We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one…
I’ll ask again, how was this change of events possible? What can you attribute in the legislation to explain this change? For example, I could buy sell or trade anything post ban that I could pre-ban. I could, and did buy a Ruger DC95 9mm in 1996 that came with two ten round post ban mags and replace them with two 15 round mags made in 1993 AND I was completely legal.
The argument that I’ve seen people use before is that if the government is allowing people to own handguns so that they can defend themselves, how often they have to reload while defending themselves is not something the government gets to decide.
So, your position is that reducing magazine size does NOT impact your ability to defend your home or secure the liberty of our nation. Guns with smaller magazines are “just as effective”.
Thank you, I appreciate your input.
The compelling reason for attempting to curtail someone opening fire in a crowded theater is the same as the reason for being unable to yell “Fire”" in a crowded theater: What one loses is minuscule compared to what is prevented.
There is a chance that if someone tries to shoot up a school that they will be able to do far less damage if they have to reload more often vs. there is a chance that a hunter will finally be able to get the deer on the 27th shot.
Also, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the AWB so it seems that the Constitutionality of this has already been answered.
I said that criminals will not be deterred by a magazine limit. That’s the whole point right?
That’s not exactly what you said, you said a gun with a smaller magazine is just as effective, because it only takes a second to switch magazines.
That is either true, or it isn’t, and is equally true for both spree shooters and home defenders.
We can agree on that. But because I’m the good guy and he’s the bad guy, and since far more people defend their homes than go on shooting sprees annually, you’ll forgive me for not wanting to limit my own capacity to defend myself.
You need to shoot 30 rounds to defend yourself? Aside from the fact that what you want to do seems far more about offense than defense, have you considered taking shooting classes? To be a responsible gun owner? Isn’t that what we all want - more responsible gun owners? Isn’t the opposite more irresponsible gin owners? Who wants that, anyway?
Oh wait. I guess the people who need 30 shots to defend themselves.
This is a false equivalence. A spree shooter is not nearly the same as a home defender. A spree shooter will likely be prepared by carrying multiple magazines. In that situation, whether they carry 8 30 round magazines or 10 10 round magazines, they will still be able to inflict a high amount of damage. They are prepared because they are on the offensive.
A home defender on the other hand, will not have many many magazines on their person. I don’t have magazines strewn about the house. I carry 1 magazine in the quick access gun, and one backup. In a home defense situation, I will have limited time and I expect I will not be able to get to other magazines I have in other less convenient locations.
Put together these facts:
[ul]
[li]Bad guys usually take multiple shots to stop. 2 - 3 hits per bad guy is not uncommon.(other cites, but this one was first)[/li][li]People miss under stressful situations. Police hit rate in officer involved shooting is something like 30-40%.[/li][li]Bad guys don’t always come alone.[/li][/ul]
In other words, if there is ever more than one bad guy, 10 rounds probably isn’t going to cut it. There’s a reason police carry normal capacity magazines (17 rounds typically).
If a person is intent on committing mass murder like Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, they will be prepared and carry multiple magazines and an abundance of ammunition. A magazine limit, even if adhered to by crazy people, wouldn’t hinder them much if they carry extra mags. I however, will always only have 1 magazine, and possibly one as a backup. Limiting that capacity severely limits my ability to defend myself and family.
Like police, right?
It’s obvious that anything that is more effective for defense will also be more effective for offense. You can argue that it’s worth it, but ignoring the fact that you are in fact advocating for reducing people’s ability to defend themselves is intellectually dishonest.
When you make the argument about saving “just one life” by limiting magazines, don’t forget about the “just one life” that will be saved by having a regular capacity magazine in the hands of someone defending themselves.
Not if they are banned. I am aware that you guys like the whole “people don’t obey any laws ever” defense, but a study cited above showed that when a half-ass “ban” of high volume magazines was in effect, confiscations of them dropped. When the ban was lifted, that number rose. So even if we decided that laws that will be broken should never be made (which, since we still have murders and rapes seems like a tenuous position unless you want to do away with laws against murder and rape), one study showed that high volume magazines were indeed less prevalent when a ban was in place.
Even if we use your cite from the impartial "buckeyefirearms.org website, a 10-clip magazine is suitable to stop three-to-five intruders, assuming two-to-four of them didn’t flee when they saw their comrade shot. I don’t see how that is ineffectual against all but a home invasion.
Which will weigh them down, meaning they are less mobile. And still it takes more time to reload and re-aim. All of which makes the job of a mass murderer more difficult.
I am fine with the police having more fire-power than us civilians. Also, isn’t 17 less than 30?
If someone is unable to defend their home with ten shots then either they are an irresponsible gun owner or they are in a Clint Eastwood movie.
I think you’ve miscalculated. 2 hits per badguy. 35% hit rate. 1 in 3 shots will hit. first bad guy down, you’ve fired 6 rounds. Next bad guy you only have 4 left. This is averages of course, sometimes it will be less and sometimes more. But 10 rounds will often not be sufficient.
No argument here.
17 in their pistols. 30 in the rifles. You may be fine with police having more firepower, and maybe they should - I’m not arguing either way. But there is a lot of data out there on police use of force and what is effective and what is not. Police carry standard capacity magazines because they are more effective.
Here’s a woman who hit an invader 5 times, including once in the face. The man still managed to leave on his own (though he crashed while driving off). That was vs. a single attacker. If there were two, who knows if 10 rounds would be enough. Again, not a Clint Eastwood movie nor an irresponsible gun owner.
At least it would be honest if you’d admit you want to limit people’s ability to defend themselves. Then we can debate whether that’s worth it or not. Right now, you’re adherence to the notion that a magazine limit has no practical harm or the equivocation between possession of standard capacity magazines and some paranoid fantasy or lack of ability is disingenuous and laughable.
Please tell me how many rounds I need since you obviously don’t trust me to carry 30.
Where’s this so-called evidence? If you’re talking about the last guy bent on opening fire in a theater, his decision to use a high-capacity magazine probably saved lives.
I agree with what Cheesecake said in #52 – even if true, the endless list wouldn’t matter. Thousands of humans beaten and bludgeoned to death every year is both horrifying and tragic. But no one could have killed 26 people, in a school, with a hammer and a bat (or, as we see in today’s news, with a knife).
Nevertheless, I wish to address Damuri Ajashi’s allegedly endless facts.
No one knows how many people are killed in the US with assault weapons because an intelligent murderer will discard the weapon where it can’t be found, such as in deep body of water. And you can’t determine the magazine size from the bullet in a murder victim’s brain.
Because assault weapons are so easy to buy in the US, compared to other countries, a lot are smuggled out. There’s no way to know how many Mexicans are murdered by assault weapons smuggled in from the US. Which again means there’s no way to know how many people are losing their lives due to the assault weapon ban expiration.
Here’s a fact check site debunking a variation of the baseball bat claim:
There are no statistics kept on the number of people specifically killed with baseball bats, any more than there are statistics on the number killed with assault weapons.
The context is: Guns for hunting make sense. Guns for self-defense do not.
Now, I don’t think trying to win a culture war over guns mostly through the legal system will work. Gun death – and most gun deaths are suicide – should primarily be looked at as a public health problem, like traffic accidents and cigarettes. Lowering the magazine limit from 30 to 10 is analogous to lowering the cigarette nicotine content, and reducing exposure to second hand smoke. I don’t want to destroy ability to smoke, but if we can make it a bit less dangerous at the edges, go for it.
Because guns are particularly lethal so some people think that if they just get a handle on guns they would get a handle on murder.
I note you compare licensing and registration to magazine caps rather than an AWB.
A magazine cap might have been possible after newtown as well. It would not have been as effective as licensing and registration.
LBJ got the garnish, he didn’t get the entrée.
Licensing would require renewal every few years. I would have no problem with different classes of license for different types of firearms.
suicide yes, accident no
I think you are confusing homocide with accidental death.
Reasonable is not the standard for truncating constitutional rights.
The AWB was fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. The concept is flawed.
What was that compelling reason again?
Ironically, it was a high capacity magazine (and their tendency to jam) that made the aurora shooter resort to the much slower shotgun in that movie theatre.
There is no precedential value to a denied cert petition.
Yeah they could have done it with a 9mm glock like the Va Tech shooter.
take it up with Feinstein, its her estimate.
You make it sound like having a gun in the house makes you more likely to be shot and killed by an invader. That study attributes almost all the extra death to suicide and much of what is left is murder by another member of the household.
The study clearly disentangles suicide from homicide. The former is 10 times more likely with a firearm, the latter is twice as likely.
I’m not sure what your point is about violence within the home; dead is dead, and having a firearm in the home makes you more likely to be so (at least, by someone else’s or your own hand).
Have I missed the promised facts? Remember all the ones you promised were on your side? You’ve got opinions and you’ve been convinced they’re fact.
I’m completely disinterested in engaging the slapfight in this thread between people who recognize that self-defense is a legitimate interest and those who don’t, but said squabble does serve to answer the question at hand.
“Assault Weapon” Bans make perfect sense if one’s goal is to limit or eliminate firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens.
“Assault Weapon” Bans make no sense otherwise.
It’s fair, but most home defenses don’t result in extended gunfights. How many times a year do you really think home defenders get into gunfights that require multiple reloads? I don’t have that number, I don’t know if anybody has that number, but I’m betting that number is very small, and I would support somebody trying to find out that number.