I'm aware of this, but I think it's more a rural thing. I'm not sure that "most" is the correct term. I have less problem with this sort of thing in a rural environment. In an urban or suburban area, I think the introduction of guns into schools causes a lot of problems. But again, this is uneducated surmise on my part; I don't have a great understanding about this particular subject.
Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines
- Thread starter timmy4
- Start date
- Status
meanmrmustard
Member
Didn't stop pre ban anything from being owned, it regulated ownership of mags and guns made during the ban years and those that manufacture them.
I owned plenty of neato evil crap, perfectly legal. Nothing really to overturn.
What's going on now is different. Look at NY and NJ. This is getting scarily close to infringement of the first degree on a national theatre.
Cesiumsponge
Member
timmy4 said:
Every law enforcement individual I know is against it. This includes law enforcement trainers who train the folks who teach at the academies, train other law enforcement, train the military, and train private civilians. These people are acknowledged as court-recognized expert witnesses who have such an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, they fit this important role. Some of these are people I have trained under. Who has more credibility, the lifetime desk jockey or the guy on the streets?
Please tell me how many law enforcement clubs/groups/associations have you seen that PROMOTE increased freedom? Besides one (LEAP), how many law enforcement groups have chastised the failed War on Drugs? How many have stood up to the phenomena of civil asset forfeiture? How many have stood up against no-knock raids? How many of these groups support educating citizens on their rights to refuse unlawful search and seizure? How many of these groups support openly recording law enforcement? How many of these groups support putting body cameras on cops for accountability?
Rattling off a list of law enforcement clubs and associations is counter-productive to almost any argument.
Your examples, like so many of the others, tend to be all inclusive, and thus aren't applicable to the discussion IMO.
As far as your second point, you are incorrect. Unless I am reasonably certain that these limitations have a decent chance of being effective against bad guys and saving lives, then I'm not going to support them. The same goes for any proposed gun restriction. I realize there are some gun control people who simply want a gun free society and will do anything to get it- not as many out there are some of you THINK, but there are some. I am not one of them. Whatever I propose had better make sense to me, or I won't propose it.
Remember all these politicians have to do is make themselves believe they're right and they wil limit everything they can. In New York Bloomberg has put limits on food and drinks served at restaurants like its his job to tell you how to eat. Obama with his obamacare. Maybe I don't want Obamacare. Look at the cities these people have passed their "protect the people gun laws" they have the worst murder rates in the country. If they know what's best for us why aren't their laws making people safer?
I will start by saying that I have not read this thread in its entirety. I also did not read through your previous thread in its entirety. I also probably will not devote the time in doing so. With that being said.
The problem I have with your concept; is the fact "that it does not effect you at all" So your argument stands as well with me and someone saying. That my kids are not allowed to pray at school or to even say the Pledge of Allegiance. The large majority of people in this country believe in these things. Yet they have been demonized by the few who whined the loudest. I do not own a AR style rifle so the ban on hi-capacity magazines does not effect me. Yet as a firearms owner I will be darned if I am going to roll over. Because the few decide to whine.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Timmy,
Look.
You said you'd take a break for a few days.
Frankly, we all need a break from this for a few days. Us here on Staff. We've had to watch this thread and keep it on topic from personal attacks all weekend. We're not going to solve the world's problems in a week.
Can you do what you said you promised, give this a few day's rest?
We're not saying you can't come here.
We are saying the Staff is overwhelmed with monitoring a heated debate - especially with what you full well know our membership has dealt with the past couple weeks - and give us some peace before you return?
Like you said you would?
We aren't going anywhere.
Look.
You said you'd take a break for a few days.
Frankly, we all need a break from this for a few days. Us here on Staff. We've had to watch this thread and keep it on topic from personal attacks all weekend. We're not going to solve the world's problems in a week.
Can you do what you said you promised, give this a few day's rest?
We're not saying you can't come here.
We are saying the Staff is overwhelmed with monitoring a heated debate - especially with what you full well know our membership has dealt with the past couple weeks - and give us some peace before you return?
Like you said you would?
We aren't going anywhere.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I'd like to address timmy directly on this point. I'll ask you to read this carefully and in its entirety.
First...rushing an active shooter while he pauses to reload does happen occasionally, but for the most part...it's pure Hollywood fantasy. It's also a good way to get killed.
Let's do a hypothetical.
I have a 1911 pistol and several 7-round magazines. 7 rounds is politically correct and acceptable...at least for now. I also have a magazine scabbard that holds four magazines. With two more fresh magazines in my left front pocket...and topping off the chamber of the pistol...I have a total of 50 rounds of ammunition at my disposal.
If I enter a classroom at the community college, bent on murder...pistol in one hand and a fresh magazine in the other...at the distance involved, hitting everybody I shoot at with one hand isn't a problem...especially if they're crawling around on the floor.
I can shoot the gun empty...reload it...and have it back up and running in about one second. Then, while I select another target, I can reach for another fresh magazine and carry on. And, timmy...I can reload that pistol and put it back in battery without even lowering it from point.
The average human reaction time is 1/2 to 3/5ths of a second. Assuming that anyone in the room is even aware that the gun is empty, that gives them 1/2 to 2/5ths of a second to get up and rush me before I can have the gun loaded and ready to fire another 7 rounds. Lather-rinse-repeat until I've shot 20 people. Total time...maybe 30 seconds...and I've still got another 30 rounds on tap.
So, timmy! During those one-second lulls while I reload...and again assuming that anybody even realizes that the gun has gone empty...who is going to make a run on me? You? The girl next to you who is trying to make herself as small as possible...hoping that I won't see her? Who, timmy?
Assuming that you even realize that I'm reloading, I can have the gun kill ready again before you can get to your feet...and I'll shoot you before you advance three steps from the farthest corner of the room where you've gone frantically trying to find a crack to hide in.
You're kidding yourself, timmy. You've been watching too much television.
So. Let's assume that the above senario did take place. The call would go up to ban 7 round magazines...and then 5 round magazines...and then all magazines and autopistols.
Then, when the shills discover how quickly a little practice with a speed loader allows a revolver to be reloaded...a ban on speed-loaders will be passed...and then on revolvers...until they've got us down to single-shot .22 pistols...and they'll eventually get around to those.
It's not about crime control, timmy. "They" don't give a rotund rodent's rump about you or me or anybody else, and they will use these tragedies in order to further their agendae. It's not about crime control or gun control. It's about control. Period.
EDIT TO ADD:
Timmy...If you're within driving distance of Lexington, NC...I'll be happy to demonstrate the actions that I've described, so that you can see just how far your fantasy departs from reality. Your call. Standin' by.
345 DeSoto
Member
I am in FAVOR of "High Capacity" magazines for the same reason the police are...to defend myself and my family...
DammitBoy
Member
Nonsense. I went to high school in Alexandria, Va right next to Washington DC and carried my rifle to school every wednesday and stored it in my locker because wednesday night was rifle team practice at Fort Belvoir. This was from 1974 - 1978 and no problems arose from this practice.
Tuner makes good points. I would also add that nothing stops an assailant from having multiple, seven round (or higher) capacity firearms, so instead of reloading, he/she can just pull another gun and continue. Many of these shooters do have multiple guns, and use them. What stops someone from carrying a "brace of pistols"? However, the fallacy is that these people will follow laws and keep to lower capacity firearms. 
Carl N. Brown
Member
Millions of people like myself have participated in the Civilian Marksmanship Program (the successor of the Army's National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice established over a century ago) that promotes practice with military service rifles.
I continue to participate in modern and vintage military matches at the local gun club. For that end I own a small number of military guns (and two replicas):
o M1 carbine, three 30 shot magazines, five 15 shot, one 10, and two 5.
o M70AB2 rifle, with four 30 shot magazines, one 20, and one 10 blocked to 5 but restorable.
o TM1 Thompson semi-auto carbine, with four 30 shot magazines, three 20.
o AutoOrdnance .45 pistol, six 7 shot magazines.
o H&K USP pistol, five 10 shot magazines.
o Mauser C96 pistol, several 10 shot clips.
o Webley .45 revolver, several 6 shot moon clips.
Millions of Americans own one or more military guns with standard magazines of 15, 20 or 30 rounds. Unlike you Timmy4 or me, most of them pay little attention to debates on gun control. which to them is only supposed to be aimed at criminals, at people who do bad acts (malum in se) with guns, and not at law abiding gun owners.
Making possession of standard issue capacity magazines a crime by making "large capacity" magazines illegal (malum prohibitum) will ensnare millions who have done no bad acts. And some of us will simply choose to ignore the ban, expecting either a sunset or repeal, or decide to treat foolish laws with contempt. Quite frankly, I have lost trust with this administration over its use of bogus stats like "90% of mexican crime guns come from US shops" and "40% of gun sales are at gun shows with no background check" and would have no respect for a magazine ban from the same source.
Given that you say:
"2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general."
Wouldn't the cost of the law exceed any possible benefit?
I continue to participate in modern and vintage military matches at the local gun club. For that end I own a small number of military guns (and two replicas):
o M1 carbine, three 30 shot magazines, five 15 shot, one 10, and two 5.
o M70AB2 rifle, with four 30 shot magazines, one 20, and one 10 blocked to 5 but restorable.
o TM1 Thompson semi-auto carbine, with four 30 shot magazines, three 20.
o AutoOrdnance .45 pistol, six 7 shot magazines.
o H&K USP pistol, five 10 shot magazines.
o Mauser C96 pistol, several 10 shot clips.
o Webley .45 revolver, several 6 shot moon clips.
Millions of Americans own one or more military guns with standard magazines of 15, 20 or 30 rounds. Unlike you Timmy4 or me, most of them pay little attention to debates on gun control. which to them is only supposed to be aimed at criminals, at people who do bad acts (malum in se) with guns, and not at law abiding gun owners.
Making possession of standard issue capacity magazines a crime by making "large capacity" magazines illegal (malum prohibitum) will ensnare millions who have done no bad acts. And some of us will simply choose to ignore the ban, expecting either a sunset or repeal, or decide to treat foolish laws with contempt. Quite frankly, I have lost trust with this administration over its use of bogus stats like "90% of mexican crime guns come from US shops" and "40% of gun sales are at gun shows with no background check" and would have no respect for a magazine ban from the same source.
Given that you say:
"2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general."
Wouldn't the cost of the law exceed any possible benefit?
I don't think he took 1911 Tuner's offer and that was that.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Or a law targeting the V-8 Ford, automobile of choice of Depression era bank robbers.
Oh, it was the New York City ROTC that had rifle practice in NYC high schools; you can find several accounts by people who went to school in NYC and recall from the 1950s and 1960s taking their .22 target rifles to school and checking them in at the gym before class. That was before children were Pavlovian conditioned to think guns = kill your classmates and teacher.
Oh, it was the New York City ROTC that had rifle practice in NYC high schools; you can find several accounts by people who went to school in NYC and recall from the 1950s and 1960s taking their .22 target rifles to school and checking them in at the gym before class. That was before children were Pavlovian conditioned to think guns = kill your classmates and teacher.
Last edited:
Torian
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,016
Exactly what I was thinking. This thread has many indicators of being conducted for "research purposes".
1911Tuner's post kind of ended things I think.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Dear OP.
If the people listed in your post did their friging job we wouldn't have gun violence. Why come after the lawabiding gunowner and not felons and gang members. Could it be that its easier to mess with law abiding gun owners than the very people who violate the law.
BTW please explain what one does during that period from the time a 911 call is made,providing one can make a 911 call and the time the police show up.
Please explain how I provide for my own protection if my car breaks down outside of my County. Keep in mind you may not see a police officer for 24 hours or more outside of my County. In fact there are a lot of areas out here in the West where there is no cell phone coverage and you may not see a police officer for some time.
If the people listed in your post did their friging job we wouldn't have gun violence. Why come after the lawabiding gunowner and not felons and gang members. Could it be that its easier to mess with law abiding gun owners than the very people who violate the law.
BTW please explain what one does during that period from the time a 911 call is made,providing one can make a 911 call and the time the police show up.
Please explain how I provide for my own protection if my car breaks down outside of my County. Keep in mind you may not see a police officer for 24 hours or more outside of my County. In fact there are a lot of areas out here in the West where there is no cell phone coverage and you may not see a police officer for some time.
Timmy,
I agree with some that say you have brass. But there have been SOOO many replys that state why the magazine ban has no bearing whatsoever that you cannot seriously, with any tangible thought, refute them. We are legal, law abiding, gun owners on THR. We don't go on killing sprees or mass shootings. Some of us are hunters, recreational shooters, competition shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, military personell, newly awakened concerned citizens, or some or all of the above. We love our guns. They contain memories of our past with friends or family. And they ensure future memories.
You have to understand that criminals will obtain whatever weapons/magazines they want whether by buying them ILLEGALLY or stealing them. And therefore will posess them illegally. And they will use them to do bad things to good people. And a ban on mags of any kind will not stop criminals from getting them. Do you really think that the criminals will just say "Awe shucks, they banned my already illegal posessed magazines. Guess i gotta buy 10-15 round mags now when I go out and rob and kill people." Of course not. All a ban on mags does is weaken the law abiding citizen.
But make no mistake. The ban is just a stepping stone of the government to see how far they can push. The AWB didn't make it so they want to try something smaller like mags. And like Sam said above, it will only bring more and more restrictions until one day we have no way to defend any of our rights protected under the constitution. The 2nd Ammendment is the one and only right that gives the power of the people to the people. It's the only right that keeps our democratic republic from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship.
There are countless members from other countries that have unbelievable bans on guns in their homelands that are screaming at us (through type) to defend our 2A with everything we have. That we should not allow ANY type of infringement whatsoever. Why would they do this? It doesn't affect them. It's because our government is doing what theirs did to them and they can see it from the outside looking in. It's always clearer that way. And they know what it does to a society and a country when the citizens have nothing to keep their government from running rampant. And they don't want it to happen to us.
I could type much more. But I'm sure if I/We haven't changed your mind, we aren't going to.
I agree with some that say you have brass. But there have been SOOO many replys that state why the magazine ban has no bearing whatsoever that you cannot seriously, with any tangible thought, refute them. We are legal, law abiding, gun owners on THR. We don't go on killing sprees or mass shootings. Some of us are hunters, recreational shooters, competition shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, military personell, newly awakened concerned citizens, or some or all of the above. We love our guns. They contain memories of our past with friends or family. And they ensure future memories.
You have to understand that criminals will obtain whatever weapons/magazines they want whether by buying them ILLEGALLY or stealing them. And therefore will posess them illegally. And they will use them to do bad things to good people. And a ban on mags of any kind will not stop criminals from getting them. Do you really think that the criminals will just say "Awe shucks, they banned my already illegal posessed magazines. Guess i gotta buy 10-15 round mags now when I go out and rob and kill people." Of course not. All a ban on mags does is weaken the law abiding citizen.
But make no mistake. The ban is just a stepping stone of the government to see how far they can push. The AWB didn't make it so they want to try something smaller like mags. And like Sam said above, it will only bring more and more restrictions until one day we have no way to defend any of our rights protected under the constitution. The 2nd Ammendment is the one and only right that gives the power of the people to the people. It's the only right that keeps our democratic republic from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship.
There are countless members from other countries that have unbelievable bans on guns in their homelands that are screaming at us (through type) to defend our 2A with everything we have. That we should not allow ANY type of infringement whatsoever. Why would they do this? It doesn't affect them. It's because our government is doing what theirs did to them and they can see it from the outside looking in. It's always clearer that way. And they know what it does to a society and a country when the citizens have nothing to keep their government from running rampant. And they don't want it to happen to us.
I could type much more. But I'm sure if I/We haven't changed your mind, we aren't going to.
FWIW, although I carry a Glock23 at work, off shift, my Makarovs& Tokarevs get a lot of carry......I still don't get Timmy's point...not a troll, but maybe too much the fanboy/ groupie of our " public servants"... been stated already, but even with the heel mounted magazine catch on the Makarov, I can and have changed magazines/ released the slide a LOT faster than he could " close the gap" on me...and, he' s also assuming that there are no active shooter types that can fight.
Best deterrent, IMHO ; to an active shooter( 7 or 75 rounds) is the following:
1) Awareness/ Alertness, both situational and physical
2) EDC of a firearm, knife, OC, cellphone etc with the willingness/ ability to use all
3) No more" gun free zones"- they're magnets for these dip**** malcontents
4)Obey " Malta prohibidorum", statist control freak laws, remaining " lawful but helpless"? Or ignoring/ disobeying any and all unconstitutional, anti freedom " laws" as you can- you decide, I already have.
Best deterrent, IMHO ; to an active shooter( 7 or 75 rounds) is the following:
1) Awareness/ Alertness, both situational and physical
2) EDC of a firearm, knife, OC, cellphone etc with the willingness/ ability to use all
3) No more" gun free zones"- they're magnets for these dip**** malcontents
4)Obey " Malta prohibidorum", statist control freak laws, remaining " lawful but helpless"? Or ignoring/ disobeying any and all unconstitutional, anti freedom " laws" as you can- you decide, I already have.
You meed to learn how the SCOTUS works.
It answers THE question asked, and tries to include as little extraneous decision making as it can (look up 'dicta').
Dicta is 9at the most) a guide to lower courts trying to interpret the affects of the decision, without being part of the law itself.
Magazine capacity was NOT an issue before the court in Heller.
Thus no part of the ruling needed to deal with it.
You guys are still wasting your time on this guy?
I can literally change a magazine in less than two seconds. Limiting magazines isn't going to make a difference. I took my CZ75 to the range with four mags and loaded them to only ten rounds each. I was still able to get off fourty shots in less than a minute accurately including reload time.
I did this only to prove that the ten round capacity doesn't make us any safer. I took the video and used it to disprove an anti gun guy's theory that mag capacity will make a difference at a mass shooting.
I can literally change a magazine in less than two seconds. Limiting magazines isn't going to make a difference. I took my CZ75 to the range with four mags and loaded them to only ten rounds each. I was still able to get off fourty shots in less than a minute accurately including reload time.
I did this only to prove that the ten round capacity doesn't make us any safer. I took the video and used it to disprove an anti gun guy's theory that mag capacity will make a difference at a mass shooting.
berettaprofessor
Member
Quoting Justin; Holy Thread Necromancy! Can we let this one die, please? "Timmy" is long gone.
I agree. If he's been inactive for that long then please lock this thing down. There's no point in this thread anyways and the idea of limiting mass shootings by limiting mag capacities has been disproven multiple times.Please,with sugar on it!
ShamboPyro
Member
Sir, it is an infringement on the second ammendment, no matter who sais what, or what twisted Ideas have entered your head. I loose my rights because sum nutcase shoots up a school? How about guards at the school? CCW? Someone smart enough to not support a mag ban?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
