Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

[petepeterson]

One more comment, as I cannot help myself...

Patriot,

I'm not sure gunsales can accurately reflect what type of firearms are used in actual defensive shootings. This discounts the person that owns one firearm for defensive purposes, and gives alot more weight to people (like me) that purchase multiple guns- because I like them!

Chase,

I can hear the rotowash of a black helicopter hovering outside your compound...but in reality, there is no conspiracy, just a failure of our society to recognize and deal with mental health issues, which unfortunately sometimes allows them (or their naive parents) access to deadly weapons.

I wish you all happy holidays, and will sleep well tonight with my 15 rd 5906 under the pillow. I might just throw a pre-ban 10-rounder in there so as not to be a hypocrite!

God bless you all.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

In my mind, there is nothing reasonable about telling me that I have to surrender any portion of my rights because someone believes that I don't need something of which they disapprove. I don't need most of what I've acquired in my 68 years ... but they were/are things I wanted ... and THAT should be more than good enough reason for anyone! As a gun-owner for 58 of those years, I've never been a problem, never threatened, wounded or killed anyone except while in the Army.

One thing does matter to me though ... please bear with me. I enlisted in the Army after college and got to my Infantry unit on January 6th, 1968! I'm decorated, combat-wounded and disabled as a result of my service ... frankly, alive ONLY by the grace of God (alone, surrounded, overrun, wounded, no medical attention for about 7 hours, empty weapon, stripped of my watch, billfold, etc. The NVA know I'm alive because I'm cursing them ... and the eight of them just look at me and walk away. Apparently I'm not even worth a single bullet. That was 1 of 8 specific instances in the course of about 2 hours during my last firefight).

I didn't mention this to blow my own horn because there's no way for any of you to know my identity, but to let you know MY past for what I'm about to write:

I wrote this Nation a blank check, payable in any amount, up to and including my life if necessary and I resent beyond my ability to express that ANY politican would tell me that my choice of a semi-auto rifle or 30 round magazine is too dangerous for me to own, telling me that my life-long interest in firearms is too dangerous a hobby to allow, telling me that it's for the good of society ... if it saves only one life ... you really don't need a (-----). They aren't even worthy to lick my boots or the boots of any other Veteran ... EVER! I challenge them: What have you ever done for your Country, except feed off the Public Teat? And if some of those politicans happen to be Veterans and still feel that they are "duty-bound" to violate and infringe on my rights... then they have earned my complete and utter distain.

There, that's my answer ... clear enough?

[JohnKSa]

Excellent work on taking everything to the extremes.

The point is that if we set the goal of "saving one life", then it's possible to make virtually any restriction seem reasonable, and to make any opposition seem greedy/cold-hearted/unfeeling.

It's also true that that kind of justification for action has no obvious end. You can use the justification for further restrictions right up until the point that the restriction becomes a total ban.

We're afraid to use reason, because the other side isn't reasonable.

Reason (logic) is exactly what we WANT.

However, faced with those who are unreasonable, it is pointless to try to reason with them. It may result in concessions that are not particularly onerous, in and of themselves, but, at the very best it will result in concessions that are not based on logic. It should be obvious why trying to use reason when dealing with those who are unreasonable is seen by many as being a poor strategy.

It makes no sense to compromise with someone who is proposing something that is not based on reason in the first place.

For example, let's say that a town with a speed limit of 50mph on the main highway begins to see major problems resulting from people speeding through the town at 95mph or faster. The first group suggests that reducing the speed limit to 45mph will fix the problem. The second group says that since it's already illegal to speed, it doesn't make sense to penalize everyone by making them go 5mph slower when the problem has nothing to do with the people driving 50mph in the first place. But the first group says that it couldn't possibly hurt to reduce the speed limit by a paltry 5mph and that it would be foolish not to take such an action if it could save one life.

Now, it would be "reasonable" (a minimal compromise) for the second group to concede that a 5mph drop in the speed limit isn't really a major restriction. However, the action taken doesn't address the real problem, and it's restricting people who aren't the offenders. So, while it may seem reasonable in one sense, it's just plain foolishness in reality.

Do you habitually carry a 5.56mm for personal protection? Can you tell me that you can reasonably see a scenario where you will need 30 rds to stop the threat? If so, do you think the number of those scenarios outnumber the times that the same weapon is used for the advancement of evil?

These question are all based on the assumption that eliminating a particular caliber, or a particular size magazine will stop, or significantly reduce the impact of mass murders. This is called begging the question, that is, it conceals the fact that we are being asked to accept a premise without proof. Without, in fact, so much as an attempt having been made to demonstrate that it is a reasonable premise.

It's not even clear that they would stop/significantly impact mass SHOOTINGS, let alone mass murders. The worst mass murder at a school in the U.S. didn't even involve a gun. It was perpetrated with a bomb. In other words, making firearms a less attractive option for accomplishing school mass murders could actually result in the deranged perpetrators being driven to other means of accomplishing their evil purposes. Means that, based on past incidents, could very well be more effective/lethal and more difficult to counter.

Having to reload every 20 rounds instead of every 30, will have, at best, a minimal effect on the overall outcome, particularly when a person can equip himself with multiple firearms. Being forced to use a different caliber could actually increase the lethality of the attack, depending on what the substitute caliber was.

[petepeterson]

Romeo,

Crystal. And thank you for all that you've done and sacrificed for our country. It's good to still have you around.

[petepeterson]

The worst mass murder at a school in the U.S. didn't even involve a gun. It was perpetrated with a bomb.

That was what year, exactly? And how many firearms with 30 rd mags were available? Remember, the BAR only holds 20....

Apples and oranges. You use flawed data. Proof? What type and caliber weapon, with what capacity, was used in the last 3 publicized mass (?) shootings? I say this with a great understanding that "publicized" is subjective. We have greater bodycounts in Pittsburgh on a nightly basis than the Oregon mall shooting.

[JohnKSa]

That was what year, exactly? And how many firearms with 30 rd mags were available? Remember, the BAR only holds 20....

PRECISELY. Because the current weapon of choice was not readily available then, the perpetrator chose a different weapon. One which turned out to be more deadly than the current weapon of choice.

Apples and oranges. You use flawed data. Proof? What type and caliber weapon, with what capacity, was used in the last 3 publicized mass (?) shootings?

Correlation is not the same as cause and effect, and before we start making new laws and restrictions, it would be well to establish a cause and effect relationship between what is restricted and what we wish to control.

And, it would be well to make at least a reasonable effort to determine what the effect of forcing those who are determined to commit mass murders to find alternate solutions to accomplish their goals.

It is entirely possible that the ready availability of medium caliber, semi-automatic rifles with large capacity detachable magazines has actually reduced the overall body count by being more attractive to those who are determined to perpetrate a mass murder than other, potentially more lethal means would have been.

[MLeake]

School buses are sometimes hit by semis, when OTR drivers don't get enough sleep. We need truck control. Look how many kids a tired driver could kill with an 18-wheeler...

Not to make light of tragedy, but my point is we rarely see any other thing get vilified in the way that guns do (aside from pit bulls, perhaps).

Blame should be placed on criminals, not on equipment.

[ChileVerde1]

If I thought for a second that giving up all of my "assault rifles," etc... would bring back any of those beutiful innocent little angels or prevent this travesty fro ever happening again I would give them up hapilly as I'm sure would every other board member on this forum. Sadly, despite what the politicians say, it won't change a thing except prevent us from defending our loved ones and other innocents from evil like this. Gun owners are responsible, charitable and law abiding people. More so than most others in my experience. Our collective values reflect service, discipline, respect, responsibility, etc...

I keep hearing the pundits both in favor and opposed to gun control say that the the essence of gun ownership is "deer hunting and defending your home," but the framers of the constitution did not write the second ammendment for us to protect ourselves from deer or our own fellow citizens. Their intent was for the second ammendment and firearms to defend against tyranny, specifically, tyranny from government. Why is this never stated even by the conservative media? It's like the elephant in the room! Well as Charels Krathammer said on FOX tonight, and I'm paraphrasing, but an Australia like wholesale confiscation and outlawing/criminalizing of assault weapons, etc.. in the United States will lead to insurrection and knowing my own convictions and ideas of liberty and freedom I have to agree with Mr Krauthammer.

[Ghost1958]

Hand slapped post retracted

[JohnKSa]

Let's stick to the "Should they be banned?" question and not get too wrapped up in the "What will happen if they are banned?" question.

If this thread turns to talk of armed revolutions and insurrection, it won't last long.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by petepeterson

Excellent work on taking everything to the extremes. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about the conditioning of the 50/50 split in this country. We're afraid to use reason, because the other side isn't reasonable. Do you habitually carry a 5.56mm for personal protection? Can you tell me that you can reasonably see a scenario where you will need 30 rds to stop the threat? If so, do you think the number of those scenarios outnumber the times that the same weapon is used for the advancement of evil?

Gun control is a slippery slope because nothing short of a complete semi-auto (detachable mag) ban and unconstitutional enforcement (illegal searches, confiscation of property) would approach a reasonable chance of success at reducing casualties in attacks like this. On the upside, if gun smuggling became a major source of firearms used in crimes, perhaps the anti-gunners would agree to guard the borders better.

That kind of society has a name: police state.

Suppose you start by banning 5.56mm, because you think it's no good for self defense and some other people frown on it for hunting real game. Then you immediately pivot and go after .50BMG. Everybody knows those things can take out tanks and helicopters and have no valid civilian uses. You think you'd stop there? No matter how many calibers are banned, there's always a "most powerful" legal caliber, and that will always be a prime target for the anti-gunners to go after. Once you let the camel's nose in the tent, you're never getting it out again. You might as well move out.

Magazines? How much is enough? 29 rounds? 20? 15? 12? 10? 7? 5? You can't make that kind of a decision for everyone unless you're God.

[LockedBreech]

If you sell out other gun owners on subjectively-defined "high capacity" magazine, they'll come for something you find valuable next.

There's a simpler reason not to compromise on this: there's no evidence whatsoever it'd make any sort of difference.

My "high"-caps aren't going anywhere. I think the "hunting only" crowd that pretends to be pro-gun because they own deer rifles are far more insidious than the openly anti-gun crowd.

The Second Amendment was not about hunting, it was not about target practice, it was about armed resistance to government. Those drones and tanks still need pilots and maintenance bases. Until 3/4 of the states ratify an Amendment redefining the 2A, it will continue to be a liberty provision, with INCIDENTAL protections to hunting and target practice.

[NWCP]

I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the government from being overthrown by violent means (by those who don't believe in a democratically elected government), not the other way round. Otherwise, you will basically have a government (for there will always be a government) of self-appointed strongmen. Even a feudal society worked better than that.

The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the people and their state from a corrupt central government and it's standing army.

[Justice06RR]

No, I don not think high cap mags should be banned whether its for a long gun or pistol.

For example, if magazines were limited only to 10rounds, BG's would just bring 5 or 6 magazines with them and it would have almost the same effect. In fact, I think it would make bad guys more desperate and find other means to harm innocent civilians by using bombs or chemical weapons instead, as those would be easier to deploy.

Another reasoning against banning hi-cap mags is that those weapons that are made to accept them were designed that way. The logic that magazines should be downgraded to 10max is unrealistic. The anti's would always ask, "why do you need a rifle that holds 30rds(AK/AR) or a pistol that holds 17rds (Glock17 etc) ?" It is because they are designed that way. That is it. The "Need" arguement is pointless. We do not have to defend our reasoning to own hi-cap mags.

[iraiam]

Where in the constitution is the verbiage about citizens being armed to fight an oppressive government?

it doesn't specifically say that, but the authors of the entire bill of rights left a sizeable amount of writing that clearly explain their intent.

Look at my signature for a quote from one of the authors of the second amendment, actually the entire Bill of Rights.

On second thought, it does say that. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Ben Towe]

The worst mass murder at a school in the U.S. didn't even involve a gun. It was perpetrated with a bomb.

That was what year, exactly? And how many firearms with 30 rd mags were available? Remember, the BAR only holds 20....

The year was 1928 and the Thompson sub machine gun was available at the local hardware store, no paperwork required, 50 round drum magazines. So...

Of course if these mass shooters had used 10 round mags (for that matter, we don't even know that some of them didn't, at least the most recent) everything would have worked out just fine, because, you know, it doesn't take like one second for a tactical mag change or anything...

Forgive the sarcasm, but I expect such arguments from an out of touch anti, but to hear it on a gun forum is pretty surprising. One must only look to other nations to see where compromise leads. If you think "they" will stop before we are virtually unarmed, you delude yourself. You also delude yourself if think Boxer, McCarthy, Feinstein, Pelosi, or any other politician pushing this agenda actually cares about the victims. They love it when a tragedy happens. Look how fast they sling a spin on it. They only crave power, the more they get, the more they want. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I've heard comments about a lack of response from the NRA during this latest event. Maybe it's just because I like to think we are a bit more moral and ethical than that rabid pack that opposes us, but my thought was that maybe the NRA has a modicum of respect for those slain. We've seen what the other side has to offer. No quarter, no compromise.

[Brit]

To ban or not to ban, can I justify the Glock 19 I carry, with a 16 round (When loaded) capacity.

I look at use of defensive pistols, in all incidents, any where in the Country.

They range from no shots fired, mere sight of a pistol sent the bad guys packing. And the other extreme, a whole bunch of rounds required to save the carry licensed persons life.

Now as my Crystal ball is in for an oil change, I have no idea, A/ if I will ever be in a gun fight with criminals, none yet, and I am 77 YOA.

And B/ How many rounds will be required to extricate me from this event.

I coined a saying, back in the mid 80's MORE IS BETTER, ALWAYS this was referring to hi cap semi auto pistols, comparing the trusty 6 shooter.

My reasoning is simple, it could happen, this is the reason we buy house, and vehicle insurance, it could happen.

I feel much better with my plastic 16 shot, than a steel 6 shooter. I shoot it kinda good, as well.

Oh, I forgot to mention my spare Glock 17 magazine, just in case.

[petepeterson]

I'm sorry that my original premise was misconstrued. My point was that it would be a reasonable compromise if the two sides were not so fearful and distrustful of each other. The majority of the opposition to my comments refer to the "slippery slope", which I am in complete agreement with. I'm not advocating any type of compromise.

And I just knew someone would hit me with the "Thompson" fact right after I posted...

[Ben Towe]

Pete, forgive me if I misinterpreted, I didn't realize you were playing the devil's advocate. I'm running on zero sleep. I try to keep my facts up to date, my Google Fu is strong. And as far as the Thompson thing, they were expensive back then ($225, $5 for a drum; about half the price of a new Ford) but commonly and easily stolen.

[tyme]

Pete, I agree with your premise. If banning .223 or 9mm or any other particular caliber would solve the rampage killer problem, I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning those calibers. If banning magazines over 10 rounds had any significant connection to the number of children, students, or adults it was possible to kill while they were huddling in a corner or in a closet, I'd be open to banning those, as well.

Unfortunately, all those proposals are products of a fantasy world. The "ban guns" or "ban 'high-cap' mags' reaction to events like this is beyond dangerous. All it takes is one more Charles Whitman, one more Malvo using a bolt gun instead of an AR, before the gun grabbers are no longer interested only in banning assault weapons, or semi-autos, but in banning or heavily regulating all rifles. Similarly, one person with a wheelgun and a bunch of speed loaders could get revolvers banned. The logic used to select what guns should be banned is non-existent. They simply want to ban whatever was used, without regard to the reality that enforcing bans is impractical, and the bans themselves won't work unless they render most types of guns unavailable.

As tragic as these mass killing events are, let's not forget that there are on the order of 10,000 actual criminal homicides committed every year with guns. These events are not insignificant, but statistically they are.

[geetarman]

It appears the run is on for hi-cap magazines for both rifle and pistol.

I buy most of my mags from 44mag.com.

You should check their web site.

Twenty round mags for M1A and many for AR15 are out of stock.

No 13 round mags for G21 and only a few for 9mm. Seem to be a few mags for .40 S&W.

I did not check for everything as I am pretty flush with mags now. I do know where I can get my hands of some .223 and think I will pick up some today before it disappears.

[Morgoroth]

I skimmed some of the posts, but I think no one has mentioned this.

I have been thinking a lot about this topic and the one common factor for all of the shootings I can think of for the past several years have been mental illness.

It is no coincidence that most of the funding for programs to help people with mental issues has been cut drastically at the state and federal levels.

If someone is unbalanced and wants to do harm there is no way to stop them.
What we need are resources for these people to get help in the first place.

The country doesn't need to be talking about guns, guns are just a symptom of the real problem, which is mental health.

[nate45]

Originally Posted by petepeterson

The majority of the opposition to my comments refer to the "slippery slope", which I am in complete agreement with.

I believe it goes way beyond the slippery slope, when its common knowledge that most antis think the 2nd Amendment applies to muzzle loading muskets. The majority want nothing less than a full ban.

[Patriot86]

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Dianne Feinstein-1995.....she hasn't gotten any more pro gun since then.

[geetarman]

I believe it goes way beyond the slippery slope, when its common knowledge that most antis think the 2nd Amendment applies to muzzle loading muskets.

Most of us who are opposed to compromise in the issue of guns have lived long enough to see what happens with "temporary" measures for this or that reason become permanent.

Rights given up for the "greater" good will not come back except at great cost.

I don't think there is any way to create legislation that will provide protection against the bad things that can occur by living in a free society.

It just won't happen.