Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

[SPEMack618]

And the whole issue of "assualt weapons" is sort of pushed out the window when less than 2% of guns used in crimes are assault weapons as defined by the '94 ban.

What flies under the radar is the thug in Chicago or LA with his Lorcin .25 that is going to off another thug for selling crack rock on his street corner. That is the gun crime that we should address.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hunting is irrelevant to the argument. There is no right to hunt. In fact, whitetails are very pretty and the young ones are cute. It is hard for most recreational hunters to argue that they need to hunt for food. I would ban hunting for whitetails except in special circumstances. Pest control can be handled by agents of the state.

Those who need to hunt for food should be specially licensed after strict mental exams and only allowed to bow hunt as those weapons would be unlikely to be used in most crimes or rampages.

-- OK, see my point. Hunting is not a reason for the Second Amendment. Nor is bowling or being an artisan producer of cheese.

What rights must we sacrifice or don't people believe in?

1. All the young males diagnosed with mental illnesses MUST be incarcerated or committed. It might save a life.

2. No violence should be allowed in media, games, etc. as some might be affected by it. It might save a life. Rainbow Bright cartoons should suffice for entertainment. You might be interested in the study that showed that violent
Biblical passages make some violent. Certainly some religions preach violence and thus most religions should be banned. To save a life.

3. Only single shot rifles should be allowed. If you can't take a whitetail with a Ruger Model One and scope, you are incompetent anyway.

So to save a life and do something, we violate freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion and the right not to be imprisoned. These violations would be on massive levels.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Odd, you have a good point:

Whether there is an AWB or not the problem still persists: Other individuals with mental aberrations and violent tendencies won't magically disappear from society. In Asia the crazies stab children. But in the end, it's not "At least X isn't as lethal as Y" but rather how to effectively stop or mitigate the damage. In an ideal world, children should not be targets of violence. Yet is probably impossible to find every single individual with dangerous mental issues* and send them to be treated. With or without laws, these monsters will find ways to harm their intended targets. The solution is to put down the rabid animals as soon as possible.

Those with mental or violent tendencies are out there, and usually keep passing through the revolving door in either or both mental institutions, or jail/prison. There isnt the lasting help to try to keep them either on their meds, or to try to keep them somehow restricted. Thats just the ones that are generally known. The ones that fly under the radar are the most difficult to try to either get help for, or to get them secured so they cant hurt another.

Its sad that when someone with mental issues are shot in defense of oneself, or arrested for a crime, but instead its turned around that its not their fault, its the illness. If its indeed the illness, then perhaps that should cause a loss of rights, instead of law abiding people loosing some of their rights instead.

ETA:

Glenn.

I dont think we should sacrifice more rights for the hope of safety of those who abide by the law. Those who violate the law violently should have an increased punishment, and some form of monitoring when returning to society to ensure they stay nonviolent. Those with mental impairments should be treated properly, and with respect, but if given the choice I would prefer to remove rights of someone unstable and potentially violent either temporary or permanant depending on the circumstance.

Just one persons views

 

[Tom Servo]

They want to know what America thinks.
Let's tell them.

Online polls really aren't a reliable indicator. Folks with serious investment in an issue will flood the poll in their favor, and has been pointed out, there will be single folks casting multiple votes.

In a similar vein, there have already been a couple of phone surveys which "prove" that Americans want stricter gun laws. The questions are phrased "do you think we should do more to reduce gun violence? Yes or no."

Well, that doesn't prove much. If the question were, "do you think all high-capacity magazines, including those 25-rounders for your 10/22 should be banned?" the result would be far different.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hey, I just bought some those Ruger mags on sale.

As far as the mentally ill, we need to help them. I was commenting on the idea that we would commit without regard to basic rights. Don't want to see that. However, we can't not act against those who are dangerous. It has to be a considered decision.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

Where in the constitution is the verbiage about citizens being armed to fight an oppressive government?

 

[K_Mac]

NO!

I may not articulate my view on this as well as some, but I will weigh in. With the entire family in town for a wedding, I have had a several discussions with family and friends over the last couple of days about gun control and the tragic loss of life at the hands of the killer in Connecticut and the NFL player in KC. The conversation almost always starts with, "something has to be done" about the use of guns in violent crime. For many the "something" is more regulation on guns in general, and greater restrictions on specific types of guns. Read or watch practically any news source and you will get plenty of similar opinions.

The premise is almost always that if less people have guns, and if those who do are restricted to guns that hold less rounds we will all be safer; that if teachers and college students have guns students will be at greater risk; that widespread concealed carry will result in hailstorms of bullets with many random and innocent deaths. The corollary is that guns are the problem.

I reject the entire argument. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is not the problem. The idea that limiting magazine capacity will solve the problem is simply a tactic to further the real goal of saving us from ourselves by removing those nasty weapons IMO. The Founding Fathers understood that gun ownership was a right necessary for a free people. That principle is as relevant and important today as it was then. The notion that since weapons have changed over the years this truth no longer applies would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening.

 

[petepeterson]

I'll be the bad guy here...

The theory that the populous should be armed as the military is out the window...please google "drones".

It is the near 50/50 political split in this country that brings up this debate. If you asked the entire population whether or not there is any need for a magazine capacity of more than 10- without any other factors involved- the answer should be a decisive "no." We, as the gunowners, have been conditioned to reply with an all-or-nothing stand on any issues related to firearm regulation, and understandably so. But to use the reasoning of a well armed militia is not realistic. And please don't tell me about Afghanistan rebels defeating the Soviet Union. The rebel force there has been fighting for a lot longer than our country has existed. It's what they do. It's what they've always done.

Our force would mostly consist of overweight, poorly conditioned iPad jockeys who think that Red Dawn is the logical next step in their career. My mother, who thinks of Glenn Beck as her president, would most likely be a sergeant in this army.

Believe me...when the gubmint comes to take the guns, we will be handing them over. Any resistance will be brief and have an unfortunate ending.

Instead of fighting to the last breath, why not propose a compromise? Trade high-cap mags for the recognition of a state-granted CCW permit anywhere in the U.S. That would be a lot more useful to me than a 100 rd AR drum...

 

[Colorado Redneck]

That oughta get some stuff going on

That is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to happen, Pete. The shooters that do enjoy using semiauto "assault style" weapons are the ones with a bullseye on their backs. The mass killings have not happened with single shot 22's. Semiauto weapons come with the potential to more easily kill a lot of people. Does there need to be a process to potentially decrease access to deranged people?

As long as it is people getting killed that are not close to us, is it still acceptable for unstable people to obtain semiauto weapons?

 

[Patriot86]

Yeah who needs more than 10 rounds in a rifle mag to defend themselves.....

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Harry Beckwith Did.....read up on it, he used "high capacity" magazines and even NFA weapons in the process of defending his business and property. I know it was a number of years ago but this sticks out in my mind because it happened right near where I lived down in Florida.


At one point in our history lets not forget a majority of Americans were in favor of a lot of things later changed by the courts. Including slavery and denying women the right to vote. The courts ended up checking the so called tyranny of the majority. If a majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban, then pass a constitutional amendment. Won't happen because this so called anti gun majority does not exist. It is a fabrication of the media. Most people simply do not care one way or the other.


On compromise with the anti gun types;
Time and time again it has been shown when we as gun owners give an inch the very next day and anti gunners are asking for another, and another and yet another. If you give them 10 round max on rifle magazines today, in a year someone will shoot up a school with a pistol then it will be 10 round max on pistol mags. Then someone will shoot up a school using 10 round magazines and POW semi automatics are gone...then we are Australia...then we are the UK...then we are a place I no longer recognize as America.

Again, it has been shown that states which require so called "mental health check outs" or "character checks" to own firearms or get concealed carry permits abuse such powers to deny such to the people seeking them. Give an inch once they take an inch every day till nothing is left.

I do not know, maybe this is just because I have been conditioned to think so, after-all Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania. But shall not be infringed means just that to me.

I am perhaps in the extreme, even here but I even think non violent felons should have a chance to see their full firearms owning privileges restored. I want campus carry in all 50 states, I want school carry in all 50 states. I want the pilots and crew of my planes to be armed if they choose so and I want the Government to leave me the heck alone. I am the "Anti" New York City, where so much has been given away in exchange for the perception of safety.


Personally, I would rather my safety and the safety of my family ultimately be left up to me. With my High Capacity magazines, my so called "assault weapons" and my (soon to be) shall issue concealed carry.

 

[K_Mac]

Pete the problem with your argument is the notion that we can trade away some of our rights while maintaining others. It is not high capacity magazines that are at stake here.

I don't give a rip about 100 round magazines or the lack of conditioning and military training of the average gun owner. Our right to keep and bear arms is foundational to our Constitution and our way of life in my not so humble opinion; drones, tanks, or cruise missiles notwithstanding. I think you underestimate the will of the American people when it comes to RKBA.

 

[Tom Servo]

If you asked the entire population whether or not there is any need for a magazine capacity of more than 10- without any other factors involved- the answer should be a decisive "no."

But we fall into a trap when we discuss needs. If we give up one class of arms, we start dangling our feet over a slippery slope. Maybe we don't need a rifle capable of penetrating body armor. Then we won't need a semiautomatic weapon at all.

I probably don't need more than one round to take a deer, but have you ever dealt with coyotes? They're fast and unpredictable, and quick follow-up shots are sometimes a must.

My mother, who thinks of Glenn Beck as her president, would most likely be a sergeant in this army.

So, it wouldn't be out of line to say your mother wears combat boots? I kid, I kid.

As long as it is people getting killed that are not close to us, is it still acceptable for unstable people to obtain semiauto weapons?

We need to be address the underlying problem of mental illness. Going after the tools used is treating the symptoms without assessing the disease.

Fun fact: Lanza tried to buy a rifle at a local dealer several days before the shooting. He was denied on the background check. That part of the system worked. He then resorted to murder and theft, against which we already have laws.

Read up on the Bath massacre. Semiautomatic weapons aren't the only means of inflicting harm on large groups of people, and a determined person will find a way.

 

[BGutzman]

Where in the constitution is the verbiage about citizens being armed to fight an oppressive government?

You really need to read some history. No offense, but wow...

No disrespect but here is a good starting point - http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

It doesn't have to be spelled out in the constitution... The Declaration of Independence gives a pretty clear idea of what the founders thought..

The theory that the populous should be armed as the military is out the window...please google "drones".

You can buy your own drones called remote control airplanes, they even can be had with cameras.... The idea wasn't that someone was going to provide you with all this for free, but if you have the funds and the freedom of choice then how you spent it was up to you... So if you have the money you could have your drone... We are so use to living in a hyper regulated world it seems we have forgotten much...

I can think of 5-10 mass shootings in the past 5 yrs without looking them up. can you come up with that many justifiable self-defense scenarios using the same type of firepower?

Your question is loaded... First if a CCW carrier is successful involved in some such incident at the start of the mass whatever then its over before it starts and the media rarely says a peep. There are many pro gun resources that print these stories and they are factual.

Second http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1943/Clackamas-Mall-Shooter-Was-Confonted-By-Concealed-.html

Third here is the 2A -"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." See any thing talking about regulation? I understand rights have limits but that pesky "shall not be infringed" seems fairly clear.

Freedom is expensive and their is no guarantee of complete and total safety only the promise that you do have the right to defend yourself....

 

[petepeterson]

No under-estimation at all. i'm proud to be one of the ranks.

Patriot, you're making my point for me with your "give an inch" arguement, and please note- I agree with you. So does the NRA.

I can think of 5-10 mass shootings in the past 5 yrs without looking them up. can you come up with that many justifiable self-defense scenarios using the same type of firepower? I appreciate the one you mentioned, bit I've already heard that one.

I'm not the opposition, but there's a storm coming, and I'm trying to be realistic. I'd rather be able to carry my 5-shot j-frame into Ohio than have a 33-rd Glock magazine. And anyone that says capacity would not make a difference is full of it. It might not in some circumstances, but it would never make it worse.

 

[JohnKSa]

If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success.

What if taking extra time to reload in the middle of a self defense scenario costs someone a life? Do you still consider it a success?

How small is small enough? Who gets to decide?

What if someone commits a mass murder with 10 round magazines? Should we cut it down another round? What if the next mass murder involves 7 round magazines? Wouldn't it be greedy to want 7 round magazines in that case? How do we decide where to stop? What if someone uses multiple guns, all with only 6 rounds of capacity each. Do we limit things to 5 rounds?

If your hunting you don't need that many bullets and if your just target shooting just load a couple extra small capacity mags.

Couldn't we eliminate handguns altogether? After all, if you're hunting, a rifle or shotgun is more effective, and if you're target shooting, you can just target shoot with a rifle, or with a pellet gun. If it saves a life, wouldn't it be greedy to oppose such a ban?

We could also get rid of all semi-automatic firearms, especially anything that can be reloaded rapidly. A good bolt action holds plenty of rounds for hunting and is plenty fast enough to give you a follow up shot if you need one. It would be greedy to want to hunt or target shoot with a semi-automatic rifle if we could save a life by limiting everyone to only bolt-action rifles.

Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.

Let's ban alcohol--think of the lives we could save each year by eliminating drunk driving. It's greedy for someone to want to drink when the law could save a life by banning alcohol.

Let's ban cell phones. Someone wanting the convenience of a portable phone seems greedy when we could save lives by getting rid of cell phones and eliminating accidents due to driver inattention caused by talking on a cell phone.

Let's ban cars that can drive over 55mph. It seems greedy for people to want to get to their destination a little faster when by reducing the speed traveled we could save lives. In fact, we could save more lives by dropping the speed even more--we don't want to be greedy about things when we could save lives.

I can think of 5-10 mass shootings in the past 5 yrs without looking them up. can you come up with that many justifiable self-defense scenarios using the same type of firepower?

If you really want to do this justice, you should also count at least some of the self-defense scenarios where the defender ended up dead with an empty gun in his hand.

 

[Patriot86]

Pete the problem is the vast majority of defensive gun uses are never reported or are a single day, third page story in the local paper. Seldom does the type of gun used by someone lawfully defending themselves even become public knowledge. I would hazard a guess the VAST majority of legit defensive gun uses involve guns with a magazine capacity above 10.

The type of gun and its magazines typically only become public knowledge when a crime is committed. Thats like asking someone to prove the sky is dark at night, but the research can only be done between the hours of 12 and 1PM local time.

I don't know where this whole "high capacity" is anything over 10 argument comes from unless it was an era when your only two options for pistols were 6 shooters and 1911's.
Just about every double stack 9MM pistol developed post war has a "standard" capacity well above 10 rounds. This is a pure Brady bunch creation. I think we would do much better to educate the public with documents like these.
http://www.illinoiscarry.com/AWBGuide.pdf

It lays out a rational argument while magazine restrictions and assault weapons bans are nothing but hogwash perpetrated by a claptrap of an anti gun industry.


The whole it could save a life argument does not hold water. Maybe if I took the bus rather than driving a Silverado every day one person MIGHT not have an Asthma attack and die from the pollution.

If the government wanted to save lives they could save 5 digits worth of people every year by banning alcohol...problem is it didn't work once and all it did was propagate an illegal industry run by gangsters.

 

[petepeterson]

John,

Excellent work on taking everything to the extremes. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about the conditioning of the 50/50 split in this country. We're afraid to use reason, because the other side isn't reasonable. Do you habitually carry a 5.56mm for personal protection? Can you tell me that you can reasonably see a scenario where you will need 30 rds to stop the threat? If so, do you think the number of those scenarios outnumber the times that the same weapon is used for the advancement of evil?

 

[petepeterson]

I would hazard a guess the VAST majority of legit defensive gun uses involve guns with a magazine capacity above 10.

I'd be curious to see the basis for this statement, unless your counting LEO...

Again, I'm not disagreeing with anyone's point of view. Just trying to imagine if both sides of the debate were reasonable.

 

[Tom Servo]

If so, do you think the number of those scenarios outnumber the times that the same weapon is used for the advancement of evil?

I personally know two people who've used such weapons in defense of their lives. Both were in the civilian world. One was a very well-organized jewelry store robbery, and 19 rounds were needed.

 

[nate45]

I'll be the bad guy here...

The theory that the populous should be armed as the military is out the window...please google "drones".

It is the near 50/50 political split in this country that brings up this debate. If you asked the entire population whether or not there is any need for a magazine capacity of more than 10- without any other factors involved- the answer should be a decisive "no." We, as the gunowners, have been conditioned to reply with an all-or-nothing stand on any issues related to firearm regulation, and understandably so. But to use the reasoning of a well armed militia is not realistic. And please don't tell me about Afghanistan rebels defeating the Soviet Union. The rebel force there has been fighting for a lot longer than our country has existed. It's what they do. It's what they've always done.

Our force would mostly consist of overweight, poorly conditioned iPad jockeys who think that Red Dawn is the logical next step in their career. My mother, who thinks of Glenn Beck as her president, would most likely be a sergeant in this army.

Believe me...when the gubmint comes to take the guns, we will be handing them over. Any resistance will be brief and have an unfortunate ending.

Instead of fighting to the last breath, why not propose a compromise? Trade high-cap mags for the recognition of a state-granted CCW permit anywhere in the U.S. That would be a lot more useful to me than a 100 rd AR drum...

Yes the American Government has tanks, jets, drones and helicopters, but none of those can run a police state.

A jet cannot stand on a street corner and enforce no assembly edicts. A tank can't kick down your door at 3 AM to search your house for contraband. A drone can't black-bag political prisoners. A helicopter can't collect information from informants. You need police. Police and soldiers.

Now let's assume there is a rebellion of 10% of the US population, all armed with AR 15s, AK pattern rifles and the like.

There are 1.5 million police and soldiers in the country(assuming none defect), that's .5% of the population. They are outnumbered 20 to one. They can't be every where at once.