Thought we have established they would have some effect. The question is how much effect. Which then begs the question (studiously avoided so far) of how many people getting shot is ok before you think it is worthwhile to nerf magazine sizes. That is not rhetorical. Society is always a balance of rights as they often conflict. So I put it out again, how many people getting shot is ok so you do not have to reload as often at the firing range? And before you come saying you need a 15-shot magazine to defend your home I’ll preemptively ask for a cite. Show me where someone was defending their home and a 15-shot clip was necessary. Show me it is the norm in home defense and not a one off. Gun advocates demand numbers from gun control advocates all the time to prove their restrictions would make a difference so turn-about is fair play.
And rights? You have a Constitutional right to a gun. I see nothing in there that mandates magazine sizes as a right in the Constitution.
I don’t have a cite, but I read long ago surprising statistics in officer-related shootings. I seem to recall that most first shots by police officers were taken within 15 feet of their target, and yet 70% missed. And these are trained police officers.
People don’t behave under duress the same way they’d behave at a range - it’s somewhat macho to say “anyone who needs more than X rounds to defend themselves is clearly incompetant”.
Will your average Joe Criminal have access to them? Probably not.
They are probably easy to manufacture when someone has the metal working skills and proper equipment. While common enough it is not like everyone and their mother has a machine shop in their garage. Additionally are magazine shapes standardized? Really asking here as I do not know but if you need a different magazine for every variant of weapon out there (or at least a wide variety) have fun getting the ones you need. Would make hand manufacture a bitch to cover them all. Not to mention hand made mags where the guy has to invest in the equipment, accept the risk of breaking a federal law and pop off a handful a day are likely going to be expensive.
Further, if you want to rely on your gun in a pinch will you opt for a hand made magazine that might malfunction? Is it better to have twelve shots with a chance it’ll screw up when you need it or a reliable six shots? Again I do not know but I think it would be a consideration.
I’m fine with the cops having high capacity magazines. Indeed part of the point of mandating smaller magazine sizes for civilians is to give law enforcement a little edge.
I can only hope criminals are at least as bad at hitting their targets. That can only be a good thing (and I expect they are worse…their danger is they can be indiscriminate where police will presumably be more careful).
I gave you a cite earlier where it took 22 shots to put a guy, under no artificial influence, down. It happens. The human body is a mystery sometimes. I have answered your question and here goes again: I don’t care how many people are shot so that I can keep my mags o’plenty. I am not responsible for them getting shot, I’m not pulling the trigger and therefore feel no guilt. The problem is the asshole pulling the trigger, not how many bullets are in his gun, and certainly not how many bullets I can carry. If you want to save more lives, it seems best to figure out why people shoot each other, and worry second about the tools in which they use to do so.
No, we established that fewer bullet flying through the air means fewer hits. The point that you and I seem not to be able to see eye to eye on is that reloads are too easy to make magazine size an issue. I realize that fact hurts my case as much as yours, I guess we both have to deal with it. It does not take any special skills to hit a button, drop an empty mag and then insert a full one. I can carry 4 mags at 10 a piece to get 40 rounds or I can carry 3 15 round mags to get 45. It just doesn’t matter. Have you ever shot a gun? Even reloaded a gun with a full mag? If so, was it a difficult task or something?
We have the Constitutional right to free speech, I see nothing in there that mandates or protects the internet, telephones or automatic typewriters.
But that’s not what he is looking for. He wants empirical data showing that it takes more than X rounds to successfully defend one’s home. It doesn’t exist, so he hangs his hat on it.
None are okay. However limiting Magazine sizes is a ridiculous way of counterbalancing the issue.
How many people need to die in high speed crashes before we mandate 75MPH governors on all cars? At least with that piece of legislation, something would be accomplished that’s measurable and real.
Limiting magazine size is a lame, unreasonable law that, while not directly violating the second amendment, definitely violates the spirit of the amendment.
None are okay. That doesn’t mean I’m okay with restricting magazine size.
It’s unnecessary for me to provide a cite, I’m defending a right, and since in this country we err on the side of ‘it’s ilegal until you show a reason to ban it,’ the onus of proof is on you.
That’s because Gun-Control advocates are trying to restrict a right. All things are vested in the people until reason to do otherwise.
“You have the Constitutional right to free press, but not to paper, papyrus or ink.”
I’ve already told you that I can convert a low-cap mag to a hi-cap mag with no more specialized tools that a dremel and a screwdriver. It does not take a CNC machine with AUTOCAD to make hi-cap mags.
And as I said before it is anecdotal. There are always some weird outliers. If you get your rare guy who takes 22 shots to put down I get the rare 8 year old girl walking to school who catches a bullet between the eyes when two gang members are trying to kill each other. Happens yet gun advocates do not let the rare instance of an innocent kid be a reason to push gun control laws. Why should your Rasputin-like dude be any different?
I am all for other avenues to a less violent society. Better education, reducing poverty, legalizing drugs and so on are worthy topics and can all bear on gun violence.
And while you may not feel badly when someone gets shot because you didn’t pull the trigger it is not about you. It is about the tool. Guns are used in crimes so much because they are the best tool for the job. A tool that has relatively few legitimate uses (target shooting, hunting, self defense…all of which are either a leisure activity or can be achieved via other means).
First off I would assume that a limited capacity magazine still has to be the same size as your current magazines to fit your gun properly. Can you carry more to equal the same ammo count? Sure. Will people carry 10 magazines (at six shots each) to get 60 shots instead of 4 magazines (at 15 shots each) to get that same 60 shots? I dunno. Maybe some would but I am willing to bet most won’t.
This also does not account that chances are a lot of street criminals (and I am thinking of inner-city stuff where shootings are most common) are savvy with their weapons? What about having to re-acquire the target after reloading? If it so simple and fast to reload why fuss over smaller magazine sizes? By what you said here it is trivial to reload.
You realize that is 100% correct don’t you? There is no right to have any of those in our Constitution. Freedom of speech would not stop the government from pulling the plug on the internet or outlawing typewriters.
Well…I cannot think of any news reports of someone’s home becoming the Alamo and having a major shootout well fending off criminals trying to break in (yeah there are cases of people barricading themselves in to fend off the police…quite different situation I think). I am pretty sure such a thing would be news worthy.
And back to the ease of reloading…if it is so bloody easy and simple and fast to reload why do you need a hi cap mag to defend your home? Sounds like you want to have it both ways on this point.
I cannot get the same Cathartic effect playing football, or shooting Bow & Arrow, or doing anything, as I can going to the target range. I also can’t defend myself nearly as effectively.
I’m willing to bet the people who are going out specifically to commit crimes (like the VA Massacre) will, and therefore the law will be pointless at deterring criminals, while only hindering law abiding citizens.
Most of them don’t aim in the first place. Why do you think they hit so many innocent bystanders, and so rarely each other.?
Because it’s an infringement of my rights.
It’s the spirit of the law.
I’ve noticed you skipped, conveniently, over my post. If you find time in your schedule, I’d like a response, please.
On one hand you’re saying the additional magazine capacity isn’t effective because people’s ability to defend themselves isn’t significantly diminished by restricting them (that is - people shouldn’t need the additional rounds). On the other hand, you’re saying they should be used by police because they increase the effectiveness of self defense.
Which is it?
Personally - and this is a matter of philosophy - I’m uncomfortable with the police being more heavily armed than the citizenry. I realize this might sound counterintuitive. But I both want to see a reversal of the militarization of the police - the tendency of every department to want a SWAT team and then seeing every problem as a nail for their shiny new hammer - and because while I fully believe police should have an effective means of defending themselves, they have no more right to defend themselves than regular citizens. Both should be empowered in that regard.
Edit:
It is a topic for another thread but I actually always wondered why cars did not have limiters on them. I just figured the state liked the revenue from speeding tickets but I have no clue really. When the law everywhere was 55MPH it seemed a limiter would make sense though (and admittedly I would not like it).
As for violating the spirit of the amendment I would agree if it was pushed to single-shot only guns. But a lot of our rights in the Constitution are curbed (such as freedom of speech). A limit on magazine sizes to me seems in the same ballpark as that. A curb on a right you possess.
Of course none are “ok” as in “who cares, big deal”. The point is where do we draw the lines to balance rights. We accept deaths from automobiles because they are so damn useful in a variety of ways. We could build cars like tanks to keep everyone safe too. But then the things would cost a fortune and get 1MPG. So we balance it out and people die because of it. I think we all get that concept. So the question here is gun owners have a right to those guns, everyone has a right to life (i.e. not be shot) so where is the balance between the two?
You have a right to a gun. I do not think you have a “right” to a gun that has a 15-shot capacity.
Everyone has a right to life.
If fewer people get shot because fewer bullets are fired then that is a good thing yes? Someone’s right to life it preserved.
So why does your non-existant right to hi-cap mags trump that?
Agreed. And I am trying to give some reasons. If you do not want to defend your position with rational arguments and prefer to take the stance that you need not do anything to show your position is the correct one feel free. Indeed I hope that is exactly what you do.
Nope.
The correct analogy would be I can have all the paper and ink I want but instead of 8.5x11 paper the government is mandating 4x5 paper. Pretty sure that would be fine constitutionally.
My rasputin guy only underscores the fact that one cannot say with any degree of accuracy that they will need X number of bullets to defend themselves. Gun advocates are typically not in the business of pushing more control FWIW, regardless of the reason.
Fundamental difference between us again. I blame the killer, not the tools he used.
More likely than not, yes…
And I am willing to bet that a lot of people will just change their mags to hold more ammo, and I would be happy to demonstrate just how easy that 6 round mag will be changed to a standard capacity mag, thereby defying the very law that created its neutered self.
Answer this question, have you ever tried to reload a semi-auto pistol? Seriously, you push a button, the empty mag drops out and you slam another one home. One does not need to be any more savvy than to watch a shoot-em up movie to figure it out. If you ever cross the Mississippi into Iowa, let me know and I’ll take you to the range and we can shoot. I guarantee you’ll have fun and learn a thing or two.
I told you that the easy reload sword cuts both ways. I can’t justify needing hi-cap mags, since reloads are so easy. You can’t claim that a 6 round mag will have any effect because reloads are too easy.
So I can assume that you are actively debating limits to free speech for people with whom you either do not understand or do not agree with? If not, how many neo-nazi websites are you going to allow in order to keep your own free speech rights pure? That is about how silly I think this argument about limiting hi-cap mags is.
Two nights in a row now, you have given me a headache. Good night.
Criminals will do whatever they think will give them an edge, so if they think a couple extra magazines will help, they’ll carry them. Only, most of them won’t, because the sort of circumstances where magazine size is an issue for the common thug almost never come up. As I pointed out before, the most popular crime guns are low-capacity pistols and revolvers, with the occasional pump-action shotgun thrown in.
The only ones who’ll ever need more than a few shots to do their dirty work are the die-hard gangbangers, and you’d better believe they’ll carry extra mags to their shootouts with rival gangs. Only, they’ll still be carrying the standard capacity mags anyway, because a law against them will do jack shit to get them off the streets. Even if such a law were passed, and you criminalized any and all possession of such magazines, it would take decades to significantly reduce the number of them in criminal hands. (And that’s even assuming it didn’t create a lucrative smuggling trade, or a cottage industry in full-capacity magazines.)
Really, I doubt you’d even get much compliance among the (presently) law-abiding gun owners if your idea became reality. What are you going to do when you create 80 million felons overnight? Nope, I don’t have any high capacity magazines. Lost 'em all in a tragic boating accident. No, you can’t look in that crate in the basement. Have a good day, officer!
You honestly don’t think that government attempts to crack down on the internet or other publishing and typographical equipment would violate that First Amendment? You’re kidding, right? :dubious:
It just seems to me that you have this idea that everything is fair game for government regulation if you can just find some shred of a possible benefit in it. That whole mentality just seems so bizarre to me, and completely irreconcilable with my philosophy regarding the ultimate sanctity of the privacy and autonomy of the individual citizen. I think that’s the cause of a great deal of our inability to find common ground.
It’s interesting, I was just thinking about that. This board has turned more and more leftist over the years - it started that way, but it used to be way more balanced. Part of the issue I think is that Bush and pals alienated a whole lot of people from considering themselves right wing.
Yet in gun debates, as time goes on it seems to me that gun advocacy on these boards is getting even stronger and more popular - even as the board goes further left.
Not trying to make a point with that, just an interesting observation to me.
But for you to engage in your fun some 100,000 people a year have to get injured for it.
Personally I find that a poor tradeoff.
I am not maintaining that lower cap mags will abolish crime. Indeed it probably won’t see any fewer crimes committed at all. What it will do, I think, is diminish the number of people who get shot and I think that is a good thing to strive for.
And yeah, you will have the occasional nutbag who arms himself to the hilt and goes on a rampage. The VAST majority of crimes are nothing like that however and lower cap mags may have an impact.
I agree. And if they have less bullets to shoot then less chance of hitting someone. Sure they can reload but that takes time. Even if just a few seconds that is a few seconds people can dive behind something or to the ground or whatever.
Again, where in the Constitution does it give you rights to a hi cap magazine?
I am a big fan of the spirit of the law but my time on these boards suggests to me it is the letter of the law that counts. I wish it were otherwise but seems to be the case unfortunately.
