The calls for more gun control are already starting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.
Click to expand...


So it's the magazines fault this guy committed mulitple murders? Would it have been better if he had four 30 round mags, and took a second to reload?

Reports are that the 100 rd drum mag caused the AR to jam, so he had to use his Glocks, and shotgun.

I don't understand why the tool in any configuration is being blamed.
 
Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, the NRA tried going the "reasonable" route for decades and the result was the passage of progressively more restrictive gun control measures. Eventually, the NRA came to the realization that the ultimate goal of the gun-banners was a total ban of all firearms and that no level of flexibility, appeasment, or "common sense" would ever satisfy them. The anti's strategy all along has been one of "one piece at a time" and "divide and conquer". By systematicallty singling out small groups of weapons and gun owners, the anti's hope to eventually dwindle down the number of gun owners until they're too small a minority to stop a total ban.
 
So it's the magazines fault this guy committed mulitple murders? Would it have been better if he had four 30 round mags, and took a second to reload?

Reports are that the 100 rd drum mag caused the AR to jam, so he had to use his Glocks, and shotgun.

I don't understand why the tool in any configuration is being blamed.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to explain why a 100 round drum magazine would make it far easier to shoot large numbers of people in a short amount of time?

Is it really necessary for 100 round magazines to be legal, knowing that its inevitable someone is going to come along and use them for this purpose, considering they have no other useful purpose? Yeah I get they arent very reliable or effective, but thats kind of irrelevant when people look at the possible intended uses of them and wonder why they are legal.

These excesses discredit those of us who enjoy firearms without adopting some rigid ideological position on all gun control that defies common sense and human decency.
 
The evil 100 round "drum" jammed as did the 30 round mag in Gifford's sooting, so if anything, these events will wrongly convince some that we need a 10 round mag limit when the reality was two hi-cap failures.
 
"It's my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this."

Really? The NRA provided the shooter with said magazine? Wow, where do I get mine? I've been a member for as long as I can remember and have yet to see that 100 rounder as part of the benefits.

"This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give responsible gun owners a bad name."

Did you get the Brady Bunch to paste this drivel, or was it Bloomberg and Co.?
If anything, the NRA is far TOO accomadating. There is NO reasonableness when dealing with the enemy.

And if you don't like NRA try the JPFO and the GOA. They're not into flexible nor reasonable; their 'extremism' is based on that 'shall not be infringed' phrase. But methinks you'd be more at home with the VPC.
 
Is it really necessary for 100 round magazines to be legal, knowing that its inevitable someone is going to come along and use them for this purpose
Click to expand...

How is it inevitable? This is the first time I've heard of someone using a 100 round magazine in any sort of crime.

Reminds me of California banning .50 bhmg rounds even though none had been used in a crime.

This is where I struggle with "reasonable". I can come up with some good arguments for banning 100 round magazines. I can also do the reverse.

Part of the issues with these mass shooting incidents is we get too focused on the weapons and not the wielder. You can come up with all kinds of scenarios, but no amount of gun control seems to deter crime.

Ironically, if a regular 30 round magazine had been used, the results may have been far deadlier. Sorry, trying not to discuss the specific incident here, but the fact remains that a more reliable but lower capacity magazine would have made the situation worse. Sure, 100 round magazines give easy access to firepower, when they work.

Why is the knee jerk reaction to take something away from everyone who has not broken the law. Owning a firearm is legal. Shooting into crowds is not. You can argue weapons, accessories, and tactics all day long and it doesn't change the fact that someone with murderous intent had made a decision to kill many people in a short period of time.
 
Last edited:
Would it help?

Would more gun control laws help? Have they stopped one crime yet? The answer is NO but anyone reading TFL already knew that answer. What is needed is the CCW law to change and be something like this ( if you have a conceal carry permit, (CCP), you must have your gun with you at all times. All ex-military, off duty, and retired police officers must carry a weapon at all times.) I would bet in that movie building that night someone would have had a gun and could have stopped or slowed the killing of those helpless people had the law for guns been something like what I stated above. I know someone will say that any CCW, pistol, would not have stopped him since he had on a vest. No, it would not have, unless you got in a head shot but it would have still hurt bad and could very well have slowed that coward down. He more likely would have ran had anyone shot back or at the lest he would have gone for cover. Anything of that nature would have saved lives. We need more people who are willing to learn to use a gun the right way and practice so they can intervene if such action where needed again in the future.
Passing laws has never stopped a crime. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only leave us all defenceless not only to criminals but to government oppression. Yes, it could happen here just like it happens everytime the people lose all power to defend themselves. Do not be fooled and think that could never happen here, that is what the Jews said in 1930's Germany.
 
@magicanimal

A lot of people think Wayne Lapierre is a total wingnut, there are plenty of NRA members who agree. Personally I just think hes a shrewd, unscrupulous businessman whos gotten rich off peddling extremism. Anyway I wont have anything to do with the NRA, there are still a few reasonable people who belong to it, Lapierre and his type havent completely purged them all, but give it some more time.
 
Do I really need to explain why a 100 round drum magazine would make it far easier to shoot large numbers of people in a short amount of time?
(Yes, explain how a drum magazine would be FAR EASIER than multiple 20 or 30 round magazines that can be changed in a fraction of a second.)

Is it really necessary for 100 round magazines to be legal, knowing that its inevitable someone is going to come along and use them for this purpose, considering they have no other useful purpose? (So if there is one chance in thousands that something might be misused, it should be banned? Since an untold number of drum magazines have been sold and haven't been used to commit mass murder, apparently somebody found a useful purpose for them.) Yeah I get they arent very reliable or effective, (So if that's true, why did you want to ban them again?)but thats kind of irrelevant when people look at the possible intended uses of them and wonder why they are legal.(Some people wonder that all the time about guns of all types.)

These excesses discredit those of us who enjoy firearms (Many of us see a civil rights/freedom issue, not an issue of protecting a "hobby")without adopting some rigid ideological position on all gun control that defies common sense (I've seen very few gun control measures that DON'T defy common sense.)and human decency.(So magazines that hold over an arbitrarily selected number of rounds are an affront to HUMAN DECENCY? Really? What, are they up there with slavery and child molestation?)
 
Really large cap mags

The more that you let your rights be taken away from you a little at a time the sooner you will have no rights at all. If the bases for rights being removed is someone breaks the law of the land then all of our rights will be gone by the end of the week.
Be careful once you give something to the government it will take spilled blood to get it back.
 
A few years ago I heard a representative of the Brady Campaign on NPR (yes I listen to NPR) discussing some proposed legislation. The commentator mentioned that in reality the legislation would have little really impact and the Brady Bunch guy agreed. Then in a moment of honesty he admitted their goal was no ownership of guns by civilians, and that their strategy to achieve that was to implement minor seemingly reasonable restrictions until their goal was reached.
 
Drum magazines are notorious for being unreliable. Their only real purpose is as a range toy. Anyone who knows anything about them would never use one in a real life "operation" (for lack of a better word). Take even the venerable Thompson, the old Chicago Piano. It was issued to certain troops in WW2 (and even as recently as Vietnam, if memory serves me). They rarely used the drum magazines, preferring the reliability of stick magazines. So tell me again how banning a 100 round drum magazine will help anything?
 
One photo to sum up what all of us are thinking...

557149_10150948846851921_1728586144_a.jpg


No amount of restrictions will eradicate crime. Murder is already a crime, seems like Adams wasn't too concerned with that... What makes anyone think his evil plan would have been averted by more restrictions? Here's a few that I can debunk without batting an eye...

"Assault weapons ban"
As another poster pointed out, the AWB banned certain features, none of which would have prevented this guy from inserting one or several magazines.

"Longer waiting periods"
This guy planned this insanity months in advance... Plenty of time to acquire plenty of guns... Not an effective restriction..

"Magazine capacity restrictions"
These ideas do little to effect the outcome of someone intent on doing harm. A few more magazine changes and you get the same number of rounds sent down the tube... Restricting capacity will only affect the law-abiding, since the guy was intent on killing people, methinks he wouldn't have cared about violating an arbitrary capacity law.

"Ammo restrictions"
Won't work. As someone else mentioned, he planned this thing for months. Any level of somewhat 'reasonable' (I hate that term) restrictions on ammo quantity would have been moot. He would have had plenty of time to acquire enough ammo to carry out his plan.



Agree with others here, this will be a battle cry for Bloomberg, Brady, and others but will amount to not much more than that. Any further restrictions can be easily debunked and a complete and total ban will not happen.
 
in a moment of honesty he admitted their goal was no ownership of guns by civilians, and that their strategy to achieve that was to implement minor seemingly reasonable restrictions until their goal was reached
Click to expand...

... and this is why we must resist giving in and making little concessions to the anti-gunners. I've noticed how many folks here are willing to do just that in the name of "reasonableness", and it worries me.

Once a right is given up, you'll never get it back.
 
hogwiley said:
Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me that there is always the one guy urging the others to hurry up and get in the ovens before they upset the Nazis.

A limit on ammo capacity suggests that there is some "safe" number of rounds it is OK to give to a murderer - there is no such thing. You cannot compromise with people who want to push you into the sea. If you agree to retreat to the sand dunes, they will be back as soon as someone is killed with a 10 round magazine to demand we retreat to the surf line.

I am not responsible for the criminal acts of others. Instead of blaming the tool, the blame should be on the person. Frankly, the antis should be thanking God Americans have a fixation on guns and stupid accessories. As weapons go, firearms are not really ideal for mass slaughter.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I am not responsible for the criminal acts of others. Instead of blaming the tool, the blame should be on the person. Frankly, the antis should be thanking God Americans have a fixation on guns and stupid accessories. As weapons go, firearms are not really ideal for mass slaughter.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. How many would be killed and injured by a suicide bomber in the crowded lobby of that same theatre?

It's just too hard to blame evil. There has to be something more concrete on which to focus the anger.
 
I Had read (again this could all be inaccurate as many of the published facts in this case during the first two days seem to be) that he had been using the 100 round magazine but that there had been a malfunction. If you look at the picture of his AR-15 laying on the ground it has a normal 30 round mag in it. So obviously he had a chance to change it. See the pic below, upper left area near the door. The picture quality is not great but that looks like the shape of your traditional "Banana Clip"


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/20/article-2176377-1426433E000005DC-40_634x426.jpg

I agree with what many others have said, for someone with the proper gear (mag pouches) and a little bit of practice(sounds like this guy had plenty of time to practice) I don't think even 10 round mags would have made much of a difference.
 
Last edited:
MLeake said:
It is never a bad idea to remind your local politicians that their constituency may not wish to hear gun control sound bites on the news, and will vote unfavorably should new gun control laws be proposed.
Click to expand...
Ding, ding, ding! Winner!

If you're concerned enough to post on this thread, take a moment before you do and send a BRIEF email to your representatives encouraging them to resist those amongst their colleagues who may see this tragedy as an opportunity to infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Did I mention that you need to keep it BRIEF? A paragraph or two is sufficient, NO MANIFESTOS, THESES OR DISSERTATIONS!!!

Calls are ok, too, letters are even better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top