mass shootings. The ban I’m talking about would NOT grandfather existing mags. Would mean all 11+ mags are now illegal to own and manufacture.

Click to expand...

I was going to tell you how stupid I thought posting this question on a gun forum was, and then looked at the results of your poll, and saw that at least 9 (assumedly) gun loving people, think it might be possible.

So far 4 to 9 people here believe forcing someone, in the act of committing mass murder, to reload after every ten shots would be effective in reducing crime.
They apparently also believe that someone bent on committing mass murder would be concerned with violating a mag restriction law.
Is a rational conversation even possible with someone like that?

I live in the Chicago area, where we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. We’ve become numb to the body count after each weekend. We don’t need to guess what more restrictive laws will do, we have the answer here. It’s not the guns that are the problem.

The issue with mass shootings is that over 98% of them have taken place in a gun free zone. In an environment where the attacker is shooting unarmed people, 10 versus 15 round magazines isn’t significant, as others have pointed out magazine changes take a couple of seconds.

I'm thinking eliminating 12 packs and cases and only selling six packs of beer might help reduce drunk driving deaths.

BSA1 said:

Solution? How about a one way ride in Ole Sparky?

Click to expand...

I seriously do think that bringing back public hangings would be a huge help. We need these new generations of millennial snowflakes to get woken up. They need to be "woke" but not in the way the SJW liberal crybabies usually mean. They need to see what actually is!

460Shooter said:

These mass shooter do not expect to survive the crimes they commit. They plan to die. That’s why a lot of them commit suicide before being apprehended. What you suggest would not be a deterrent.

Crazy people don’t have the same logic the rest of us do. Their minds are twisted and warped. Never assume they will react the way a sane person would to the same stimulus.

Click to expand...

I am not sure this is always true. At least one of the two last shooters (that are known to the public at least) managed to survive his heinous crimes without a scratch. I kinda think it was all planned that way (call me paranoid if you must). If these guys are being guaranteed that they will be able to surrender without being killed, it changes the equation.

Fine Figure of a Man said:

I'm thinking eliminating 12 packs and cases and only selling six packs of beer might help reduce drunk driving deaths.

Click to expand...

This is actually law in some places. Around here you cant buy a 40oz beer, but by all means purchase as many 32oz bottles as you like.

Same logic-free, feel-good reasoning that limiting people to tiny little sodas will somehow reduce obesity......

Slappy White said:

The final thing I’ll say is that I do believe mag capacity limits would lower the casualties in mass shootings.

Click to expand...

So you are blaming the tool, not the user.

Consider this. In two of the recent mass shooter incidents the Police were nearby and shot / killed the shooter within a minute or so ending the attack.

Quick police response likely reduced the number of injured and killed people.

However the Police can not be everywhere and as the Coward in the Florida school shooting even where the attack starts may not even go looking for the shooter.

Consider the mass shooting at Wal-mart in El Paso where the gunman walked around the store shooting people. He was arrested when he was outside of the store. I have not read anything about why he was outside...maybe out of ammo, looking for more victims, was tired and his way home. Would the number of victims been reduced if a citizen(s) in the store had been armed? Well there are incidents where a armed citizens played a important role in stopping the attack.

So your argument that reducing the size of the tool (magazine capacity) fails when the counter-argument is armed citizens most of the time respond quicker than the Police and can disable / kill the attacker.

D.B. Cooper said:

If you think so, perhaps you should watch this.

Click to expand...

This is a good video to show the point. I will have to say, however, that it is funny that Ol Jim managed to shoot faster with the lower capacity mags. He clearly was shooting slower with the higher capacity mags to try to prove a point. It is asinine to purposely skew the results to try to prove a point that proves itself, as in the case of Christy.

Rosie O'Donnell would not be fat today if she had used smaller spoons, right?

i don’t care to own any semiauto centerfire rifles or any handgun with a 10+ capacity. i’m not a hunter or a competitive target shooter. my favorite firearms are ruger single action revolvers and bond arms derringers, with a few h&r single shot 20ga and 410 shotguns for good measure. i enjoy plinking away with these “elegant weapons of a more civilized age” but i’m no cowboy action shooter. all that said, i’m no fan of any gun control, other than teaching all law abiding citizens safe and proper firearms handling.

so my simple reply to o.p.’s question regarding a large capacity magazine ban is no thanks.

my counteroffer solution: hard-time lock up violent criminals, capital-punish drug dealers, stop border trespassing, teach and expect boys to be gentlemen and girls to be ladies, positively identify all potential voters, teach mandatory high school life skills class: driving, personal finance, simple car and home repair, first aid, firearms handling, cooking, gardening, sewing, all for both (i.e. the only) genders. until we become serious about finding solutions, we aren’t serious.

bds said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is absolute hogwash. Utter tripe.

When I was in the Army they drilled it into our heads: "stay off the full auto." It was 3-round burst then. They drilled it into our heads aimed, efficient fire. Semi-auto was, by far, the predominate mode of fire. The only time we were allowed to use the burst was for final protective fire, i.e. enemy at the wire or inside your perimeter and everyone and everything was giving maximum effort.

I once pulled the trigger on burst at the range, just to see what it was all about (I still don't see what the big deal is), and I had to run laps around the barracks with the rifle over my head.

So this craptastic cop-out that the AR15 is NOT a military firearm based solely on the inability to fire full auto is total BS.

bds said:

Function wise, what really is the difference between 30 round Mini-14 vs 30 round AR15?

Click to expand...

Who is talking about Mini-14s?

Okay, so the big premise is that mass shooters would be slowed down if they only had access to 10-round magazines? Then how about we create a law that says, "If you are going to commit mass murder, THEN you are only allowed to carry magazines that carry 10 rounds or less." Since new laws will solve all of these problems, this would allow law-abiding citizens to keep what they have, and end mass shootings, right?