Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will not give up my hi-cap magazines. I am not worried about a single shooter. Home invasions have become increasingly more organized and that means more than one person coming in my house trying to hurt/kill me or my family. I want all my mags to hold more than enough ammo to give me a chance against two or more intruders. If anything, we should be petitioning for a more liberal stand your ground law.

Shootings like what happened in Connecticut are tragic, but the only way to stop them is by making the shooter aware that the chance for a successful massacre is not in the favor of the shooter thanks to armed guards or faculty members.

Look at it like a flu shot, inject a little bit of virus (normal everyday armed civilians) and the chance of bad people (the flu) committing crimes with firearms goes down.

I don't understand how anyone can listen to the President, who came from a state that didn't allow carrying of any kind up until recently, talk about how gun control works. Illinois is such a crime ridden state that Obama should be more about openly carrying with less restriction.
 
Nate,

10% of the population is not in posession of those tools. They are also not as organized as the "opposition" you mention. (The opposition that can call up tanks, drones, etc.) This is a fantasy...when "they" decide they are going to take them, they will. The few and far between brave souls that do oppose will be a great example for everyone else why they should capitulate. I understand that this is the wrong forum and audience for this discussion, but I was assuming that there are more reasonable people here than, say, MSNBC!

Hope is not a strategy.
 
This is a fantasy...when "they" decide they are going to take them, they will.
Click to expand...
We're getting off topic, but I'll ask you to define "they."

None of the folks I know in the military or law enforcement would follow blatantly unconstitutional orders to enforce tyranny. If those folks leave their posts, who's left? For all we know, "they" are a bunch of thugs a tyrannical government has to recruit at job fairs.

I was assuming that there are more reasonable people here than, say, MSNBC!
Click to expand...
Stick around; you'll be impressed. However, I submit that many arguments in favor of gun control that may seem reasonable are anything but.
 
Pete your definition of reasonable is being willing to trade high capacity magazines for some sort of compromise in which you can carry your weapon of choice. You believe that this willingness to compromise will make us look reasonable in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd. The beliefs held by many of us are based on a long history of unreasonable demands for "compromise". It does not appear you are really interested in having a conversation unless all participants agree to your definition of reasonable. Does not seem too reasonable to me.:p
 
Pete, you are right, many people who preach "from my cold dead hands" will probably hand there weapons over. Most of it will be peaceful and any outbreak of violence will be silenced by the media.

Yep, it is the wrong site for this. GEM.

I, however, do not believe that the military and police will want to enforce anything of the such. I joined the Army because I like weapons and shooting not in the sporting fashion. I will not join in taking away any weapons and I know many people that I work with will join me by standing down.

When it comes down to it, they are all sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then followed by the President. If the President signs a bill into law that is unconstitutional that would mean it is the military's responsibility to remove him from office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand you are playing devils advocate, something I always end up doing at my company so I respect and understand that.

I am not just talking about concealed carry DGU's, I am also talking about in the home. I am also not talking about shots fired.

Based on personal experience, talking about general handguns and NOT just CC they are all flavors of Glocks (most models have a capacity above 10 rounds), The M&P Line, SIG Sauers of all flavors, and 1911's.
Every time I go to the local gun store Glock's, M&P's, XDm's, and 1911's seem to be flying off the shelf. This is my experience, based on my local market. Your mileage may vary.

The only RELIABLE data I can find IS about the LEO Market;the general consensus seems to be that between 65% and 55%. Again;

http://us.glock.com/products/sector/law-enforcement


One source on civie gun sales is buds guns, I posted their top sellers for 2012 below. About half are either "assault weapons" or have high capacity magazines. This is just one source so it is probably a bit skewed.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/09/foghorn/buds-gun-shop-lists-top-10-guns-for-2012/
 
Tom,

The Supreme Court (as constructed currently or appointed in the not-so-near future) will ultimately decide the constitutionality of any laws (or executive orders???) passed by Congress.

The employees of the Federal, State, and local governments will then uphold those laws. Let's not romanticize the outcome of this scenario.

Gentlemen, I digress. I know all of the reasons that you are going to throw at me as to why I am wrong. It's difficult for me to argue, as i agree with you all. I'm trying to present an opposing viewpoint that is not anti-gun. I only hope the stubborness and opposition to that same viewpoint does not prevent my sons and grandchildren from exercising their true God-given right to defending themselves and their families.

We may be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

I truly appreciate the civilized debate that can be had here.
 
And Pete-I hope none of our kids or grand kids are killed by an unstable individual that got possession of a semiauto weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammo because gun people would not budge on regulations controlling how guns are freely available.

How many people have defended a life with an AR or AK. type weapon compared to the number that are killed by lunatics or gang bangers or drug cartells etc? Any stats?
 
pete


There are 100,000,000 firearms owners and 300+ million firearms in the USA. If you think thousands upon thousands of deaths and a large part of Law Enforcement and the military being with the rebels, is something inconsequential and can easily be swept up, by the military and police that remain loyal to the government that has gone wholesale against the constitution, then I think you are wrong.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that self defense and the individual right to own firearms is at the heart of the 2nd amendment. That is true, but a violation of our rights like a total gun ban, is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment. If not a violation of like that, then when? It would be too late and down to zero options once you acquiesced.

Anyway, I'm not worried about revolution though, because I'm not worried about firearms, or magazines being banned. Unless three fourths of the states vote to amend the constitution, firearms will remain in place. Now having said that, I'll retire from the thread, so it can get back on topic.
 
Again, I'm not disagreeing with anyone's point of view. Just trying to imagine if both sides of the debate were reasonable.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. Yes, a violent revolution against the government is unlikely. Yes, using all 30 rounds to protect one's home may be unlikely. Yes, carrying a long gun in public for self defense may be unlikely and unreasonable to the average gun owner.

Problem is that the antis will never stop. After 10 plus round detachable mags are banned they'll go for all rifle mags. SKS and M1 Garands for everybody. You don't need hollow points, banned. You don't need a gun made of a material that melts at a certain temperature, banned. You don't need a gun that weighs more than 50 ounces unloaded, banned. It will never end. Compromise isn't an option in my opinion. Fight everything tooth and nail.
 
One more comment, as I cannot help myself...

Patriot,

I'm not sure gunsales can accurately reflect what type of firearms are used in actual defensive shootings. This discounts the person that owns one firearm for defensive purposes, and gives alot more weight to people (like me) that purchase multiple guns- because I like them!

Chase,

I can hear the rotowash of a black helicopter hovering outside your compound...but in reality, there is no conspiracy, just a failure of our society to recognize and deal with mental health issues, which unfortunately sometimes allows them (or their naive parents) access to deadly weapons.

I wish you all happy holidays, and will sleep well tonight with my 15 rd 5906 under the pillow. I might just throw a pre-ban 10-rounder in there so as not to be a hypocrite!

God bless you all.
 
In my mind, there is nothing reasonable about telling me that I have to surrender any portion of my rights because someone believes that I don't need something of which they disapprove. I don't need most of what I've acquired in my 68 years ... but they were/are things I wanted ... and THAT should be more than good enough reason for anyone! As a gun-owner for 58 of those years, I've never been a problem, never threatened, wounded or killed anyone except while in the Army.

One thing does matter to me though ... please bear with me. I enlisted in the Army after college and got to my Infantry unit on January 6th, 1968! I'm decorated, combat-wounded and disabled as a result of my service ... frankly, alive ONLY by the grace of God (alone, surrounded, overrun, wounded, no medical attention for about 7 hours, empty weapon, stripped of my watch, billfold, etc. The NVA know I'm alive because I'm cursing them ... and the eight of them just look at me and walk away. Apparently I'm not even worth a single bullet. That was 1 of 8 specific instances in the course of about 2 hours during my last firefight).

I didn't mention this to blow my own horn because there's no way for any of you to know my identity, but to let you know MY past for what I'm about to write:

I wrote this Nation a blank check, payable in any amount, up to and including my life if necessary and I resent beyond my ability to express that ANY politican would tell me that my choice of a semi-auto rifle or 30 round magazine is too dangerous for me to own, telling me that my life-long interest in firearms is too dangerous a hobby to allow, telling me that it's for the good of society ... if it saves only one life ... you really don't need a (-----). They aren't even worthy to lick my boots or the boots of any other Veteran ... EVER! I challenge them: What have you ever done for your Country, except feed off the Public Teat? And if some of those politicans happen to be Veterans and still feel that they are "duty-bound" to violate and infringe on my rights... then they have earned my complete and utter distain.

There, that's my answer ... clear enough?
 
Excellent work on taking everything to the extremes.
Click to expand...
The point is that if we set the goal of "saving one life", then it's possible to make virtually any restriction seem reasonable, and to make any opposition seem greedy/cold-hearted/unfeeling.

It's also true that that kind of justification for action has no obvious end. You can use the justification for further restrictions right up until the point that the restriction becomes a total ban.
We're afraid to use reason, because the other side isn't reasonable.
Click to expand...
Reason (logic) is exactly what we WANT.

However, faced with those who are unreasonable, it is pointless to try to reason with them. It may result in concessions that are not particularly onerous, in and of themselves, but, at the very best it will result in concessions that are not based on logic. It should be obvious why trying to use reason when dealing with those who are unreasonable is seen by many as being a poor strategy.

It makes no sense to compromise with someone who is proposing something that is not based on reason in the first place.

For example, let's say that a town with a speed limit of 50mph on the main highway begins to see major problems resulting from people speeding through the town at 95mph or faster. The first group suggests that reducing the speed limit to 45mph will fix the problem. The second group says that since it's already illegal to speed, it doesn't make sense to penalize everyone by making them go 5mph slower when the problem has nothing to do with the people driving 50mph in the first place. But the first group says that it couldn't possibly hurt to reduce the speed limit by a paltry 5mph and that it would be foolish not to take such an action if it could save one life.

Now, it would be "reasonable" (a minimal compromise) for the second group to concede that a 5mph drop in the speed limit isn't really a major restriction. However, the action taken doesn't address the real problem, and it's restricting people who aren't the offenders. So, while it may seem reasonable in one sense, it's just plain foolishness in reality.
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?
Click to expand...
These question are all based on the assumption that eliminating a particular caliber, or a particular size magazine will stop, or significantly reduce the impact of mass murders. This is called begging the question, that is, it conceals the fact that we are being asked to accept a premise without proof. Without, in fact, so much as an attempt having been made to demonstrate that it is a reasonable premise.

It's not even clear that they would stop/significantly impact mass SHOOTINGS, let alone mass murders. The worst mass murder at a school in the U.S. didn't even involve a gun. It was perpetrated with a bomb. In other words, making firearms a less attractive option for accomplishing school mass murders could actually result in the deranged perpetrators being driven to other means of accomplishing their evil purposes. Means that, based on past incidents, could very well be more effective/lethal and more difficult to counter.

Having to reload every 20 rounds instead of every 30, will have, at best, a minimal effect on the overall outcome, particularly when a person can equip himself with multiple firearms. Being forced to use a different caliber could actually increase the lethality of the attack, depending on what the substitute caliber was.
 
The worst mass murder at a school in the U.S. didn't even involve a gun. It was perpetrated with a bomb.
Click to expand...


That was what year, exactly? And how many firearms with 30 rd mags were available? Remember, the BAR only holds 20....

Apples and oranges. You use flawed data. Proof? What type and caliber weapon, with what capacity, was used in the last 3 publicized mass (?) shootings? I say this with a great understanding that "publicized" is subjective. We have greater bodycounts in Pittsburgh on a nightly basis than the Oregon mall shooting.
 
That was what year, exactly? And how many firearms with 30 rd mags were available? Remember, the BAR only holds 20....
Click to expand...
PRECISELY. Because the current weapon of choice was not readily available then, the perpetrator chose a different weapon. One which turned out to be more deadly than the current weapon of choice.
Apples and oranges. You use flawed data. Proof? What type and caliber weapon, with what capacity, was used in the last 3 publicized mass (?) shootings?
Click to expand...
Correlation is not the same as cause and effect, and before we start making new laws and restrictions, it would be well to establish a cause and effect relationship between what is restricted and what we wish to control.

And, it would be well to make at least a reasonable effort to determine what the effect of forcing those who are determined to commit mass murders to find alternate solutions to accomplish their goals.

It is entirely possible that the ready availability of medium caliber, semi-automatic rifles with large capacity detachable magazines has actually reduced the overall body count by being more attractive to those who are determined to perpetrate a mass murder than other, potentially more lethal means would have been.
 
School buses are sometimes hit by semis, when OTR drivers don't get enough sleep. We need truck control. Look how many kids a tired driver could kill with an 18-wheeler...

Not to make light of tragedy, but my point is we rarely see any other thing get vilified in the way that guns do (aside from pit bulls, perhaps).

Blame should be placed on criminals, not on equipment.
 
If I thought for a second....

If I thought for a second that giving up all of my "assault rifles," etc... would bring back any of those beutiful innocent little angels or prevent this travesty fro ever happening again I would give them up hapilly as I'm sure would every other board member on this forum. Sadly, despite what the politicians say, it won't change a thing except prevent us from defending our loved ones and other innocents from evil like this. Gun owners are responsible, charitable and law abiding people. More so than most others in my experience. Our collective values reflect service, discipline, respect, responsibility, etc...

I keep hearing the pundits both in favor and opposed to gun control say that the the essence of gun ownership is "deer hunting and defending your home," but the framers of the constitution did not write the second ammendment for us to protect ourselves from deer or our own fellow citizens. Their intent was for the second ammendment and firearms to defend against tyranny, specifically, tyranny from government. Why is this never stated even by the conservative media? It's like the elephant in the room! Well as Charels Krathammer said on FOX tonight, and I'm paraphrasing, but an Australia like wholesale confiscation and outlawing/criminalizing of assault weapons, etc.. in the United States will lead to insurrection and knowing my own convictions and ideas of liberty and freedom I have to agree with Mr Krauthammer.
 
Last edited:
Let's stick to the "Should they be banned?" question and not get too wrapped up in the "What will happen if they are banned?" question.

If this thread turns to talk of armed revolutions and insurrection, it won't last long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top