The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 19, 2013, 02:24 PM   #26
loltraktor1918
Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Location: OH
Posts: 50
Really OP? Your really asking that question seriously? If you want to look at how gun grabbers work I will direct you to the New Zealand arms code. Notice how more than 7 rounds makes a weapon in NZ an MSSA (Military-style semi-automatic.) This is the direction the gun grabbers are heading. In NZ even certain airguns are restricted. So in short, no magazine limits are not okay.

http://www.police.govt.nz/services/f...code-section-3

WARNING: By putting a magazine which holds more than 15 rounds into a .22 semi-automatic rifle, or more than seven rounds to a centre-fire semi-automatic rifle, it changes its definition to that of an MSSA.


Military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) firearms
Are firearms that require an endorsement on your firearms licence (E endorsement) and are subject to special security conditions. Only an E endorsed person may have or use an MSSA and it is an offence for anyone without this endorsement to fire one, even under supervision. Only persons 18 years of age or older can have an endorsement for one of these firearms. A permit to procure the MSSA must be obtained from an Arms Officer before taking possession of it. MSSAs require greater storage security than for standard sporting firearms.

An MSSA is a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more of the following features:
•Folding or telescopic butt
•Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire
•Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more than 7 cartridges for others
•Bayonet lug
•Military pattern free standing pistol grip
•Flash suppresser

You need a permit from the Police to obtain one of these firearms.
__________________
____________________________________
Ruger SR1911, Colt 1911, Glock 17, Glock 21, Beretta M9, Ruger GP100, Ruger LCR, SW M&P15, Lee Enfield 303, Savage .22, Ruger 10/22. Guns the great equalizer.
loltraktor1918 is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 02:26 PM   #27
PatAz
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Posts: 18
No, I would not be happy with a 10 round limit. All it takes is just one time
of needing more to prove that. To paraphrase good old Joe.
PatAz is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:50 AM   #28
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,947
I find the "if it save just one life then it's worth it" argument to be irritating to no end. First and foremost, this argument is based on flawed logic and assumptions. There is no way that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that a ban on so-called "high capacity" magazines would save lives.

Take Sandy Hook for example: If we suppose for a moment that 30-round magazines were illegal at the time of the shooting, how do we know that the shooter would not have used illegally obtained/fabricated/modified magazines that held 30 rounds or simply carried more lower-capacity magazines? Even if he was restricted to lower-capacity magazines, how do we know that the number of people shot would've been any lower? Sturmgewehre has an excellent YouTube video in which he demonstrates the time difference between firing 20 rounds from one magazine and 20 rounds from two magazines loaded with 10 rounds each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CL...YliUQ&index=17

As you see in the video, the difference was only about half a second. That small amount of time is of little consequence to someone like the Sandy Hook shooter who has 20 minutes or more to exact his evil intentions on unarmed and helpless victims.

Furthermore, this argument completely ignores the fact that so-called "high capacity" magazines can and have been used in lawful self-defense thousands, if not millions, of times. There is absolutely no guarantee that 10, 7, or any arbitrary number of rounds will be enough to stop any threat that may present itself. If we take the 1986 Miami Dade Shootout as an example, it took several trained FBI agents 12 rounds to finally stop the murderous rampage of Michael Lee Platt. That was one man who was not under the influence of mind altering substances; multiple attackers and/or ones under the influence of strong drugs could potentially take even more rounds to stop. Because of this, a ban on magazines holding more than an arbitrary number of shots could potentially prove deadly for people trying to defend themselves if the circumstances are right.

More offensive still, this argument is a very subtle strawman that insinuates that anyone who opposes the proposed measure is against trying to save lives when nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the police, and society in general for that matter, have no legal duty to protect me, but there is no practical way for them to do so. Because of this it is my firm belief that the ultimate responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones rests upon me. I choose to mitigate the risk of violent attack to myself and my loved ones as much as possible by arming myself and preparing to defend myself and my family if necessary.

As such, the arguments for gun control basically tell me that my right to defend myself and my family is less important than the safety, or more accurately the feeling of safety, of a person who chooses not to take the same precautions that I have. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that I bear responsibility for the feelings of someone who has the same opportunity to provide for their own safety that I do but chooses not to do so. I'm sorry if I seem callous, but such people are not, nor should they be, my concern.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 04:29 AM   #29
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 925
To be the devils advocate, the anti's can also use that same video to argue

"As you can see though, it only takes about half a second to switch magazines, so what's the problem if we limit them to 10 rounds or less? The difference in time doesn't make a difference then, so why are you complaining?"

I don't agree with the above statement, but I've heard it so many times already. I'm just getting tired of having to repeat myself saying, as Webley did, that it proves that it's absolutely a waste of time and money to pass a law that will ultimately be useless. Of course, the above statement is all the anti's will believe in.

But what do I know, apparently according to someone else I know, I'm very biased on the topic of gun control, despite all the facts and data I present them, and how many times I prove that their reasoning is an emotional knee jerk reaction.
Kimio is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 05:09 AM   #30
Noreaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,374
"Just a thought here....what if all new mags were no longer "drop free"?
You could still get a hi-cap mag but when you pushed the mag release it would not just fall out. You would have to use two hands to hold the release and pull the mag out. This would slow a mass stooter way down but would still let me use hi-cap mags. Any thoughts?"

Yeah, your nuts. The other day my well maintained and highly cared for duty pistol went down while shooting/training. I had to rip the mag out and cycle the slid before putting in a new mag and then getting a round chambered and getting the firearm back in service. You feel free to weld your mags in place. I'll do it the right way. Who are you, have you ever fired a gun?
Noreaster is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 06:03 AM   #31
wet
Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2011
Location: ID.
Posts: 89
NO! NO! NO!
How about if the government limits cars and trucks to 50 hp & two gears! If we could save just one life.
wet is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 07:48 AM   #32
mdcmn7
Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2013
Posts: 18
If I hear one more congressman, leftist talking head, or commentator say "if it saves just one life then its worth it" I am gonna vomit


Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
mdcmn7 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:01 AM   #33
PatientWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 400
No, I am not ok with this.
1. If previous mags are grandfathered, but can be used in public or on private property, they are NOT grandfathered.
2. These are not WMDs we are talking about they are small arms.
3. A significant percentage of pistols today that are "common use" are designed around magazines larger than 10 rnds.
4. A 25 rnd. mag for a 10/22 or a 30 rnd mag for an AR does not make them belt fed fully automatic weapons.

For the record, I don't even own an AR with higher capacity mags, but that does not mean it is not a right assured me in the constitution.
PatientWolf is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:52 AM   #34
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
Yes, I've got lots of guns and enjoy shooting. I was interested in what kind of responses I would get to proposed gun laws.
Lets just say I was playing the devils advocate.
I was watching the political new this morning and I don't think there will be any AWB passed this year. Why?
First, there is no consesus among ban proponants as to what would be usefull or reasonable.
Second, lots of liberals are afraid of being voted out of office. Jumping on this band wagon could end up turning the senate over to the Rebuplicans.
Third, everyone knows this is more a mental health issue than a gun issue.

I know that lots of folks are concerned right now. (look at the run on ammo and guns the last few weeks) It just doesn't look like this is going to generate anything more than a lot of hot air.
We just need to keep up steady pressure to our elected leaders to stay the coarse. You don't need to scream or yell; just let them know that a vote for gun control will cause you to vote for someone else.

Thanks for giving your oppions. At least among the forum members it seems that any ban would be unacceptable.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:57 AM   #35
jaytothekizzay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2008
Location: st. louis
Posts: 219
If we agree to a 10 round capacity, we just gave in to phase 1. Anyone who agrees to this is a fool. They r coming for our guns... we need to fight this to the death.
jaytothekizzay is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 10:06 AM   #36
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,088
Quote:
Durring the last ban I was still able to get hi-cap mags but they cost a lot more. Even with the ban in place, it never caused me any loss.
Then why do you think there is even a slim possibality that a ban would save even one life.
Did you ever think to really look at the other side of the coin James Holmes brought one 100 round drum and it jammed after 30 rounds and he stopped using the AR. You give him 10 10 round mags and he just swaps out the jammed mag or even more likely doesn't have a jam, since in my experiance 10 round mags are pretty dang reliable. I might also point out Harris (columbine) and Cho (Virginia Tech) show the effectiveness of multiple mags.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 10:17 AM   #37
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,947
Originally posted by Kimio
Quote:
To be the devils advocate, the anti's can also use that same video to argue

"As you can see though, it only takes about half a second to switch magazines, so what's the problem if we limit them to 10 rounds or less? The difference in time doesn't make a difference then, so why are you complaining?"
The problem with that argument lies in the burden of proof. The burden of proof in this situation lies with the anti's to prove that banning >10 round magazines will benefit public safety to a degree that justifies the loss of liberty that said ban would represent. Because we've shown that >10 round magazines does not make a firearm substantially more deadly, and thus does not significantly increase the potential body count for a mass shooter, they cannot prove that such a ban would significantly improve public safety. This is why the anti's fall back onto emotionally-charged strawman arguments like "if it saves just one life," they cannot win a rational debate of the facts.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 11:34 AM   #38
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,859
It will save lives because when a madman walks into a room of 20 with two 10 round mags to kill all - he will have to reload once.

If he walks into the room with a 15 round mag - he will have to reload ...

Wait, I'm confused.

The slippery slope practical argument is telling as is the push back against government intrusion into legally owned items protected by the BOR.

As Hairplug Joe Biden said you don't need a 12 round clip, why do you need those 11? If you can't do it in one, you should go to range and if in fact shouldn't own a gun.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:05 PM   #39
BudW
Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2010
Location: Black Hills
Posts: 63
NO!
BudW is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:19 PM   #40
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,947
Quote:
It will save lives because when a madman walks into a room of 20 with two 10 round mags to kill all - he will have to reload once.

If he walks into the room with a 15 round mag - he will have to reload ...
Exactly. When a madman has a room full of helpless victims and 20 minutes or more to carry out his evil plan, the tool he chooses is of little consequence. With that much time and no resistance, the Sandy Hook shooter could've wreaked a good amount of death and destruction with a single-shot trap gun if that had been all that was available to him. Rather than focus on the tools that were used, I think the far more productive discussion would be how to ensure that such madmen don't have large groups of helpless victims to shoot at in the first place.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:22 PM   #41
DASHZNT
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2012
Posts: 179
It is for the idiots ripping people off with a $5 GI Magazine for $35-$75. It needs to be said... the only thing that most 2nd A defenders care about is to protect their opportunity to steal.

Funny how defending the 2nd A is more important than obeying the 8th Commandment!

DASHZNT
DASHZNT is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:31 PM   #42
saltydog452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2004
Posts: 510
Only if the capacity was my choice.

sd.
__________________
Bread and Circuses don't pay the Bills.
saltydog452 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:47 PM   #43
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,413
We had a ten round limit before and there wasn't evidence that it worked. Why would we want to repeat the same mistake? From the publication by the National Academies:

In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which banned the importation and manufacture of certain military-style semiautomatic “assault” weapons and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (National Institute of Justice, 1997)....
...A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes (Koper and Roth, 2001b).
See the link for more info

Why repeat something that didn't do any good before?
2damnold4this is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 02:22 PM   #44
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
I should point out that some of the most horrendous mass killings have taken place in Africa, not here.
Weapon of choice? No, not the AK, they usually used a machete.
Don't let your mind linger on that picture for too long.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 02:59 PM   #45
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 547
No, I don't need 11 + round mags. I don't even "need" any semiauto weapon at all, based upon how often I actually "use" my semiauto weapons.

I don't guess I "need" 3 vehicles, or four computers, or two eyes. I guess I could live with just one eye, one computer, etc.

But the question really is do I want the govt telling me I can only have one eye, one gun, one car, etc?

Bottom line is that it's absolutely none of their business and we made a big mistake allowing it to become their business, whenever that was.
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 03:26 PM   #46
Cascade1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Dutchess County, NY
Posts: 450
Quote:
and we made a big mistake allowing it to become their business
You got that right. Drives me nuts when I listen to supposedly pro 2A guys saying "I can see banning AR's" or "who needs a thirty round mag". You don't need to live here in NY to see where that road leads. First 10 round limit, now 7 round and Cuomo has said he wants 5. "Assault Weapons" with 2 evil attributes banned, now one evil attribute banned and I've already seen articles saying "hey, this legal .223 semi-auto rifle with a Monte Carlo stock is just as dangerous as that banned one with the pistol grip. They should both be banned".

We're not looking at the slippery slope, we're looking at a cliff. Push back!
Cascade1911 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 03:33 PM   #47
UtahHunting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 424
From a personal standpoint a 10 round magazine doesn't bother me at all. I rarely ever shoot more than 10 rounds at a time anyhow.

But it will not stop there. If they ban higher capacity magazines next they will ban 10 rounds, then semi-autos, then handguns, etc. It is the first step in a complete ban in my opinion. I truly believe this administration would like to disarm the entire country.

Obama has already announced he is utilizing his election team to start campaigning against guns to move public opinion more to his court. I think he is just getting started and what is to come frightens me. I have yet to hear his administration state they support the second amendment and want Americans to be able to keep themselves armed. He is always very careful in his wording to try not and state what his true intentions are, his statements are very vague at best.

We live in a free country....or at least we used to. I have had friends ask me why do you need guns anyhow. I respond with I enjoy target shooting and gunsmithing as a sport and I have for the last 35 years. It is they same as someone mentioned above, why do you need 2 cars, or a hybrid, or the color of the shirt you choose to wear. Because we can.
UtahHunting is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 04:26 PM   #48
Tacoma
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2004
Location: SE New England
Posts: 613
Politics aside, I actually prefer 10 round mags for all my shooting. In rifles,anything longer tends to get in the way for bench and prone shooting. in handguns, it makes it easy for me to keep count of my round expended count. This helps with anticipating when mag changes are needed. For new shooters I've taught, I actually think it forces them to become better shooters rather than just blasting for blasting's sake.
Of course, I live in MA where we've had a 10 round limit since forever. Have to say it really isn't that bitter a pill to swallow IF (!!) it hekps stave off deeper attacks on the guns themselves.

Now drop us down to 7 like NY and I'll be madder than a wet bobcat! How the H@## can you compete in any shooting sport without the 10 round mag changes the rules are all built around at a national level!
Tacoma is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 04:46 PM   #49
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
If I am being attacked I NEED every cartridge that can be stuffed into my gun. The obverse of your question is:

"If you or your family is being attacked is there any such thing as having too many cartridges ready to use in the defense of your life?"

Makes the whole question of any limit sound ridiculous doesn't it?
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 04:53 PM   #50
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by DASHZNT View Post
It is for the idiots ripping people off with a $5 GI Magazine for $35-$75. It needs to be said... the only thing that most 2nd A defenders care about is to protect their opportunity to steal.

Funny how defending the 2nd A is more important than obeying the 8th Commandment!

DASHZNT
This is truly offensive. You paint all pro 2A gun owners as opportunists?! I take it you are not a 2A proponent and are butt hurt that folks are anxious about what our fickle Congress will do. Boo hoo.

Your broad sweeping rant is unworthy of this forum.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14468 seconds with 7 queries