How many of you would be willing to limit magazine capacity to save one child's life?

[Bonhomme Richard]

A simple question which should have a simple answer.
If we can't start there then where do we start?
I am a gun owner and I have had enough. Have you? What will it take for you to have had enough.
Maybe it takes being close to this tragedy. No matter.
- A close friend taught four of those children in pre-school last year
- Another close friend is an ER nurse that waited for patients that never arrived.
- Another friends wife was a close friend of one of the teachers killed.
If shit happens then this nation has a serious case of diarrhea and it's time we stopped giving the fringe unlimited access to laxatives.

[elehhhhna]

1. I am willing, Richard

So sorry - so sad. Peace to you all.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Seems like a great first step.

[bossy22]

3. depending on the limit

i'd be open to such an idea

[RomneyLies]

9. 10 rounds, NO MORE

Being in possession of any magazine that holds more rounds than ten will be in violation of a felony that carries a mandatory minimum of five years in prison for each illegal magazine.

Enough is enough.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. That is about five too many.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

116. I think five is enough, but I could go for ten...

If that's what it takes to get an bill through Congress. Five? Ten? Either is better than what's available now.

[frazzled]

4. Just one life would make it totally worthwhile

In fact in my book, we don't even have to measure it in the number of lives saved: we need to do it for our own dignity. To show we are better than this. To show that we are trying.

[RomneyLies]

5. I'll go further. Anybody who refuses to give them up completely after the ban goes in effect

needs to spend at least five years in prison for each magazine over ten rounds they keep.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Get ready for a thousand sophisms...there's no use conversing with gun nuts

Just defeat them and force the public good on their stupidities. The time for conversation with these useless assholes is over.

[RomneyLies]

10. ^^^ This ^^^ n/t

[Berserker]

14. Assholes well

takes one to know one. Do you think it's us the law abiding citizens who do this shit? Shallow thinking on your part but what else is new.

[RomneyLies]

20. Adam Lanza was law abiding all the way up to the point where he wasn't.

Nancy Lanza was a responsible gun owner all the way up to the point where her son got ahold of her guns and shot up twenty babies.

Enough is enough.

[BainsBane]

25. they were law abiding before they did it

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Just like the guy last week who mistook his daughter for an intruder was law abiding. This kid who shot up the school was law abiding, as was his mother who bought the gun.

Twice as many pre-school age children die from guns as on-duty police. Doesn't that tell you something is seriously wrong? Why do you need hundreds of bullets in a single magazine? Is your bloodthirsty hobby to stockpile any type of weapon more important than the lives of children?

The minute you shoot your gun at another human being, you cease being law abiding. If you intend to obey the law, why do you need the capacity to kill dozens of people at once? No law abiding person needs that. Only mass murderers.

You have a couple of choices. Cooperate in how to improve gun safety while protecting your second amendment rights, or resist it and prepare yourself for the wrath of the entire nation. If you fail to cooperate in coming up with sensible solutions, you can be sure the results with be more draconian.

[quakerboy]

68. According to everyone I have spoken to

The second our government changes anything, such as limiting clip size or outlawing any certain type of gun, all the currently "law abiding citizens" will refuse, thus by definition becoming lawbreaking citizens. So, apparently the law abiding nature of good gun owners is only as deep as their personal convenience.

[Wednesdays]

89. You're anticipating a dozen intruders into your home at once?

Or do you want to make sure a single intruder is dead a dozen times over?

[RC]

99. Excellent observation.

[llmart]

40. Amen!

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Yes.

At least as a first step.

[Chiquitita]

8. I would.

[ohheckyeah]

11. I hope that happens.

I don't even know what capacity magazines are available but anything over 6 seems excessive to me.

[RomneyLies]

15. Here's some idea of what's out there

This would fit the gun that killed the babies in Connecticut and holds ten rounds:



This was what the murderer used in the gun that killed the babies in Connecticut and it holds 30 rounds:



This would fit the gun that killed the babies in Connecticut and holds 60 rounds:



This would fit the gun that killed the babies in Connecticut and holds 100 rounds:

[ohheckyeah]

22. Wow - I had no idea.

I don't think anybody needs those. I have no problem with limiting the capacity of magazines. I have no problem with doing away with concealed carry or gun registration and more thorough background checks.

[justanidea]

50. "I have no problem doing away with concealed carry"

Why?

Considering the fact that the number of concealed carriers that commit a crime is less than one tenth of one percent of the total, it seems a bit silly to want to get rid of it.

[RomneyLies]

58. Because concealed carry is a STUPID FUCKING IDEA????

Maybe if you aren't a paranoid coward you'd be willing to carry openly???

[Lightbulb_on]

75. Open carry is a right but it's silly...

Part of the power of concealed carry is that assholes like the shooter don't know who is a threat to them and who isn't.

Anyone think that it is a coincidence that all of these attacks occur where the shooters reasonably believes no one will be a threat to them?

[RomneyLies]

76. Your wild west wet dream is BULLSHIT

Doesn't happen.

Not one single case has there ever been a mass shooter taken out by somebody else who was armed.

So your shit don't hold water. That NRA talking point is DONE.

[Lightbulb_on]

80. No kidding...

That is the literal exact point I made.

Why has it never occurred that way do you think? Because these cowards will rarely attack a target where there might be other predators.

They choose soft, easy targets where they can get the most damage with little to no risk of anyone confronting them with meaningful force. Same tactics as any IED planting asshole in Afghanistan.

You are literally making my point...

[Wednesdays]

90. And a magazine ban fits in this discussion, how?

[jmowreader]

117. Part of the power of being on the offensive is having the gun in your hands

If we gave one of our number an M-16 and sent that person into a building that had people carrying guns, our person would be watching for anything that looked like someone going for a gun, and they would blow that someone's shit away. Watch that ABC video someone posted here a few days ago - the gun nut always got his shit blown away.

It takes a period of time to react to a threat. If your gun is in the holster, you have to recognize that there is a threat, draw, locate the target, aim and fire. Cops go into a known threat situation with their guns held straight out in front of them for a reason.

[ohheckyeah]

65. I'm from a state and have lived in another state

where you can open carry. If somebody is going to carry I would rather know it.

[leanforward]

57. Why is there even a need for magazines?

What ever happened to bolt action, pumps, and lever action for round reload? These semi- and automatic weapons can be fascinating, but do we really need them.

[RomneyLies]

60. That's how we did it when I was a kid.

Everybody wants their he man macho murder machine these days.

[ManiacJoe]

72. All the action types you just mentioned use magazines.

You need to store the reserve ammo somewhere. Some magazines are box shaped, some are tube shaped. Some of those magazines are detachable, some are not.

Many bolt-action guns have detachable magazines just like the semi-autos have.

[NickB79]

92. You can swap a 10-rd magazine for a new one in probably 5 seconds

The AR-15 is designed so that, when the last round is fired the bolt locks back. You just tap a button on the side of the rifle, and the empty magazine falls free. You then insert a new magazine, hit another button on the side, and the bolt is released, chambering a new round.

Originally, they only used 20-rd magazines in the M-16 in Vietnam; soldiers got very good at switching out magazines very, very fast.

[SpartanDem]

12. Fine with me

[BainsBane]

16. High-death count magazines

Is what we need to call them. The right has gone far by seizing control of terms like "pro-life" and "death tax." We need to learn from their example. High-death count magazines need to be banned.

That is a basic first step that everyone should support. We are told guns are for self-protection rather than killing. You don't need to shoot dozens of rounds to protect yourself. There is no legitimate reason for high-death count magazines.

[RomneyLies]

17. Massacre Magazines

It was coined by a Freeper who's paranoid post found it's way here in a DU thread/

[BainsBane]

26. that works for me too

[derby378]

18. 10 rounds good, 11 rounds bad!!

Connecticut's gun-control laws didn't save those children from that madman. I'm not falling for any "quick fix" or "sure cure" scheme, because none of them work.

[Bonhomme Richard]

21. Then you would do nothing. I got it. n/t

[RomneyLies]

24. He reloaded four times with his 30 round massacre magazines.

Had he been limited to ten rounds per magazine, he would have had to reload a dozen times.

That extra time could save lives.

So to fuck with anybody who opposes this shit. Throw any fucker in prison for a mandatory minimum of five years for each and every magazine over ten rounds they possess.

[NickB79]

93. From what I've heard, he cornered children in classrooms

Blocking the door that they could have used to escape.

He also shot each child 3-11 times EACH.

He could have shot and killed the same number of children, and only reloaded a couple of times, if he needed to conserve ammo.

As I recall, the Virginia Tech shooter used 10-rd magazines and still managed to kill 33 people.

[NNN0LHI]

100. As I recall he had nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines

[BainsBane]

28. Your justifications are no longer acceptable

Should we avoid doing anything to cure or prevent cancer because it won't help a woman who died yesterday? That shooter had high-death count magazines. We are talking about one sensible step. Yet you refuse to consider it. Why? Why do you need to capacity to murder dozens of people at a time?

[derby378]

31. "Sensible," my ass...

You would punish the law-abiding because of the actions of a madman. And I'm not falling for your slanted language, either.

[jeff47]

34. We law-abiding drivers are punished every day because of the actions of bad drivers.

In the form of speed limits.

We law-abiding drinkers are punished every day because of the actions of bad drinkers - we have to show ID.

We law-abiding homeowners are punished every day because of the actions of bad homeowners - in the form of building codes.

And so on.

So unless you're going to argue we need to repeal laws against murder because you never murdered anyone, you really need to think this argument through.

If your objection is something like convenience on a range, then there are simple work-arounds. Such as making it legal for the range to posses extended "clips" - either by holding yours or by supplying them while you are at the range. But the clip stays at the range.

[derby378]

37. Driving is a privilege - gun ownership is a right

How many times do we have to explain this before it finally sinks through? You don't need a license to tell me I'm full of it, either - you have the right to tell me that I'm full of it, and not because the government says you do, but because you just do.

[jeff47]

38. Actually, you seem to have trouble reading the constitiution

There's that part about "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment. We currently have insufficient regulation of our militia, and are simply addressing that.

I eagerly await your next non-sequitur from abandoning your previous argument.

[derby378]

49. Your opinion, and yours alone

Side topic: I have a soft spot for Kirby. That little puffball is something else.

[Tsiyu]

67. It takes a very obtuse soul

to call what happened Friday an "opinion."

20 dead babies are not an "opinion."

Now, you want to argue that those 20 dead babies and six dead heroic women who died saving lots of other babies are not indicative of an UNREGULATED militia?

I'm just trying to make this clear as to where you stand.

OR, are you saying that the massacre Friday was "well-regulated?"



It's not an "opinion" that whatever ragtag bunch of gun-owners are out there shooting school children and movie goers and church goers are not much regulated at all. That's a fact. They are rogue murderers not at all regulated.

The NRA has failed to keep its mighty dragon from slaughtering innocents. It has lost the chance to determine gun policy in America.

Our children should not have to be braver than the politicians.

Victims of gun crimes should no longer bear the sole burden of this social failure. Manufacturers and dealers should now have to share the cost. Our communities cannot afford these horrific slaughters of our young, our young families, our wise teachers. That is not just an "opinion" to me.

One of my own state's legislators was busted driving drunk with a loaded pistol in the car.

Our streets are not safe from our politicians; our schools are not safe from failed policy.

That's in no way just an "opinion."

[BainsBane]

48. human life is a right

One that clearly means nothing to you. Your capacity to commit mass murder is more important than the lives of children. You have made yourself entirely clear.
There is NO reason to have high-death count magazines other than killing as many people as possible. I suggest you reconsider your party affiliation. The Neo-Nazi Party seems like a better fit.

[rbixby]

39. So, as a law-abiding citizen, why do you need a 100 round magazine?

Just curious

[Lightbulb_on]

77. I don't but only because of a tendency to jam...

30 round Pmags usually suffice...

[rbixby]

95. Okay, so then why do you need 30 rounds?

NT

[Lightbulb_on]

98. Work and hobby...

Overlap between the two usually...

[rbixby]

102. What sort of work requires regularly firing off 30+ rounds of ammo

I can understand being in the military, but other than that, I don't see how a job would be interefered with because of a lack of being able to fire 30 rounds at a pop

[Lightbulb_on]

103. Check the avatar...

However, the work is secondary.

I have firearms because that is what I believe is required of me as a grown, responsible adult to fulfill the responsibilities I believe are important.

[rbixby]

107. And what are those responsibilities?

I'm just wondering because of what seems like an intentional lack of specifics.

[Lightbulb_on]

109. In my community as well as LEO and others...

... we call it being a sheepdog.

Basic bell curve.

Small percentage of violent assholes on one side (Wolves) . Large majority of neutral people who can't or won't act when they see violence (Sheep). Small percentage who are actively offensive and defensive and will come to the aid of others (Sheepdog).

Running towards the sound of gunfire/screams/death and destruction as opposed to away from it (can apply to Military, LEO, first responders or anyone with the right attitude)

We often seem silly or macho to some but it is what is personally important to me.

[BainsBane]

46. in other words you don't give a fuck about the lives of children

So fuck you and your gun idolatry. I can't begin to contemplate the kind of selfishness that prompts you privileges your deadly games above the lives of innocent children. You don't want to cooperate in gun control. We will do it without you. Since human life means nothing to you, you and your kind mean nothing to me. I don't give a fuck about your so-called gun rights. The constitution can be changed.

[BainsBane]

51. how is it punishment

to restrict access to weapons of mass destruction? The issue is preventing more deaths. We have mass murders every two weeks in this country. Haven't you noticed? Or don't you fucking care?

[tblue37]

59. Why do you consider a 10-round magazine limit

to be "punishment"? Why do you need so desperately to be able to shoot more times without reloading that a 10-round limit feels like punishment to you?

[RomneyLies]

61. I have to take off my shoes every time I fly because of the FAILED actions of one mad man

You should lose your massacre magazines because of the SUCCESSFUL actions of MULTIPLE madmen.

[peacebird]

79. Bingo!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

88. Your hobby is now more important than the lives of 20 children

I don't think you're correct about that, and I don't believe your NRA talking points are welcome here.

[pnwmom]

30. You're right.

That's why we need strict FEDERAL laws. Otherwise, people in states with strict laws will simply buy their ammunition and guns from states with loose laws.

[derby378]

32. That, too, is just another "quick fix" scheme

Lest we forget, Columbine happened in the shadow of a restrictive Federal ban. Time for us to evolve new ideas, not rehash old, unconstitutional ones.

[jeff47]

35. Your current ideas require the sacrifice of 20 children.

In the light of that, I don't find those ideas compelling.

I'd suggest that you start listing some new ideas of your own. We'll be able to compare them against the ideas every other first-world nation has adopted, where there are fewer gun deaths.

[pnwmom]

36. No, that ban had a loophole large enough to drive a gun show through.

Effective laws wouldn't have exceptions for private sellers.

There is nothing unconstitutional about gun regulations. In fact, the constitution says that the purpose of allowing guns is a well-regulated militia.

[RomneyLies]

62. This time, we're doing it right

Five years mandatory minimum in prison for every magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds possessed.

ALL Semi-automatic high power weapons illegal. Possession is a felony with a twenty year minimum. Cosmetic shit be damned. Functionality is what will be illegal.

The SCOTUS has ruled, banning certain types of arms is well within the constitutional power of the federal government.

Gun uts started mass killing babies on Friday. The line was finally crossed. ENOUGH!

[ManiacJoe]

74. This is why topic-knowledgeable people are needed to write the laws.

"ALL Semi-automatic high power weapons illegal."

I assume your intent is to ban weapons like the one used in CT. Unfortunately, since the .223/5.56mm round is not high-powered, any rifle using it is not high-powered; thus the AR-15 and its copies/clones/derivatives remain legal by your wording.

[SheilaT]

19. Count me as one who

thinks it's more than time to severely limit access to guns and ammunition. Severely. Start by licensing every gun. Require regular re-registration. All gun owners must pass some kind of safety and knowledge test at reasonable intervals, no more than every five years. The gun owners are forever responsible to the guns registered to them, so that if one is stolen from them and later used to kill someone, they bear some responsibility.

Our lawmakers are willing to lock people up for life because of the "Three strikes" laws, which mostly put away nonviolent offenders. Well, all of this murdering has to stop.

Most other countries do not allow such wanton gun ownership. We do, coupled with a culture of violence, a glorification of murder, that result in things like what happened yesterday. And a lot of people here are saying that the murderer in this case should have had mental health care. That may well be true, but he should not have had such easy access to guns.

[laundry_queen]

71. This. nt

[Marrah_G]

23. What we need is our Congress to be willing

We need for Congress to be more afraid of US then they are of the NRA

[Kaleva]

27. I would. Limit long gun detachable magazines to 5 rounds.

[undeterred]

29. Zero capacity is fine with me.

Melt them all down and get rid of them.

[napoleon_in_rags]

33. I'm fine with it.

The real question to me is this: Can I make my own SAM? Can I make my own drones with kill capacity? Can I convert a gun to full auto? Can I have my own WMDs? No, no, no, and NO. So as a society, the right for the individual to bear arms has clearly diverged from the idea that an individual is entitled to military defense capabilities. The individual's right is basically for short term home defense, and hunting. Both of these can be accomplished with old fashioned guns, like double barreled shotguns.

[Lightbulb_on]

41. Slippery slope for me, so no...

If it saves one life, would you give up freedom x. This isn't gun specific but rather a statement against that method of debate.

Life is messy and so is freedom.

[Bonhomme Richard]

44. Is there a specific freedom to rounds per second with unlimited capacity?

I don't think the "Life is messy and so is freedom." meme would be a big seller at the funerals.

[Lightbulb_on]

78. It's an easy and lazy argument to make...

How many lives would be saved if we all wore helmets and knee pads everywhere and got rid of all cars, tobacco, fatty foods, swimming pools, zoos, scissors , pets , camping trips, sports etc... Etc... Etc...?

[Kingofalldems]

110. Holy shit.

[Lightbulb_on]

112. Close enough...

[Honeycombe8]

42. First, tell us what a magazine is. Then I'll tell you what I think about limiting it.

Is that like a clip?

[ManiacJoe]

70. Definitions: see the link.

http://www.knewance.com/comparisons/clip-v-magazine.html

[Honeycombe8]

113. I already found out in the meantime. But thanks. And I think that's a great idea. nt

[Bonhomme Richard]

43. There is no given right to how many rounds....

you can get off in 5 seconds.
The law already states that there is a limit to arming yourself ie rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons.
What truly amazes me is the callousness of the true believers. They are a collective stain in the nations underwear.

[TheKentuckian]

45. I am for magazines compatible with the design of the fire arm per the manufacturer

I personally like 10 or less but some guns handle more reliably.

[BainsBane]

47. the so-called "Democratic" gun lovers have spoken

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:43 AM - Edit history (1)

They will not limit the size of massacre magazines. They insist on the capacity to commit mass murder. Children's lives mean nothing to those who refuse to consider any limitations on weapons of mass destruction. Thank you to any of the gun owners who are willing to work on solutions to the problem.

[Ilsa]

52. I could easily limit size of magazines,

Tax the hell out of ammo, fully fund the database creation, and close the gunshow loophole. We don't need weapons that are for armies.

[ComplimentarySwine]

53. Would you be willing to ban cars if it could save one child's life?

Because last time I checked, cars kill a lot more people than guns every year.

[renie408]

55. Seriously?

What are you, like, TWELVE? That's your argument?

No..wait..a twelve year old could do better than that.

Jeez.

[ComplimentarySwine]

56. So is that a no?

Who gets to decide what to ban, and what luxuries are worth the life of one or more children?

[Mass]

63. Hopefully not you, as your selfishness is clear.

There are laws to protect children's life in cars, starting by car seats and car belts. A kid cannot drive a car, even if daddy wants him to (at least not legally). And there are speed limits.

So speed limits, but no limits to ammunition? Really?

[ComplimentarySwine]

66. Clearly the regulations governing cars aren't stopping the mass killing of children

Maybe they should have a governor on them to limit their top speed, or maybe even some sort of screening process to bar anyone who has ever committed a felony or had a history of mental illness. Not to mention that the right to drive isn't enumerated in the constitution.

[Mass]

94. You just earned your place on my ignore list.

[XRubicon]

69. I'll say this slowly so you can understand

Cars are used to travel by millions of people every day... Is your brain getting warm? I know it's a lot to take in. Why dont you lay down for a while.

[_ed_]

85. The NRA thanks you for your help spreading their talking points

.

[Flatulo]

54. Absolutely, I would say 5 rounds is sufficient for home defense or hunting.

But, this would have to have teeth in it. Turn in your high capacity magazines, or face 5 years in prison.

Commit a crime with any type of firearm, mandatory 10 years, no chance of parole.

Edited to add: possession of more than 2 such magazines is punished by 5 years in prison. If you can't bag some game or defend your home with that much power, you need shooting lessons anyway. Besides, anyone in their right mind would retreat or break off any attack at the sight of an armed citizen pointing a rifle or pistol at their chest.

[krispos42]

64. How many of you would be willing to give up personal privacy to save on child's life?

I swear to god, DU is has felt like the post-9/11 mindset that infected the country in the wake of the terrorist attack.


If these sorts of arguments were stupid and callous and manipulative when Bush and Cheney and DeMint and McConnell were invoking it to justify warrantless wiretaps and extraordinary rendition and torture and invasion, then it's certainly the same now.

[Azathoth]

73. I'd certainly be willing. But there is one problem:

I don't think it's going to do much good, if any at all. So we ban extended clips, like we did under AWB. Then another Columbine happens, just as it did under AWB. And what happens? We go through the same wailing and rending of clothes and furious condemnations and demands that we "do something" all over again. And so we find something else to ban, and on we merrily go.

[kooljerk666]

81. All guns clip/mags over 10 rounds=JAIL

This still allows pretty awesome fire power.............

The Glocks & other 19-21 shot pistols are worse percentage wise than AR-15/AK47 killings.

AR15/AK47 style guns have no use other than killing.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

82. I am willing to repeal all CCW laws... nt

[raccoon]

83. I would! nt

[melm00se]

84. asbestos long johns in place

This entire discussion is why the cliche "act in haste repent at leisure" exists.

Decisions, specifically legislative ones and especially ones that impact what has been deemed a civil right, made in the heat of the moment have been historically bad decisions.

2 examples:

The Patriot Act was a law rushed into being in the panic following the September 11th attack in an attempt to "protect" us. I think the vast majority of folks here say that law was a disaster and a decade later are still dealing with the fall out of this disaster.

Go back 70 years and you have the Executive Order 9066 because of the perceived threat of folks of Japanese ancestry.

[Bonhomme Richard]

86. It simply amazes me that people still come up with an argument.....

that it shouldn't be discussed.
That just the act of discussion somehow takes all the guns away.

[Bonhomme Richard]

87. Hell, I'm not even talking about taking the "Assault Weapons" away.

What I am saying is that with smaller magazines maybe, just maybe a few more people could get the fuck out of the way before the shooting starts again or maybe the person could be stopped entirely. Just maybe.
Think about it.

[Wednesdays]

91. I'm all for this, but there's one problem

If magazines are limited to say, ten rounds, then instead of one magazine with a hundred rounds, a mass killer would just carry ten magazines with ten rounds. It might slow them down a little bit, but it doesn't take that long to re-load.

Perhaps there can be a way to prevent fast re-loads?

[Bonhomme Richard]

97. "It might slow them down a little bit" that alone would be....

worth the inconvenience to me.
It is also a beginning.

[Union Scribe]

111. I don't know the specifics but

I think California has a requirement that seriously slows down the magazine swapping process on rifles. A bullet button I think it's called, and you have to use a bullet head or another tool to release the magazine iirc.

[NickB79]

96. The Virginia Tech shooter used a lot of 10-rd magazines

And still managed to kill 33 people by doing frequent reloads of his handguns.

While I don't have a problem with limiting magazines to 10-rd capacity, I just don't think that there's any proof that doing so would save any lives. The guy at Sandy Hook shot each child 3-11 times EACH. With an AR-15 against such small little bodies, one shot is fatal. If he was really concerned about reloading and limited to 10-rd magazines, he'd only need to bring a few extra ones with him to do the same level of damage.

[TexasBushwhacker]

108. Maybe we need to also ban the sale of additional magazines

Maybe you should only get the mag that comes with the gun. Do you really need more than 10 rounds for self defense, target shooting or hunting? NEED, not want?

[NickB79]

115. Magazines fail, some quite frequently

I had a bolt-action .22 magnum that absolutely failed to feed with the factory-supplied magazine if you loaded more than 3 rounds in it. I got a new magazine, and it also was finicky. I finally found an aftermarket maker that had good magazines, so I bought a few. Over time, the spring wore out in one, so it too started to have feeding and jamming problems. I sold that gun and the remaining 2 magazines.

Magazines are simply a collection of metal, plastic and springs. They wear out just like everything else.

[kwolf68]

101. For 43 years I was staunchly opposed to gun control

But I am so sick of this shit. I am fed up seeing innocent children being rolled out of their schools on a gurney.

[upaloopa]

104. I would like to see all AR types any Glocks and 9mm what have you

banned. We should not have guns that can kill 20 people in a minute or two. That is not self defense. And we certainly get along without hunters and target shooters having them. I want our schools and public parks free from guns. Yes criminals will be there on ocassion but we need to prosecute them to the fullest. I would like to see PSAs on TV against gun ownership. Not historical guns or black powder or hunting rifles but we should shun those who want to own the killing machines.

[exboyfil]

105. Suspender and belt approach

Make everyone happy/angry -

*Armed LEO or equivalent at every school - lets bring our troops home as part of this solution to do this work
*Allow CCW in "No Gun Zones" with substantial penalties for the gun coming out of the holster without a just cause including allowing your gun to be taken away from you by someone else whether it is used or not
*Limit semiautomatic to 10 rounds (or 5) with penalties on larger magazines as noted
*A more extensive and standardized CCW permit course including armed combat simulation (or make this a feature of a more restrictive CCW license that would allow you to carry into a "No Gun Zone&quot CCW applicant to pay for the cost of the course (note this is no different than requiring truck drivers to get additional certifications)

Whatever is done please ignore the ergonomic features of the guns - they mean nothing.


Now is everybody happy and/or angry

[relayerbob]

106. Zero rounds sounds about right

[PA Democrat]

114. Yes!

[jmowreader]

118. This is a bandage where a tourniquet is needed

I don't want to sound belittling, but have you ever fired an M-16 or any of the civilian variants?

Two things conspire to make capacity limits useless, as the Virginia Tech shooter can attest.

A combat rifle is designed to be operated with one hand. With your right hand wrapped around the pistol grip you can work the trigger and magazine release with your index finger, and the bolt release and selector switch with your thumb. It takes very little time to learn to work these controls very quickly. Eighteen-year-old kids at basic training learn it every day.

The M-16 has very little recoil. At short range you can get lots of hits firing singlehanded. So, if you were of the mind to do some wholesale slaughter and all you could get were 10-rounders, a gym bag with a shoulder strap will hold all you'll ever need. You can slaughter with the right hand, reload with the left.

If you want to stop people from committing wholesale slaughter with Semiautomatic Rifles Available To Civilians That Look Just Like Rifles Issued to Infantrymen (if you call 'em assault rifles the gungeon points out they're not selective-fire) you don't bellyache over magazine capacity, you get firearms with detachable magazines out of the hands of the general public.