General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAs a gun owner and a former member of the NRA I have arrived at the opinion that there should be
stricter laws for the purchase of guns and at least some of the assault weapons ban should be put back in force. As far as the so called assault weapons themselves not so much but magazine capacity should be limited to maybe 5 rounds. The gun proponents claim that you need more that 5 rounds to target shoot or hunt is just bogus BS. Myself I have a Springfield 40 cal. and out of the box it came with two 16 round magazines. Counting a round in the chamber I could fire off 33 rounds in as many seconds in a crowded theater just like the nut in Colorado. He had two Glocks that are similar to the Springfield and I suppose several loaded magazines for both of them. They say he had a 100 round magazine in his AR15 in my opinion that is just ridiculous and should be outlawed. Another argument the gun proponents give is well if everyone had a gun someone could have taken him out is bogus. Colorado has about the most lax gun laws in the USA, where were all those CCW holders at the other night? I bet hiding under the seats or knocking people down trying to get to the exit door.
Will police officers also be required to limit their handguns to 5 rounds?
After all, if these "Large capacity" magazines are only good for mass murder, then obviously the police don't need them since they are not in the business of mass murder (at least they're not supposed to be).
doc03
(35,143 posts)needs one to hunt or target shoot.
If an officer can't take down his/her target in 5 rounds they need to have their gun taken away, not more chances.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And avoid like a plague the FBI stats on rounds discharged by law enforcement in shootings.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)doc03
(35,143 posts)a nut job from the from the NRA needs a 100 round magazine for deer hunting.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Even cops need more than that and sometimes so do nonleo civilians.
Kennah
(14,115 posts)There's more reasons for a private citizen to carry spare mags.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)that most states (can't think of a single one that doesn't) limit hunting magazines to 5 rounds now.
Kaleva
(36,145 posts)Extremely rare are the occurrences where a person expended numerous rounds in self defense or in defense of his/her home. From most of the stories I've read, just a few rounds were fired in such instances.
From the 1999 Firearms Fact Sheet
"* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker."
http://gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
According to the above, in the vast majority of instances where a gun is drawn in self defense, a single bullet was adequate.
In the below where a NYPD study was discussed, it was found that officers fire an average of 8 shots in an encounter.
"The new "average" number of rounds fired is eight. Subsequent data may alter that number, but that is what we have now. What jumps out at me is that, after eight rounds are fired, the parties separate or accommodate to the point where additional shooting is not necessary, at least in the short term, even though the officer is fully capable of firing more rounds. NYPD shooting accuracy has improved steadily, but the average hit percentage is still below twenty, so, out of eight rounds fired, only one or two are likely to impact anywhere on the suspect. In most cases, hit or not, the suspect disengages and runs away. "
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2000/20Dec00.html
Rule of fours;
Conflict resolution is within,
Four yards or less,
Four seconds or under,
four rounds or less.
I've been searching but have yet to find articles which tell of instances where a person drew a gun in self defense but was killed or wounded because he didn't have enough ammo but I have yet to find such.
klook
(12,134 posts)according to the statistics cited on the gunowners.org site.
Good info. Thanks.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Specifically, North Hollywood, 1997.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Why did all these bullets fly from both sides?
A tiny bit of green pieces of paper.
If the officer can't take down the target in five shots they have no business even opening fire. They may not be able to stop the criminals from firing, but adding dozens of their own bullets really doesn't help.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Perhaps this time you'll notice that the .40/9mm guns they issued to police didn't penetrate the body armor of the assailants.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)I also read they were seriously outgunned. etc etc etc.
So since they can't take them down with 5 shots due to armor, they should be permitted to shoot an additional what 20, 40, 500 more shots until they fall?
Gimme a break, they were bits of green paper the police were protecting. You seriously think that justifies an exponentially stupid number of their bullets to fly?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yep just the money. No people already shot by the robbers.
Maybe if you just shout more you can drive people away from your precious, precious guns.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)I'm advocating for limiting the capacity for police....
And yes, the bits of green paper were all they were really protecting. The people were injured, certainly sending more bullets through the air will help those victims.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)...which is a perfectly valid reason for non-LEO folks to carry them as well. Afterall, criminals mostly victimize non-LEO folks.
Standard capacity mags, for those who don't know, for most pistols are those that don't stick out of the pistol grip. For most full size 9mm handguns that can range between 13 - 19. Fewer for larger diameter cartridges. The standard mag for rifles like AR15s is 30 rounds.
5 is a ridiculous low number given real-world self-defense practicalities.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is considered extended and only for law enforcement use in some states. (California for example)
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)And yes, that police are exempt shows that standard capacity magazine >10 rounds have legitimate self-defense utility.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Some police need their asses kicked, but for most part we aren't a war with police.
kooljerk666
(776 posts)In The Gravest Extrememe, by Massad Ayoob was the definitive guide to combat hand gunning. In the 80's the average gun battle was less than 3 shots.
My understanding was after glock & other large ammo capacity pistol gained popularity cops switched from .357 mag revolvers to 9mm 18 shot glock & others.
9mm proved so weak look what happened..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
If cops/FBI had existing 1911 .45 acp or 357 revolver they would not have had so many killed.
Large capacity pistols more than 7 shot .45 are useless unless u are attacked by a pack of bunnies. The 10mm & 40 cal are not as powerful as the .45 & 9mm is good for stuff 5 pounds or less.
I am about 30 years out of date, but an m1 garand rifle & and .45 acp is all the fire power any one needs.
The .357 magnum revolver, over 80% fatal w/ 1 shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum#Performance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_.45_Pistol
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)What do you "win" in that fight?
JeepJK556
(56 posts)But if standard pistol capacity (13-17 rounds typically) is considered necessary for the police to adequately defend themselves, why should us lowly citizens be forced to make due with 5?
Are our lives less valuable?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Or maybe a zombie attack where you take out one and the others don't run away,...they just keep coming and coming...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You've seen their "gubbermint comin' to take mah gunz" fantasies.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)those new laws, then I'll support them, until then, no thanks.
doc03
(35,143 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)because a whacked out POS buys firearms legally and then uses them illegally, the rest of the legal gun owners should pay a price for it?
Thanks but no thanks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What do you use a 100 round magazine for? I mean, seriously.
And I ask this as a gun owner.
permatex
(1,299 posts)that capacity mag., IMHO, shouldn't be banned but you should have to go through the same process as getting a silencer or a class 111 weapon.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I can see it in a movie set, maybe (given the technical issues why they are seldomnly used by experts) with SWAT...but civilians?
And no, civilians, outside very specific people, don't need a silencer either.
permatex
(1,299 posts)not needing to reload so many times at a shooting range.
As far as the silencer, it cuts down on noise pollution, saves wear and tear on the ears. In Norway it's required for a suppressor to be used while hunting.
I hope your not buying into the Hollywood version of a silencer where the weapon makes hardly any noise, because their version is pure bullshit.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That's absurd.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Just because you say it's absurd doesn't make it so.
Prove me wrong. Here's my proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor
Now show your proof of your statement.
GoneOffShore
(17,308 posts)them for hunting - Just that suppressors can be bought by anyone.
permatex
(1,299 posts)or is this your answer
dionysus
(26,467 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But no, they don't belong in hands of civilians, either of them
As to protect your hearing, why we got eyes and ears.
permatex
(1,299 posts)are they wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And also do point out the national stats of death by firearm in those countries.
permatex
(1,299 posts)What does the national stats of death by firearms in those countries have to do with it. Matter of fact, we seemed to have gotten off topic which often happens with the subject of firearms and I am just as guilty as anyone else.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)There is a direct correlation between how strict or not gun ownership laws are, and death rates by them, even in the us by the way.
permatex
(1,299 posts)what does that have to do with the use of a suppressor for hunting?
Am I missing something here?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or lack of it... But I guess we'll agree on this one when he'll freezes over
permatex
(1,299 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)doc03
(35,143 posts)argument to steer us away from the 100 round magazine. Strawman thingy
EX500rider
(10,517 posts)No, no there's not.....see Mexico, Jamaica, Switzerland, Vermont, D.C., El Paso etc...
GoneOffShore
(17,308 posts)Maybe someone altered the Wikipedia entry after you posted it?
permatex
(1,299 posts)It's not a requirement, but is recommended to reduce noise pollution and hearing damage.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)get you laughed at by any serious target shooter.
Most serious target shooters, other than skeet, would laugh at anything more than a single shot.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Two strings each. Need at least a five round capacity for magazines.
Bullseye shooters take their target shooting seriously.
The defensive pistol sports need more capacity.
100 round magazines? Don't ask me why anyone would want one. A 100 round .223 magazine holds $40 worth of ammunition. At 1 round per second (not impossible) You could empty it in one minute forty seconds. That's an expensive two minutes.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)that is already not available to most civilian shooters?
You aren't going to buy one of those at Sportsman's Warehouse
rl6214
(8,142 posts)They are not meant nor do they hide the position of the shooter.
In France they are required for hunting.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I'd venture to say hardly any.
About 300 people are killed with rifles of all kinds every year. Twice as many are killed by hands and feet. Do we really need a law against a device that is hardly ever used in crime?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That a100 round magazine belongs everywhere?
Mad max comes to mind, in that case though, I would rather have a mini gun.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)What I'm suggesting is that they are probably hardly ever used in crimes, and thus there is little justification for any laws concerning owning them.
Especially considering they cost in excess of $250 a piece.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Some gun owners are..common sense remedies, limits on size of magazines and universal background checks are giving peope tummy aches.
Given how powerful the NRA is, mass shootings are now the new normal, and will remain such for the foreseable future.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)What would be reasonable is if these kinds of magazines were regularly used in crime to consider limiting access to them.
That would be reasonable.
What is not reasonable is for one high-profile crime to occur with them and them prohibit anyone else from having them. That is not reasonable.
I have no problem with universal background checks, even universal licensing, so long as it preserves anonymous firearm ownership and I can buy firearms through mail order again.
Given how powerful the NRA is, mass shootings are now the new normal, and will remain such for the foreseable future.
Normal would imply that they occur regularly. They don't.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And the frequency is increasing.
But have an excellent day, walls do come to mind, but thank you for making the point.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Right?
You have data that $250+ 100-round magazines are being increasingly used in crime?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Are happening.
Have an excellent day. No ammount of evidence will be sufficient to those who hate the idea of even reasonable measures.
On the bright side, we will be back, at next mass shooting.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Well if you provide nothing, you aren't off to a very good start.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In this particular case involving fire arms.
Don't worry, we'll have more and more and more and more of them.
Enjoy.
Trying to cut at the head reasonable measures, may lead to your worst nightmare... Not in my lifetime.
I expect these to be the new normal, and your attitude is one of the reasons for it.
Go to the new Yorker, they have a link for ya.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)No matter how wrong they are, which is...pretty much all the time.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)many people are killed by rifles each year.
But as for the number killed by guns each year, you are off by a factor of 100.
Please provide a link referencing your number for those of us that would like to educate ourselves.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Check the FBI UCR.
About 300 people are killed by all rifles every year. About 600 are killed by hands and feet.
Over the last decade, there have been between 10,000 and 13,000 firearm-related homicides every year.
And since the 1990s, violent crime has declined every year.
WISQARS is also a useful resource.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr/
doc03
(35,143 posts)down 70 people in less than 2 minutes. I suggest you take a poll of the victims and the survivors of that slaughter and see what they have to say about it..
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Yes, so we have one example so far. Want to create laws based on one example?
I suggest you take a poll of the victims and the survivors of that slaughter and see what they have to say about it..
Do you really expect an unbiased response from that poll?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however note it was not 100 round clip it was a 25 round clip for a "9" and the answer was 5that when at the gun range it hurts his hand after a while to keep changing clips every 6 shots
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Purely.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It is not necessary and it wouldn't bother me if they were banned but I enjoy mine at the range.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)evilhime
(326 posts)and went through the gun permit process in NY . . . not easy but I really felt it was worthwhile. I might loosen up a thing or two in the county where I lived, but otherwise I felt it was appropriate. Honestly I don't think there is ever a civilian reason for a 30 or 50 or 100 round magazine/drum... Those that say they need it for hunting (with an assault rifle? Really???) need to spend more time honing their skill. The spray from that much fire power IF it even hit the target would render it unusable IMO. I don't think it's a price to pay banning assault military style weapons from the average citizen. As another member said, a self-loading pistol or rifle can fire off plenty without an automatic spray. Just sayin' . . .
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if you need to shoot that much, that fast, you are spraying an area with bullets, unsafe for anyone else around and...
a hell of a lot of lead into the environment.
you don't need a 100 rnd drum for hunting, but the upside is if you miss with that many bullets, at least you'll get your game because it probably died laughing at how bad a shot you are.
doc03
(35,143 posts)count. If you need more than 5 rounds in a gun to hit a target you shouldn't be shooting one.
bayareaboy
(793 posts)But what price do you have to pay by taking a good bead on your target whether it is game or a target.
the public and those folks that use six-guns want to know
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)because a bunch of people who like guns want to own them the rest of our society must live under the constant threat of being victims of gun violence.
There needs to be a balance. Ever since W allowed the assault weapon ban to expire things have been out of balance. Going back to the same laws we had for those ten years would not end freedom in our country, that has already been proven since we have already lived through it.
permatex
(1,299 posts)he said if it made it to his desk, he would sign it, it was the congress that let it sunset, the proponents of renewel had 10 years to make their case for renewal and they failed miserably.
The AWB did nothing to reduce crime, all it did was ban certain cosmetic features on weapons, it never banned weapons.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)We can argue the semantics of banning pistol grips and banning guns that have pistol grips forever and we won't agree. To me you can't ban a portion of a thing. If a feature of the weapon is not allowed then the weapon is not allowed. Yes, you can make a similar weapon without that feature but it is a different weapon.
permatex
(1,299 posts)it banned the manufacture of new hi cap mags, there were millions already in circulation and the manufacturers produced millions more before the ban took effect. You could still buy the hi cap mags, they were just a little more expensive.
How would an pre-ban AR-15, with bayonet lug, flash suppressor be any different to a AWB AR-15 w/o bayonet lug, flash suppressor?
They both shoot the same exact round, both take the same exact mag..
Please do some research before stating something as fact.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)You are playing games with semantics. I never claimed that it tried to go out and confiscate existing weapons or magazines.
How are the old ones and the new ones different? In the number available. By allowing more to be made and sold you put more out there and increase the odds of some nut job getting his hands on one. Older weapons will eventually have their number decline. Some will either need repair or be confiscated by law enforcement. Keeping the flow of new weapons available reverses this inevitability.
The fact is that this guy went out and bought brand new weapons. He would not have been able to get his hands on the AR-15 or the magazine as easily if they had still been banned. If he had walked out of that store with a hunting rifle that only held 6 rounds then far fewer people would have been killed.
I'm not saying there is any perfect solution. Arguing that because we can't eliminate the threat means that we can't mitigate the threat or reduce the damage done is not rational.
spin
(17,493 posts)however the high capacity magazines were very expensive.
Prior to the ban few of the shooters that I knew had much interest in owning a "plastic rifle." A few decided to buy one after the ban was implemented because anytime anything is "banned" it becomes more interesting and cool to own. Those individuals found that the 'black rifles" were accurate, reliable and amazingly easy to modify with numerous aftermarket accessories.
Soon most of the shooters that I knew decided to purchase an "assault rifle" and also at least two or three high capacity magazines for their new toy.
The only two things that the "ban" accomplished was first to make a relatively unpopular category of firearms a top seller and second to cause gun owners to fear draconian gun laws and bans.
It is also unfortunately true that the AWB led to many Democrats losing close elections to Republicans simply because of the gun control issue. I believe that Bush the Younger would never have been elected to his first term let alone his second had it not been that many gun owners showed up at the polls to vote for the candidate they felt was the most pro-RKBA.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)1) Another "assault weapons" ban, if similar to the first, would be only a feel good law that would do little or nothing to reduce the number of these weapons in civilian hands. In reality it would probably cause their sale to skyrocket.
2) If the law was mainly pushed by the Democratic Party it could lead to the loss of seats in both houses of Congress for Democrats. Another "assault weapons" ban could also give a future true pro-RKBA Republican candidate for President a significant edge as there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation, the majority of whom oppose gun bans. (McCain was not popular with gun owners but Obama was such a charismatic candidate that the gun control issue was largely irrelevant. Romney also has a problem with gun owners and he has been on both sides of this issue just as he has on any and all issues.)
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)As for (D) paying a political price then so be it. If we don't stand for something then we stand for nothing. It is entirely possible that no price is paid at all. I think most people who are willing to change their vote based on this would end up voting for (R)s anyways. They play the "Obama is gonna take your guns" card so often that we may as well try some basic common sense legislation and debate it openly. It might even counter the scare tactics.
spin
(17,493 posts)I will agree with your statement "I think most people who are willing to change their vote based on this would end up voting for (R)s anyways."
I have often talked to gun owners who agreed with many of the views of our party but have told me that they would NEVER vote for a Republican as they believe that all Democrats wish to implement draconian gun laws. Since they enjoy the shooting sports and often have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby they do show up at the polls to vote. When you considered that there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation, many who are one issue voters, how many close elections have we lost over the gun control issue?
You may have many good reasons to oppose firearms but it is unfair to expect that all Democrats feel as you do. You may take a strong stand on this issue which is your right but do not expect everybody in our party to support you.
I will agree that we need to and should improve the gun laws in this nation. We probably differ considerably on what we would call "basic common sense legislation." For example I feel that an NICS background check should be required to purchase any firearm in this nation which is actually a stronger plan than simply closing the "gun show loophole" often advocated by our party and the Brady Campaign.
When I sell my one my firearms I have to personally know the person who is buying it and he/she has to have a concealed weapons permit. Yesterday my son in law asked me if I had a firearm I would sell to one of his good friends. I really don't know this individual and since he doesn't have a valid carry permit I would never sell a firearm to him even if I did have one I wished to sell (which currently I don't).
It appears that you wish to implement another "assault weapons" ban or at least a prohibition on high capacity magazines. I feel such ideas would accomplish little and in fact the effort to pass such laws would cost our party dearly.
I could point out that while violent crime is a an important issue in our nation it has dropped to levels last seen in the 60s.
Crime in the United States
Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.
In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
We face far more important problems in this nation. We need to reelect Obama as Romney would be a catastrophe and we need to get more seats in Congress. The gun control issue has been a ball and chain attached to the ankle of our party.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and I don't think that some watered down common sense legislation would hurt us. I believe part of the problem is that we run away from it. If we discussed it openly and honestly then some of the lies might be dispelled.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)would go out of business, or stick with military production rather than private militias, citizens, etc.
There should be a tax on guns to cover cost of shootings, and those that carry should be required to have insurance.
permatex
(1,299 posts)BTW I do carry insurance, it's a rider to my home owners insurance.
We already pay a tax, just not the tax you would like to see.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And the off chance you might be a victim of it.
You're accepting these shootings, which occur now and then, as a risk?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...since criminals just disobey them anyway.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Laws are enacted to deter not prevent, so tell me how these laws would prevent criminals from acquiring firearms.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)
...sez you. Yet laws are enacted for both reasons, depending upon the law and the area it addresses. For example, the famous Glass-Steagall law was enacted specifically to prevent things like the 2008 financial collapse. That law worked very well for 50 years or so, until it was repealed, and then all hell broke loose. So it is simply not true that laws are never enacted in order to prevent things.
More to the point, we already have laws in place concerning firearms that are intended to prevent bad things from happening. For example, the required background checks that must be run before someone can buy a gun through a retail outlet. These laws are most certainly intended to prevent, not deter. One can argue about their effectiveness, or why they are or are not effective, but one cannot reasonably argue that their intent is merely deterrent.
Finally: my response is anything but a straw man, as it is directly responsive to the issue that you raise, namely: that criminals ignore laws. It's an argument that is made often in these debates, yet it is circular in nature, since criminals are by definition people who have ignored some law or other. You seem to think it is a compelling argument as to why these particular laws should not be considered; I am merely pointing out that if we accept your logic, then surely it doesn't apply to only your chosen subset of laws.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Compared to other industrialized nations.
Until you do that, your lack of support for rational gun laws is meaningless.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Here's a novel idea, lets start enforcing the more than 21,000 Federal, State and Local laws before we enact new laws that won't do jack shit in detering criminals.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are using a well-known gun lobby red herring.
Enforcing the laws would not have stopped the attacker from getting his ammo. Changing the laws might have given the community a chance to do just that.
Do you have anything but NRA propaganda to offer?
permatex
(1,299 posts)Do you know how to read? I've posted a few, find them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Orrex
(63,083 posts)There is no possible solution for gun violence accept to decrease restrictions on gun ownership. Any other proposal results in a stern lecture on the glory of one particular reading of the 2nd Amendment, typically followed by a few clever anecdotes about the relative statistical danger of thse cleaning chemicals keep under the sink.
In short, we are told to accept that there is no way out of this hole except to dig deeper, and the NRA and its adocates here are happy to supply all the shovels we need.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)AR-15 vs M-16? I'd say the 100 round clip negates the differences greatly
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)First of all, firearms are only useful as long as they contain ammunition. Thus it is logical that the more ammunition a firearm holds the more useful it is. This is why military and law enforcement carry "high capacity" magazines allowing 15, 20, or even 30 rounds of ammunition in their firearms as a matter of course.
Civilians own firearms for the same reason that the police and military do - to protect themselves. If "high capacity" magazines make firearms more effective for the police and military to be able to protect themselves, why should civilians not also have this same option?
If your reasoning is that 95% of firearm owners should not have access to such things because 5% or less of firearm owners break the law with them, I'm not going to support that.
Remember that the second amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is about killing people who threaten the security of free states.
But even if we decided today to outlaw all magazines with a capacity greater than 5 rounds (which would make many firearms over 100 years old illegal), how would you propose taking them out of circulation?
There are millions of 1911s and similar handguns out there. The AR15 is the most popular center-fire rifle in America. The Ruger 10/22, which has been produced since 1964 has always shipped with a 10-round magazine. My great-grandfather's Colt Woodsman, made in 1927, holds 10 rounds.
The venerable 1911 holds 7 rounds, only 2 more than you suggest as a limit. Is there any doubt that a person with a dozen magazines could not wreak the same kind of havok? Remember, Cho was armed with 10 and 15-round magazines and killed 32 people.
Another argument the gun proponents give is well if everyone had a gun someone could have taken him out is bogus. Colorado has about the most lax gun laws in the USA, where were all those CCW holders at the other night? I bet hiding under the seats or knocking people down trying to get to the exit door.
Yet as is almost always the case, in the end the shooting stopped when people with guns showed up to stop the shooter.
Carrying a concealed weapon is no guarantee of being able to prevail when faced with violence. You might be surprised. You might be incapacitated. You might not be able to get off a clear shot. Having choices does not mean that every choice is the right choice, but it is usually better than having no choices.
It's possible that no one could have stopped Holmes' shooting rampage. But given how he gave up so easily to the police, it's also possible that he might have given up to anyone who could stand up to him.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)Unless people start thinking of this as a public safety issue then we will continue to see senseless mass killings. And as weapons become more powerful then there will be people like you that insist that the public should have access to those weapons as well.
Then cops will need more powerful weapons to combat the criminals. Because the more weapons out in the public the more easily attainable they are to criminals.
The gun lovers will continue to insist on access to the same weapons that the cops and criminals have and the cycle continues on and on and on.
All the while unhinged individuals that are mentally ill will be able to walk into their local sportsman store legally load up on weapons and ammunition and go on a killing spree!
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This is exactly correct. The entire point of the second amendment is for the civilian population to possess arms appropriate for infantry use. Whatever the state of the art is for those kinds of arms is exactly what the second amendment protects.
The gun lovers will continue to insist on access to the same weapons that the cops and criminals have and the cycle continues on and on and on.
Again correct. This has been the way of things for all of recorded history.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)Plus most comic book fans aren't exactly the gun toting type. They're mostly kids and young adult fans of sci-fi and fantasy going to see a midnight showing on a weekday.
But I get your point if someone stood up and took a shot at the gunman in that situation they probably would've get shot first.
permatex
(1,299 posts)but if I'm going to a place where they don't allow CCW, then I won't carry one, just common courtesy.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)for many it is a macho thing. I know some who go out into the desert to target shoot - their target is a rusted out old car - which they usually hit - but try getting those same shooters to group on a target - they can't - yet they shout and holler about how good a shot they are.
And, again those who say the ones carrying would have stopped this - no - under pressure even the SWAT trained police have a hard time hitting a target, so someone who by contrast has little training is hardly going to stand and do an Arnold Schwarzenegger move and take out the shooter with one shot.
Disclaimer - we do own guns in our house - just in case of the GOPT zombie apocalypse .
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"Another argument the gun proponents give is well if everyone had a gun someone could have taken him out is bogus."
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They used to advocate the maintaining of wilderness areas for healthy game. The covers of their newsletters were like the opening of Andy Griffith with father and son having guns instead of fishing poles. They used to advise farmers on fence placement to make sure migrating deer and elk weren't boxed in. They were sounding the alarm about acid rain. They did honest reviews on products.
This was back before Republicans turned guns into a wedge issue.
unc70
(6,094 posts)You're right about the changes at the NRA. Sixty years ago the big concerns were not about firepower.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And people wonder why we hated him.
harun
(11,348 posts)Also additional training.
appleannie1
(5,042 posts)longer hunt, I agree. If you need an assault rifle to hunt, you need to practice firing on a range and until you can hit a target, not allowed to purchase a hunting license. In my neck of the woods, people sell guns at yard sales. To me, that is totally wrong. There needs to be stricter laws.
Kablooie
(18,571 posts)As well as being in a chaotic environment.
It would be more likely that others than the shooter would have been hit.
The only defense against this kind of incident is to eliminate access to weapons that facilitate the attack.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Just like the military industrial complex.
ananda
(28,779 posts)And all guns should be registered and controlled strictly.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)problem is gun trafficking. The criminal types who want assault weapons will get them regardless of registration.
Many people say they need guns for defense. However if a robber breaks into your home and the gun is locked in the gun cupboard in the basement and you are upstairs then its not much use?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)but this is one of those times.
I'd be willing to bet most people are in favor of regulation without an outright ban on all guns. Then they see one group that thinks there should be an anti-tank rifle in every home, and another that thinks a .22 rifle in the hands of a rural person that has chickens is just as evil and dangerous as a .50 cal in the hands of a crazy survivalist and say "Meh. Fuck it.".
The prohibitionists are just as much to blame as the NRA for the proliferation of guns. Reasonable restrictions are almost impossible to put into place because "reasonable restrictions" aren't the goal of either side.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)This was suggested to me by a coworker who was an avid hunter and target shooter.
He had no problems with the idea.
Hell, when I was in the marines, our rifles were kept in the armory.
agentS
(1,325 posts)There was one recent massacre in which a guy angry at his boss goes to the police station, retrieves his shotgun and drive-bys the office before going on a wild police chance. The police should have known better because it wasn't hunting season, to allow the guy to check out his gun on the reason of 'hunting'.
While I am in favor of gun control laws, it's hard to keep people who possess their guns legally to then start using them illegally like this schmuck. Would armory check-in/check-out have worked? If the police officers are smart, then yeah it's plausible they could have caught the guy before the shooting.
I'm not saying your idea is a bad idea, just a little tricky to get to work right.
There needs to be some kinda psych eval before owning deadly weapons.
derby378
(30,252 posts)I'm not a member of the NRA, but I am a Democrat and a gun owner. A magazine ban is the same as an "assault weapon" ban.
Besides, how's the project coming along about creating a definition for the term "assault weapon?"
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)that seems like overkill, so to speak.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)My 12 gauge holds one and you have to cock the hammer for each shot.
It was for duck hunting but I've used it for skeet shooting those old AOL disks.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)I thought he had an excellent suggestion...
For anyone who has a gun to have a license like a driving license...you get tested to see how you can handle a firearm, just like you are tested for driving a vehicle. You should also get a medical clearance as well. There should be mental health checking. It seems obvious now.
legoman69
(1 post)I certainly respect everyone's views on the whole "mag capacity" issue but i do not see the relevance. These gun laws only pertain to the the law abiding citizens who choose to follow them. I would be the first to jump up and down in favor of regulation if I thought it would have am impact on the criminal society. However this is not the case. Laws only affect law abiding citizens. It is already illegal to murder someone, but it still happens.
If I, or any other law abiding, weapon carrying citizen were sitting in that theater Thursday, the murderer might have been stopped before so many people were killed and injured.
Instead of rationalizing "how many bullets should anyone be able to legally have", why aren't we more focused on making an more educated, defended society?
Number of bullets sounds like a silly debate.
hlthe2b
(101,699 posts)How many innocents would YOU have killed? How utterly ridiculous.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)head to knee with protective gear.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Who practices every three months, and can engage a target armored from head to toe, (free clue you need a rifle) after you get a taste of oc?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you want to see an example of just how hard it actually is to take down a shooter like this, go read up on the North Hollywood shootout in 1997.
350 police officers, including SWAT. Took 'em an hour.
If you had your gun in that theater, you'd be dead.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)wow, a nut fires his guns, kills people, and membership rockets upward
Did you know there's nothing DU can do to change the gun laws or limit your ability to buy implements of destruction now or in the future?
Why are you worried about little ole DU? And why do we need a more defended society? Against what? Twinkies falling from the sky? France, England, Germany, and Japan seem to be pretty advanced (and very old) societies, why aren't they working harder to defend themselves against your perceived threats?
We have a VERY educated society, it's when the defense part comes in the less educated take up their guns to tell us we need more.
Have a nice life.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)Everyone take a good look at what the problem is here: paranoid, delusional gun owners sitting around waiting to become some kind of hero like this clown.
If you think you can engage a single shooter in a dark, crowded theater while choking on CS gas, you've obviously never served in the military and don't have even the basest level of maturity or training to own a firearm.
mwooldri
(10,291 posts)I'm not one for guns. Coming from the UK I'm more accustomed to seeing the unarmed police officer than the armed ones here... but that's culture for ya. Guns for sport and hunting - heck yeah! Anything else - not really.
Your idea of reducing magazine capacity - I like it. It got me thinking - perhaps the regulations are against the wrong thing: the gun. Maybe it is the ammunition that should be more regulated. An unloaded gun works pretty much like a club-type weapon.
With RFID chips getting smaller and smaller - why not put them in the ammunition itself? Regulate ammunition more like other explosives.
This way each and every American can legally own an assault rifle, capable of shooting multiple rounds of bullets in seconds.... but have no ammunition to use in the gun. The NRA wins a Pyrrhic victory.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)I'm reading Holmes' AR-15 jammed. good thing, otherwise we might be looking at many more murdered/injured people.
any sort of gun which shoots 50-60 rounds per minute is not a hunting weapon. stop the nonsense.
even Rupert Murdoch is tweeting civilians don't need automatic weapons.
CrispyQ
(36,221 posts)ninehippies
(30 posts)and I don't think it has much to do with hunting. Our society isn't any safer with the right to own guns. Such a heavy price to pay.