This situation has been true since forever though - being trivially easy for criminals to get guns. It’s ONLY recently that every police department and sheriff’s department seemingly has a tactical team, an armored vehicle, and a desire to use them a lot. This is a result of the government giving surplus military equipment to police departments for free, and that is a recent development. It’s something that is worth scaling back, IMO.
Because they are fun. There is something very fun about a large capacity mag and a row of bottles and cans and shooting the entire 30-40 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.
And yes, that fun does result in a few more deaths from Mass shootings- which wouldnt occur in such numbers if we got rid of that pesky 1st Ad and were able to muzzle the media and their glorifying of such killing.
And of course cars that go 140 MPH are fun- and kill people each year. Booze can be fun- and kills people. etc etc, etc,
Reminds me of this bit the comedian Jim Jefferies did on gun control (queued to the relevant bit although it is all good).
I can only speak for myself, but I’ve been shooting for my whole adult life and I’ve never gotten anything out of rapid-fire blasting. I get more satisfaction out of making individual shots count, whether it’s a semi-automatic or a bolt-action rifle.
Maybe it is “fun” for some people, and that’s fine. But saying “that fun does result in a few more deaths” is not how I would want to put it. I think it’s more accurate, and also more rhetorically appropriate, to say that the country has collectively decided that owning these weapons is justified because they are protected by the second amendment.
These shootings wouldn’t occur in such numbers if we got rid of the second amendment; they would occur in far GREATER numbers because of the amount of civil unrest that would be generated if that happened, at least in the America of 2019 and not some hypothetical future America. Whether or not they would occur in greater or less numbers if we got rid of the first amendment is debatable, but I think it’s also pretty clear that’s not going to happen either.
Just to be clear, I am not in favor of any further limitations on the availability of the weapons that are already available. I am in favor of increased ownership requirements in some cases. I am in favor of more widespread background checks. I am NOT in favor of a registry. DrDeth, I think my own position on gun ownership is probably closer to yours than to most others in this thread.
But I would never discuss the consequences of firearms use in terms of “fun”, whether it relates to mass shootings or to any homicide. It’s just the kind of language that is not likely to ever get people from the other side of the aisle to look at things from a different perspective. It sounds too flippant.
I’m not trying to be too pushy about telling you what to do, your choice of words is of course up to you and I’m not trying to take a swipe at you with these comments - I just feel it’s something worth saying.
I wasn’t assuming anything; I was asking other people here their opinion (in hindsight this should have been in IMHO instead of GD).
For the record, I don’t believe any firearm currently available is so deadly that it should be banned from private ownership. Yes, that includes full-auto machine guns. I presume that at some ridiculous level- SF ray guns that could level towns- you’d have to set a limit but I’m not sure where the cutoff would be.
They are convenient as I said. It’s easier to carry a few large capacity magazines than more lower capacity ones. But it’s not necessary, and it’s not going to give you that big an advantage if you are even marginally competent in changing magazines. The really issue, if there is one, is in the action, not the capacity of the magazine.
As for missing them, I wouldn’t miss them at all, since I’m not a gun owner, but the folks who are would. That’s really the point if we set aside all of this horseshit. It’s to chip away at gun owners, to make things a bit more inconvenient, a bit harder or more onerous. It’s not to actually affect in any way, shape or form either regular gun crime or the infrequent mass shootings, because it wouldn’t. Any effect would be lost in the noise of the data, if there even was one, which I doubt. You might get 1 or 2 less deaths a year, but how would you even know or be able to measure it? And, of course, you (the you who are the folks advocating this) wouldn’t even try because proving it had some effect would show it for the fraud it is.
That isn’t what I said, and in fact ironically you go on in the next sentence to disprove your first. There IS a difference, as I noted…it’s just not a huge one. It’s a small one. There is a small advantage in large magazines with respect to carrying…it’s going to be easier to have a pouch full of high capacity magazines than a lot more smaller capacity magazines, though the weight will be very similar, regardless. On the other side of things, high capacity magazines tend to jam more, which can be a pain in the ass to clear. So, you answered your first sentence and your last one yourself, so obviously you didn’t actually need me to say all this. Right?
A standard capacity magazine is better in a defense scenario. That’s why police carry them.
So, it is easier to carry the same amount of ammo in bigger magazines and there is a difference to the shooter.
Which you then try to minimize as all inconsequential. But it really isn’t…but it is…:rolleyes:
You are trying to have it both ways.
I submit that there is an important difference here.
If we look at magazine holsters like this, or this, or this then you can see clearly bigger magazines let you carry more ammo.
Can you jury-rig something to carry more ammo if you are limited by magazine size? Sure. But it will be inconvenient, difficult and more likely to make you stand out.
Can a practiced shooter swap magazines so fast you can’t even see it? Maybe but few will be that practiced. And a couple seconds really can make a difference. I recall a few police training videos I have seen that stressed just how fast an assailant can close a seemingly long distance from you. As in a second or two. That second or two to reload can mean getting in cover or getting out of sight or being able to close with the attacker.
It is wholly disingenuous of you to suggest this is all inconsequential because it isn’t. You are one who argues that if there is not a 100% fix then there is no fix.
My perspective is if that two seconds reloading saves someone it is worth it. Will people still die? Yes. But fewer people will die. Time to reload is time taken from aiming so you need more time to re-acquire the target. If it is spray-and-pray then time to reload is time not spraying.
Further, there is no reasonable argument that says you NEED big magazines for self defense. Can you find real life cases where someone was defending themselves and the difference in saving their life was they had a big ammo magazine in their gun? In war I can see it. In self-defense not so much unless you work for a drug lord.
More or less correct, I dont mind if we require a background check on more transfers, as long as it is available and not expensive.
Why do you think police carry 17 round mags in their service pistols? All of the suppositions about mag pouches are not nearly as compelling as actual data that shows hit rates between 25-40% and 3 hits to incapacitate a threat. All that adds up to more rounds being more effective.
It should be pretty obvious - you’re making the same argument. You think it makes shooters more effective. It certainly does. Both offensive and defensive shooters. But defensive shooters don’t have advance warning to carry multiple magazines with them. They want what they carry to be as effective as possible. Offensive shooters will have time to plan, and in those cases carrying extra mags is a much easier proposition.
Police in other countries do not even carry firearms and manage just fine.
At some point in the past in the US police didn’t carry larger magazines and managed just fine.
Do you have data that shows police that carry larger magazines are more effective?
I’d bet you don’t.
Defensive shooters are wholly out of luck. This is a perpetual fantasy of gun owners defending themselves. Run through potential instances in your head of when the situation calls for you pulling a gun and shooting someone. You’re walking down the street and someone has the drop on you. You are in bed and an intruder wakes you with a gun to your head. And so on.
Most gun self defense scenarios are fantasy. Statistics bear this out too. A gun in the home is more dangerous than no gun in the home. Something gun nuts repeatedly ignore thinking along the lines of automobile drivers. THEY are not a bad driver…everyone else is.
And this is the answer to the OP:
The threshold for a firearm to be too dangerous is owning a firearm. Statistically owning a firearm puts you at more risk than not owning one.
Period.
Full stop.
Everyone just assumes it is the other guy who is a moron that has a gun but they are responsible. Indeed some are and some are not but when deciding policy we can say the common good (as in people not being shot) is damaged by access to guns.
Never said this wasn’t the case. Again, it’s a small difference, which you continue to ignore and handwave.
I’m not trying to have it both ways. You seem to be reading what I write incorrectly. But let’s look at your submission. So, you feel that because there are magazine holders you can hook to your belt, this somehow proves that…well, something about larger magazines. I can’t view all of those, but I managed to get one up so I know what it is you are showing. Know what else you could use to carry your clips? A big man purse slung across the shoulders. Or a gym bag. Either way, whether the clips are 20 rounds, or 30 rounds or limited to 10 rounds, whether you use a man purse or one of your belt loop mag holders or a tactical vest with mags in pockets throughout the vest, you can carry much more ammo than you’d need or be able to use in either a gang land shooting or a mass shooting. And the benefit to either from the higher capacity magazines verse the lower capacity ones are marginal, as it takes very little time to swap magazines.
But let’s take a step back here. Show me the benefit in the data. There are a few states that have magazine limitation laws on the books. The latest one and the poster child for this was in California in 2016, but there were earlier ones tried out (and abandoned) in the past. So…show me the evidence they have had a noticeable effect that isn’t lost in the noise of the data. Seat belt laws and air bags had demonstrable effects when they were put in place. You could see the effect in the data. Show me a similar effect in the data and I’ll be convinced that there is evidence to justify this measure.
No, the problem is I CAN think of several ways to do so, and they aren’t all the difficult or inconvenient. Dude, if I’m going to kill a bunch of folks and break the law you think I’m going to be held back by having to carry ammo in a bag or wear extra belt mag holders?? 
Hell, you could simply tape mags together offset for quick change out. Or do you think that buying some duct tape is too much bother for a mass shooter planning another trip to crazy-ville?
As to the other, you don’t HAVE to swap mags out so fast people can’t follow it. The point of that part of what I wrote is that the Mythbusters, who aren’t gun instructors and just know how to shoot were swapping mags out in less than a 2 seconds without practice, and were able to fire off 3 clips of 10 rounds in less than a minute. The gun instructor was able to do it in less than 20 seconds, IIRC. And both Jamie and Adam were not just dropping the clips to the ground but taking them out, putting them on a table then picking up the next one and seating it.
Now you seem to be realizing that it IS just a second or two and are trying to say that this second or two is going to mean something in a mass shooting event. But it doesn’t, because like the argument your side uses to counter the armed victim pulling his or her gun and engaging and taking out the bad guys, people don’t react well if they aren’t trained. This isn’t Hollywood and most people aren’t going to take that second or two in order to escape and get away, cleverly using concealment and cover to E&E out of the area.
No, it isn’t disingenuous of me to suggest this, it’s a freaking fact. It would be disingenuous of me to suggest this if it wasn’t true. What IS disingenuous is the folks on the gun control side holding this up as something that will have a real effect on preventing gun deaths but showing no evidence that this is so. You haven’t even been able, to my mind at least, to logically demonstrate that having smaller magazines could or would save lives. Hell, your pictures there (at least the one I could see) kind of shows that you can carry and easily access smaller magazines quickly and easily.
What’s also disingenuous is that I never said I or anyone else ‘NEED big magazines for self defense’. I said that regular gun owners and shooters LIKE big magazines because they are convenient and save time at the range. If I plan to shoot 50 rounds for practice then having (2) 20 round clips prepared before I go shooting is less hassle than if I have (2) 10 round clips that I have to reload at the range. In the first case I have to reload 1 mag half way to shoot what I want, in the other I have to reload 3 times. Not a big deal, but still a pain in the ass. But if I’m planning to go on a mass shooting, I’ll probably buy a bunch more 10 round clips, something that I wouldn’t do if I was just going to shoot at the range legitimately. Which is why this annoys gun owners but doesn’t nothing (well, unless you can find that data demonstrating it does) for criminals or crazy mother fuckers.
Which is the actual point of this, IMHO. It’s not really to save lives in the way that seat belts and air bags have demonstrated they did. It’s to make things a little less convenient and a little more difficult for gun owners, sap a little more of the fun out of shooting, and of course play to the faithful who don’t know dick about guns and who think this will obviously do something.
Good! This should be required viewing for the whole gunslinging crowd.
Fun. OK.
Reasoning? 
We do have a thread which looks at America’s guns from a more rational viewpoint. Unsurprisingly, the gunslingers seldom post there.
It’s surprising to you that the ‘gunslingers’ don’t post much in a pit thread that you think is a 'more rational viewpoint (again…IN THE FUCKING PIT) called ‘Stupid Gun news of the day’? Oh, and that is over 100 pages of rants and screes.
Seriously? This surprises you?
Good grief.
Well, they haven’t posted lately in the sacrosanct “Positive” gun use thread either.
Is it in the Pit as well? I assumed that at least part of the ‘gunslinger’ bit was aimed at me, so…I don’t generally post much in the Pit and when I do it’s usually just a few drive by posts, usually more for laughs or just to point and laugh at the OP who has had the tables turned on them in standard SDMB fashion. I certainly don’t usually post to 100 page long rants about stupid gun news of the day…I think the only exception to this was I posted in a rather long thread about Fukushima, but that’s because I was posting a lot in the GD thread that spawned it.
No it’s not in the Pit.
A man purse or gym bag will slow a shooter way down on the reload as they fumble around in a bag slung over their shoulder compared to pulling a clip from a holster.
And we can never have data on whether limiting magazine capacity will have an effect. There is no way to tell if fewer people would have been shot.
But common sense tells me fewer bullets carried to a mass shooting can reasonably mean fewer people shot. Two seconds to reload reasonably means people have two seconds to seek cover. And two seconds is not trivial. “Football players at most positions and average-fit people can run about 20 feet in about 1.5 seconds or slightly less.”
And, as always, a state law is almost worthless if a person can drive to the next state and buy what they want.
The man purse thing (I was actually looking up satchel and saw that term, though it was funny and used it) and gym bag were meant more tongue in cheek, but a satchel wouldn’t slow you down all that much. The point is, a few seconds of thought gives alternatives. And I note you didn’t talk about the simple expedient of just taping two clips together offset and putting those in your clip holster…or just having more clip holsters.
If we can never have data demonstrating an effect then you (or the ones making these rules) are simply guessing, and your guess becomes authoritative since, we can never know. You don’t see any flaws in this line of reasoning? What if we extend that same thought process and methodology to other things…still good?
Common sense tells me that clip size makes a small, marginal difference, and in fact every mass shooting event left lots of ammo available when it was over. Swapping out clips was not a major part of any of the mass shootings that have happened. Most gang land shootings don’t have a bunch of clip changes either, in fact it’s usually just a handful of shots done in a drive by. So, again, clip size is a small, trivial part of this.
I’m unsure why you think your football analogy is relevant. I bet that football players surprised, scared and in the fog of the event aren’t going to be able to run 20 feet at the shooter in the heat of the moment. They are playing a game, and one where they know what is happening. Again, it’s ironic that you are using the same argument that some pro-gun folks use for carry conceal, that people will magically react as they do in a non-stress situation and be able to draw their weapons and engage the bad guy (and not drop their gun, or shoot someone else by accident, or myriad other things).
Anyway, I’m done with this. Clip size is not, IMHO, a rational threshold for a fire arm to be ‘too dangerous’ or not. The difference between a 10 shot clip and a 20 shot clip is marginal from a reload perspective. The real threshold is the action, not the size of the clip. Clip sized is seized on by part of the gun regulation crowd because it’s something they can do, and it is ‘common sense’ to folks like you.
You conflate “Unsurprising” to “Surprises”?
Can you post a copy of some sample logic questions from the test to get a concealed-carry permit? Perhaps they should be toughened up. 