Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines

[4v50 Gary]

None of those cited organizations have any credibility with me nor with most line level law enforcement officers. When you reach management level, you play politics. They all play politics.

 

[john wall]

You don't seem to realize, Gun Control is NOT about guns. It is about CONTROL.

 

[skeeziks]

"Separation of Powers."

 

[junyo]

Restricting hi-caps because it might impact mass shooting casualties is basically like mandating the removal of car windshields because some people are injured going through them in crashes. On the basis of a highly improbable hypothesis of a very low probability event, you massively impact the wide spread utility of the thing for it's designed purpose.

And even then, it presupposes that a criminal madman, bent on murder a) can't lay his hands on an illegal sheet metal box; because we all know how awesome the government is at keeping prohibited items out of the hands of people that want them, b) can't bring more guns. All of the idiots who come up with ideas like this seem to not be capable of grasping the fact that just because there's an easy way to do something, doesn't mean that if you make that method less easy the person just says 'Okay, I guess I won't be a murderous nutjob today; let's see what's on Netflix.' It means the murderous nutjob figures out another way to be a murderous nutjob, which might turn out to make him a more effective murderous nutjob.

 

[kayak-man]

CMDRSlander, could you elaborate on how you got those numbers? I'm just curios.

If the goal is to limit the lethality of a mass killer then a comprehensive ban involving intense study of the efficacy of every cartridge and shell and caliber would have to be put in place. Such a ban, to bring every weapon down to the relative killing power of an AR15 with a 15 round magazines, would require limiting shotguns to 2 shots each, banning large bore hunting rifles and revolvers entirely, reducing the capacity of .308 rifles to 5 rounds, .243 rifles to 7 rounds, and so on. Hopefully you are beginning to see that a limit on magazine capacity to any arbitrary number that applies to all guns is nothing more than feel good lawmaking.

 

[Solo]

Timmy, the most effective thing we as a nation could do to stop these mass shootings is to deprive them of the notoriety that they are so desperately seeking. These people are nobodies who are trying to get the nation to feel their plight. They honestly believe that if their story was to get out that people would feel sorry for them. Sadly they are correct. Listen to the media playing and replaying their lives for everyone to hear and even calling them victims in their own right. Victims of an underfunded mentally ill program. Victims of society. Victims of their parents. Victims of bullying. Everyone is a victim.

You want to stop them? Make a law that makes it illegal to even mention their name or talk about their life. Journalists can report the incident, just refer to them as the criminal, monster, lunatic, etc. Then they will go back to being nobodies and if they still decide to off themselves, then they will do it alone in their parents basement.

Obviously there are other things we can do as well, but limiting magazine limits will only hinder citizens who are trying to protect themselves, not the insane or criminals.

Shawn

Finally, a voice of reason! What we clearly need as a nation are common sense restriction on high exposure reporting. There should be a massacre coverage ban on news segments on mass shootings longer than 10 minutes in order to prevent any future incidents by mentally disturbed attention seeking lunatics.

 

[skeeziks]

OK...free speech is protected under the 1st, but there has to be "reasonable" limitations.
You can only speak your mind in "approved locations" (speach-free zones.)
And public speaking must be limited to 10 words or less. Those speaches that contain 30 words; 50 words; 100 words, are just too dangerous and have no place in our society.

Now maybe Pierce Morgan can sit there at his desk, and while interviewing his guest, continually ask the question: Yes, but why would anyone Need a speach containing that many words?

 

[Pilot]

Ah, a list of law enforcement associations, typically run by police chiefs and desk jockeys. You also left out Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors know better than peasants too.

The leadership of these organizations are just towing the Democrat Party line. They are paid by cities run by machine style Democrat politicians, and many have ambition for higher positions within their departments or political ambitions themselves. I you're going to climb the ladder, best to be on board with what your superior's want, especially those that pay your salary, and approve your advancement.

It is PURELY self serving.

 

[bikerdoc]

I rather ban crazy people, than high caps, as most of the shooters had a diagnosis and the the system worked too slow.

 

[wow6599]

If this has been asked already, then I apologize.

timmy4, I respect your willingness to ask the questions you ask - even if I don't understand your thought process. But.....

IMO, there is a hidden agenda here. I'm not sure who benefits from all the posts / questions you have been asking, but I have a feeling this is all going somewhere. Sorry, just do.

40 posts in less than 24 hours......

 

[timmy4]

That seems to be the gist of it. I would give most weight to #4, as # 1-3 rely on ideological arguments. #4, however, is indisputable fact.

Good. I'll add Gaiudo's point #5, and address them one by one:

1. I don't think I'm wrong about the 2nd Amendment, but if such a proposal is enacted on a federal basis, I'm sure we'll find out one way or another, as it will no doubt be challenged.

2. I disagree about the police chiefs being trustworthy. There are reasons they have risen to the level they have, and not all of them are political. I think it's rather cynical to accuse them of dishonesty or ulterior motives. In any case, I find their arguments on this issue to be compelling.

3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.

4. Let's take this in parts:
(a) Nothing I can do about the millions of high capacity magazines already in existence. However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines. My main rationale for believing that, with such a ban in place, these crazies will not use them nearly as often is that they are just that: crazies. They are much more like to obtain whatever is easily obtainable. Make these magazines illegal and they WILL use smaller magazines.
(b) While many of you are gun experts and can reload in 2 seconds or less, I don't believe that many of these crazies can. Again, I have to rely on the law enforcement experts that you guys find disreputable, but they tell me that these crazy people struggle when trying to reload and thus can be taken down at that time. Therefore a limitation saves lives. Someone actually posted if it made any difference if 10 people die instead of 17? My answer is absolutely yes. That is the point, the ONLY point of this ban.
(c) The examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech demonstrate that this proposal will not be 100% effective or even 70% effective. In fact, there will be no way whatsoever to prove that it was effective at all if it's put into place, and no way to disprove your arguments that it won't make any difference. I believe it will, but I can't prove a negative. Still, I think that overall lives will be saved.

5. The issue of whether or not one's home defense is significantly hurt by not having these magazines is debatable. I don't think it is. I believe that most of you that own high caliber magazines do so not for defensive purposes, but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, except in this instance I think it has to be limited in order to protect society against crazy people.

 

[bikerdoc]

I think it has to be limited in order to protect society against crazy people.

Seriously, you didnt just say that!
How about addressing the root cause, crazy people.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

My favorite LGS is owned by a veteran cop, with decades of service in a city that has its share of gang violence.
Outside of what he can't sell due to NYS law, why would he sell stuff to non-LEO that would put him and his fellow officers in danger? And why would non-LEO that buy "scary stuff" get high-fives and pats on the back from the cops in his shop as they're leaving with their new purchases, if these things were such a problem???

 

[timmy4]

One more point about the possibility of taking down a shooter during a reload....

Using this as a justification for banning high capacity magazines can cause some cognitive dissonance amongst gun banners. Remember, according to their dogma, only highly trained police officers are capable of facing off an armed marauder. If you allow for the possibility of a bystander having the presence of mind to incapacitate a shooter during a 2 second pause, then wouldn't it be better if he had the ability momentarily to emerge from cover and do so from a distance rather than by means of a kamikaze charge??

I'll consider accepting a stricter magazine capacity limit in my home state of NJ in exchange for "shall issue" CCW.

Their dogma is not MY dogma. I have no problem with concealed carry permits. I don't believe in gun free zones, either, EXCEPT for public schools where IMO only trained officers or security people should be allowed to have guns.

I think your concealed carry permit protects me.

 

[tarosean]

[1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.

Please provide proof to this claim...

 

[76shuvlinoff]

timster,
you keep coming here under the guise of information gathering and asking questions as if you actually possessed the desire to learn, then you continuously tell those people they are wrong. Interesting passive-aggressive tactic you have going on.

Are you working on a college paper? Gov't employee? News "journalist" ? You are certainly not who you pretend to be.

 

[Walkalong]

2. I disagree about the police chiefs being trustworthy.

No more or no less than politicians.

3. I reject all slippery slope arguments.

In my opinion this is simply being naive.

Gun control has never been about crime or saving lives. It is simply about control. Free men and women who are not afraid to stand on their own and make their way in this world will always fight against more loss of freedom, which is what this bill is about. It is not about saving lives, and the sponsors know it won't do that. There are however, many people who support these things simply because they do not understand what is going on, are ignorant of past history concerning gun control and its consequences, are ill informed by the media, and truly think it will help save lives.

And history proves that it is indeed a very slippery slope.

IMO, there is a hidden agenda here.

Well of course there is. Not all that hidden though.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Timmy4 - has it occurred to you that criminals don't respect the law and what you propose will result in the creation of a black market? Are you aware of what prohibition did and have you examined the American track record for the war against marijuana and against drugs?

Might I suggest you view this interview with Catherine Austin Fitts? She was Assistant Secretary of Housing under Bush (the father): http://usawatchdog.com/guns-protect-honest-people-catherine-austin-fitts/

You might as well look up Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan era. He cautions that the media is agenda driven. Be careful what you read or are told from the mainstream media. There is a reason why many Americans have turned off the news, stopped reading Time or other major publications and rely on other means for information. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/12/19/agenda-driven-news/

Last, since you cited police as supporting the ban, here's a sheriff who doesn't. Sheriff Clarke

 

[hAkron]

The job of the police is to apprehend criminals during the commission, or at some point after the commission of a crime, not to be your personal protector. Why would their opinion on what you need to provide protection for yourself or your family be of any consequence? They have guns to protect themselves and their partners. Do you think they will agree to a reduced capacity magazine for this task?

 

[Kramer Krazy]

I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment

A lot of people believe that as long as we have single-shot, flint-locks that the 2nd is not being revoked. The problem is that once you look into the purpose of the 2nd and that they specifically state "...shall not be infringed", you have to admit that ANY restriction on the 2nd is an infringement....including the NFA. For the purpose of the 2nd, we should have access to everything a government has access to (it's a shame most of it is far too expensive).

Would you be content that the 2nd is upheld if you were only allowed one flint-lock rifle? It could easily come down to that if you keep allowing restrictions placed on the 2nd....which is an infringement.

 

[timmy4]

Please provide proof to this claim...

I got that from an editorial by George Gascon, district attorney for San Francisco. It was posted in Real Clear Politics about a month ago. Sorry I can't find a link for it right now.

I have to leave for probably a couple of hours. Moderators, please do NOT close this thread. I promise I WILL respond when I return.

Thanks everyone for your responses thus far. Even where I disagree, I am learning quite a bit from your posts. As Dennis Prager often points out, clarity of disagreement can be as constructive as agreement, or even more so.

 

[NickEllis]

I don't think it is. I believe that most of you that own high caliber magazines do so not for defensive purposes, but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure.

This is an unbelievable arrogant and misplaced statement. How do you know this? What's the basis of your statement, or your "belief"? This isn't an argument, it's a personal, baseless hunch. How can you be convinced other than lots of other personal anecdotes?

Here's one: the Ar-15 is one of the most commonly owned rifle in the nation. My wife uses one as her primary home defense weapon for the following reasons:

(1) modular, and fits a 110lb lady
(2) low recoil (despite corresponding relative low power).
(3) Easy of use/reload/manual of arms.

As to your statement "why most own normal-capacity magazines" . . . most own normal capacity magazines because these were the magazines included in the box at the time of purchase, together with the rifles for which they were designed. It's a simple as that: these are the normal magazines that have been included, since the time the AR-15 was designed.

The normal capacity magazine of 20 or 30 rounds is easy: it's there, and has what she needs. She doesn't have to keep track of multiple mags. It eases the burden of having to reload in an unplanned, violent context.

 

[goon]

Even if one wanted to be "reasonable," is an outright ban reasonable?

I don't necessarily agree, but Some I have spoken with favor restrictions on semi-automatic firearms or standard capacity magazines such as requiring a background check, showing ID, not being able to purchase more than two at a time, having a CCW permit or some firearms safety training, having to keep firearms and standard capacity magazines secured by law, etc.

But total bans? That's just as nuts as people who argue that abstinence is the only thing we should teach kids about sex. A total ban ignores the reality of the situation.

 

[r1derbike]

Mass murderers and their atrocities are not the only issue here, and media/Hollywood/our government has done a grave disservice not admitting to other reasons for carrying magazines of 20 to 30 rounds; MULTIPLE ARMED INTRUDER HOME INVASIONS! It has been discussed before, and it ALMOST happened to my family, but my wife thwarted it before it even got off the ground.

Any discussion of mass murderers and magazine capacity is moot, indefensible, and an absolute affront to most of the firearms professionals here, and on other boards.

I have a personal stake in this argument; my family and I could have been raped, robbed, and murdered because of this attempted home invasion incident. I have more at stake than bellicose bravado, conjecture, ignorance, and outright blatant stupidity being spread about magazine capacity by the media, our government, and those who would prefer to follow blindly, their idols, off a cliff.

There are no arguments about magazine capacity, or other contentious, misguided fools' agendas when you have have stared evil directly in the eyes, and realized it is you, or them.

The elitists in ivory towers haven't a clue how Americans live today. They are so far removed from reality, as to look down at us as pawns, bricks in the wall, and peasants to legally extort money from to justify their means, and way of life.

I hope everyone noticed the caps at the top of my post, because unless "you've been there, done that", arguments for the sake of just argument have no emotional meaning, at least to me, and my family.

 

[wow6599]

please do NOT close this thread. I promise I WILL respond when I return.

Will you let us in on your "project"? Why be coy......