Just to be clear, it is not easy to convert a semi automatic gun into a fully automatic gun as you understand it.
When your sear is worn (or filed) down it no longer catches the hammer when it gets knocked back by the action so you empty out your magazine every time you pull the trigger. So people generally do not do this on purpose.
AFAIK, you need a different type of sear to get the kind of autofire you want. This requires you to drill out holes in the receiver and dremel out some metal bars, file them smooth. Then you need to get your hands on a select fire sear that will catch the hammer when you release the trigger.
His glock had 15 round magazines (standard for a glock 19) but that’s besides the point. The fact of the matter is that he did all this with 10 round and 15 round magazines. How much of a difference do you think it would have made if he had 10 round magazines for his glock 19?
You asked for the standard that I wanted.
Not all weapons, just the same size magazine
[/quote]
When have I EVER said anything like that?
If you really don’t EVER need more than 10 rounds for self defense, then why not impose that same restriction on guns carried by cops? What’s that, those incidents are really really rare? Yeah so are mass shootings where magazine size contributes to the death toll.
Standard almost by definition is not large. large is a relative term. We don’t call a call a 12 oz can of beer large no matter how anti-alcohol we are, we don’t call a pack of cigarettes with 20 cigarettes in it large no matter how much we dislike smoking and we don’t call an AR-15 magazine with 30 round capacity large. There are in fact large capacity magazines that can hold 50 or 100 or 150 rounds.
If the liability insurance means that I am in effect paying for the bad acts of criminals, then I would oppose it
If the liability for not reporting stolen weapons made you liable for the crime committed with the weapon, then I would oppose it (I would be OK with holding folks like straw purchasers liable for any crimes committed with a gun they supplied to a criminal).
Otherwise, I don’t really have a problem with those proposals.
That is a horrible idea. Do you know how your name ends up on the watch list? Neither do I, but I DO know that there is no due process involved. It is a pure exercise of executive authority. We face the prospect of Donald Trump as our next President and the notion that we should be using lists created by one branch of government with no accountability or oversight to start depriving people of rights is a bad horrible stupid retarded shitty idea.
It is ridiculous to call something that is standardized large. Standard cannot be large. This descriptive shorthand is with respect to magazine size - the comparison is between “standard capacity” and “large capacity” or “high capacity”. When people discuss this issue, they are of course talking about the number of bullets a magazine can hold. It’s not like there is some big outcry over 10/30 mags in CA. A 10/30 mag is a magazine that has the exact size and shape of a 30 round magazine, but that has been permanently modified to only accept 10 rounds or less. This satisfies the CA law that prohibits magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. We’re not talking about the dimensions of a magazine.
There can be a discussion about the relative efficacy of different sized magazines. But calling something “large” that is standard is an attack on the English language and independent of the efficacy of any given capacity. It’s an effort to frame the conversation by redefining words. It’s blackwhite newspeak.
I define “standard capacity” (at least in terms of handguns) as the number of rounds which fit entirely within the frame/handgrip. For my single stack 1911, that’s 7 rounds. For a Glock 17, that’s 17 rounds. “large capacity” magazines would be ones which have to extend past the end of the grip. It’d be silly to call a 10 round magazine “standard” for a Glock 17 when it requires blocking off nearly half of it to prevent it from accepting more than 10 rounds.
The reality is they are not. There has been a chilling effect because their prior activity has put a spotlight on them when it comes to guns but they are not prevented from conducting research as long as they are not advocating for gun control.
Absent an advocacy posture, there is little the CDC can do that others are not already doing.
I was referring to filing down the sear. You are correct that it’s probably not what the average person really envisions when told that something fires full-auto, but it is the bare minimum to get someone in big trouble with the ATF for manufacturing a machine gun, and it’ll let that person blast off the whole magazine with a single trigger pull.
That guy was cited up thread as a reason why limiting magazines to 10 rounds wouldn’t do anything.
So, when someone else says “Well, 10 rounds might not be enough” it was to show what a person with 10 round magazines could do.
I don’t really have a fight either way WRT magazine size.
So you would be alright with law enforcement and the military having access to better weapons than the civilian populace as long as the magazine size was the same?
Not saying that you did say that. I doubt you speak for those who stockpile dozens of AR-15s and 30K rounds though.
Because I don’t think the police should be held to the same weapons standards as the civilian populace, that’s why. Likelyhood of incidents, self-defense, whatever reason you want to give, my answer will be the same - “I don’t think the police should be held to the same weapons standards as the civilian populace”
Generally, we suck at it (which is one of the gripes that conservatives had with bringing Syrian refugees into the country: we can’t tell which ones are going to try to kill us). The FBI interviewed this last guy twice, but decided he wasn’t really a danger (or at least that they didn’t have any hard evidence he was a danger).
I think it’s a mistake to lump the military and law enforcement in together. They are two separate entities with vastly different weapon needs. And generally I’m fine with the military having whatever helps them do their job most effectively, but I’d be significantly less comfortable with the police possessing most of those military weapons (just about anything explosive, combat aircraft, tanks, etc). I don’t even think there’s much of a use case for the police to have full-auto weapons. As for magazine capacity, I don’t think they need a limit, but I don’t think citizens should have a limit either.
In CA, since magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are illegal to sell, manufacture, transfer, lend, receive, or purchase, the the CA standard Glock 17 magazine is 10 rounds. It’s not blocked off, but instead uses a single stack instead of the regular double stack.
Why do you say that? CA still has its share of mass shootings (San Bernardino jihadists, for a recent example). The law seems to have been a failure (assuming its goal was to prevent mass shootings).
Sorry. I’m not buying this standard cannot be large garbage.
The standard amount of french fries served in diners is a large amount of french fries.
The standard package of screws I buy from Home Depot has a large number of screws.
The standard package of straws that I by from the grocery store has a large number of straws.
Go ahead and argue that 30 bullets isn’t a large number of bullets forcing your interlocutor to explain why they feel it is a large number but don’t shut down the discussion with the nonsensical claim that because something is a standard size it cannot contain, by definition, a large number of something.
Sure, people can do horrible damage with a bolt action rifle from the top of a locked and barricade clock tower too.
Doesn’t mean that is all we should have access to.
Yeah. The military has access to stinger Missiles and I don’t think that they are necessary for self defense nor are they protected under the second amendment.
I can’t think of anything that cops have that I don’t think the general public shouldn’t have access to.
OK, so when you said “you” you meant a more abstract “you” rather than me.
If I wanted to revolt against tyranny I would probably want to at least see some state national guards and factions of the military on my side and I would not expect the militia to do much more than provide irregular support.
But if there is no meaningful difference between 10 rounds and 15 rounds, why bother having a meaningless difference just to fuck with civilians who want to have 15 rounds? it seems a bit tautalogical
