Arizona legalizes carrying concealed gun without a permit

[eion]

Many popular firearms themselves were invented for military purposes, so what?

And why are those firearms popular? Is it that they are owned by former military personnel? That they are so reliable? Or because some redneck militiaist boot-camp dropout wants to play at soldier and wants the closest he can get?

Why should they limit capacity on magazines? Because some people prefer to load smaller ones? Because someone using a firearm in the commission of a crime is too stupid to reload? My Beretta magazine is capable of holding 17 rounds. Is there some reason to limit that to 10? Will it reduce crime? Will it prevent accidents? Is there any practical reason to restrict access to a piece of scrap metal and a spring other than saying "people don't necessarily need it?"

Because if I establish a hard limit of 10-rounds period per magazine I can prosecute any asshole who commits a crime with an 11-round magazine. Because ever extra second the criminal has to spend reloading is another second someone can stop him. Because the 2nd amendment was written by men who had no conception that one day you’d be able to shoot continuously until your barrel melted. It's one more way to reduce gun crime by giving prosecutors another tool in their bag. Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine? "Because I want to and I can" is not a reason, otherwise I'd be driving 150 down the highway.

As said, most game hunting requires limited magazines, but in any form of competition shooting: capacity is king, which is why single-stacked .45s are given their own class. Otherwise I could have never come close to competing with the kid running his custom 9mm (he still kicked my ass). I also had 6-8 mags on me during any given course. He could usually get by with 2. As for general shooting, why shouldn't I be allowed to load up 30 rounds into my Mini-14 and blast away? Is there something inherently more dangerous in having 1 30 round magazine than 3 10 round magazine for a semi-auto rifle?

Yeah, you're not competitive shooting, you're military play-acting. Let's not dress it up. That's fine, but if you want to play with the big toys ("the kid" included) you have to join up. Next you'll be telling me the strict anti-bazooka laws are putting a crimp in your weekend anti-tank competition. The 2nd Amendment does not exist to protect your hobby.

[gizmojumpjet]

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

And why shouldn't they limit magazine capacity for civilian-market handguns?

1) It wouldn't reduce crime, as the AWB and its attendant magazine capacity limitations has already proved.

2) It would make training more difficult and time consuming because valuable range time would be spent reloading magazines instead of firing the gun. There's no good reason to make training more difficult and time consuming. Training should be incentivized, not discouraged.

3) Criminals have already do and would continue to have access to hi-capacity magazines if they were made illegal, so banning them would only have the effect of imposing an odious burden on the law abiding citizenry.

Most self-defense shooting scenarios are resolved in five rounds. Five. Rounds. Not five magazines, Five. Rounds.
Not ten, not thirteen, not fifteen, seventeen, nor thirty. Five. It may be even less than that.

I'd really like to see your source for this extremely specific statistic you've just produced.

And the range? Under seven yards. Frequently under ten feet. You couldn't possibly empty a seventeen round magazine into someone attacking you from ten feet away. Unless you're still shooting after they're down and they've stopped moving. In which case, that's not self-defense, that's Murder One.

You're right that self defense shootings often take place at close range, but they don't exclusively take place at close range, so, especially considering that firearms are safety equipment, why does the range at which they most often occur matter at all to the discussion? Most car accidents aren't head on collisions, so does that mean all the effort and expense that goes into making them safer in head on collisions is wasted effort? And since most people will not be involved in a car accident today, what's the harm in not wearing my seat belt on the ride home today? I mean, a car wreck probably won't happen to me, so why bother, right?

If they're willing to give seven to eight round .45 Auto guns their own class, then why not restructure competition shooting towards a "civilian" magazine capacity instead of a "law-enforcement" magazine capacity? And if high-capacity magazines are essential to competition shooting, then why not impose a $20 tax and some paperwork to own them and prosecute anyone who isn't a FFL holder that tries to sell them?

These are artificial distinctions. There's no such thing as "civilian" magazine capacity and "law-enforcement" magazine capacity. Not to mention the fact that magazine capacity limits do not have any effect on crime.

And why shouldn't you be restricted to ten-round magazines? You're not fighting a war, and your chances of being personally involved in one (unless you are active duty, reserve, or National Guard) are minute. Just because something is fun doesn't mean people should be allowed to do it with wild abandon.

Shooting isn't just 'fun.' Self defense is an inherent Human right and gun ownership is a Constitutional right. Magazine capacity limits don't make us safer (as if it would matter), but they certainly do interfere with training.

Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Also, training.

[TheFeniX]

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

Sounds good.

And why shouldn't they limit magazine capacity for civilian-market handguns?

Because it doesn't accomplish anything but fucking over us responsible gun owners. It won't decrease crime or gun accidents.

Because some beer-swilling nuts think that they're going to get into high-round shootouts with dirty Mexicans/Negroes/Evil Gub'mint/UN stormtroopers/the gun-grabbing New World Order Illuminati bad guys?

Their motivations don't matter because even if they use that as a justification (if only for themselves), it doesn't prove that high-capacity mags are problem. And these types of braggers tend to be floaters anyways. They talk up a big storm but are just blowing smoke. If they were serious about their bullshit, no law would stop them getting access to said magazines.

Most self-defense shooting scenarios are resolved in five rounds. Five. Rounds. Not five magazines, Five. Rounds. Not ten, not thirteen, not fifteen, seventeen, nor thirty. Five. It may be even less than that.

My firearm is designed to fit 18 rounds into the frame. I'll likely go my entire life without ever needing it for self-defense. If I do, it's also very likely I'll never fire it. If I do, it's also likely I'd never fire more than 5-6 rounds (5 to the body, if still standing, shoot for the head). But what if there's the off-chance there's more than 1? What if his buddies come around the corner afterward and decide to attack as well. Highly unlikely, and if they did, I'd probably not fair well, but it doesn't change the fact that I lose nothing by chambering 18 rounds in a handgun designed for it.

And if it costs me nothing, and may actually prove useful and there's no proof me having access to higher-cap mags increases my likely-hood to commit crimes or act irresponsibly, then by what right does the government restrict it? Because some people might be worried I can carry that many rounds? That's not my problem.

And the range? Under seven yards. Frequently under ten feet. You couldn't possibly empty a seventeen round magazine into someone attacking you from ten feet away. Unless you're still shooting after they're down and they've stopped moving. In which case, that's not self-defense, that's Murder One.

Nah, murder 2, but it's unlikely they could even prove that. At the most it would be negligent homicide. And when a guy hits the ground, it doesn't mean he's done anyways which is why the cops don't all holster weapons after a suspect is down.

If they're willing to give seven to eight round .45 Auto guns their own class, then why not restructure competition shooting towards a "civilian" magazine capacity instead of a "law-enforcement" magazine capacity?

Because IPSC is a sport dominated by anything that will shave time off a Course of Fire. And the act of reloading is a huge time-waste. And the 9mm guys with their $3K pistols would have heart attacks.

But mainly because the whole "law-enforcement mag size" thing doesn't make sense. The 1911 is a military sidearm that only ever held 8 rounds (7 in the mag, 1 in the chamber). So why waste time and money on a new Brady Bill when they can't even prove it's done anything to combat crime or help gun safety? It's a waste of time a resources on a problem that's manufactured.

And if high-capacity magazines are essential to competition shooting, then why not impose a $20 tax and some paperwork to own them and prosecute anyone who isn't a FFL holder that tries to sell them?

Because you shouldn't punish people for owning something that in of itself doesn't constitute a safety or crime problem. Besides, mags are stupidly overpriced anyways. I pay $45 for my Beretta mags (don't ask) and I already had to go through a background check to own the weapon, which is the actual dangerous part, not the size of the mag.

And why shouldn't you be restricted to ten-round magazines?

Because a person should not have to justify himself to the government or anyone else. Restrictions should not be in place, just because. They should be in place because there's a tangible benefit to them. Background checks against violent felons and people with mental issues? There's a tangible benefit to them, like the whole VA shooter ordeal: that guy should never have been able to purchase a firearm but enforcement sucks.

You're not fighting a war, and your chances of being personally involved in one (unless you are active duty, reserve, or National Guard) are minute. Just because something is fun doesn't mean people should be allowed to do it with wild abandon.

If it's a generally safe hobby? Hell yes I should be able to. Nothing you've stated has done anything to show that civilian ownership of high-cap mags is more dangerous than making them shoot with 5-rounds. If someone wants to commit a crime or is acting like a dumbass out in the sticks, the amount of ammo they have in one magazine isn't going to affect the outcome of what's happening.

Also, I noticed this after I posted last night: there are many shooting sports where capacity is not an issue. I meant to say "Timed" but even then I could probably think of a few where the amount of ammo you have in the firearm isn't an issue. Just correcting myself here.

[eion]

Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Also, training.

My what a pithy remark, you don't perhaps have it in bumper sticker form, do you?

"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."

Please point to the part about training, or competitive shooting, or magazines even. The 2nd amendment was written by people who had no standing army, no national guard, no navy, and no concept of a multi-round weapon.

And notice the “well-regulated” part. That means Congress should, and ought to be, passing laws that ensure every gun owner is a member of a local militia dedicated to the security and safety of their state, and in accordance with Article II, Sec. II under the command of the President of the United States. “So you want to own a firearm? Congratulations that comes with complimentary enlistment in the National Guard Reserves. Report to this address for your range training.”

Restricting the capacity of magazines in no way infringes the right of someone to own a firearm just as restricting access to tanks in no way restricts the ability of someone to own a car.

And by the way, "Right" is another way of saying "entitlement", which is another way of saying need, so fuck off. As in, "I am entitled to affordable healthcare because I might need an operation at some point."

As for training, you don't need to train how to reload? So it takes you an extra hour; that's still no justification for having 17-rounds in your magazine. Is there a dearth of shooting ranges in the United States? Are there a lack of instructors? Exactly what would be the ACTUAL effect on training of restricting magazine capacities? No, "Well this could happen..." Or "It might..." If it takes an extra hour in total to train someone how to fire their, far more dangerous to their family than a criminal, handgun because they have to reload twice as often what would be the effect?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Most self-defense shooting scenarios are resolved in five rounds. Five. Rounds. Not five magazines, Five. Rounds.
Not ten, not thirteen, not fifteen, seventeen, nor thirty. Five. It may be even less than that.

I'd really like to see your source for this extremely specific statistic you've just produced.

I'll dig it up when I get home. But the language I've usually seen is "less than five." Of course, there may be a bit of selection bias here. Self-defense pieces have typically been snub-nose revolvers and .25 to .38 caliber pocket semi-automatics; neither of which are especially high-capacity. On the other hand, the fight goes out of most people after the first few good hits.

Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Also, training.

When the Bill of Rights was written, do you know what the "magazine capacity" of the gun of the day was? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't seventeen, or thirteen, or ten, or even six or five.

It was one. And you typically had to shove it down the barrel of the gun before you could fire it. The Second Amendment says "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "People shall have the right to own automatic rifles, high-capacity feeding devices, Glock 18 automatic pistols, Tommy guns, miniguns, RPG-7s, and whatever the fuck else they want to own; and if you don't like it, you can come pry them from our cold dead fingers."

[Coyote]

And why are those firearms popular? Is it that they are owned by former military personnel? That they are so reliable? Or because some redneck militiaist boot-camp dropout wants to play at soldier and wants the closest he can get?

Why does anyone who wants to own a military-style rifle some sort of lunatic racist retard in your opinion? That's a hell of a broad sweep, there.

Because if I establish a hard limit of 10-rounds period per magazine I can prosecute any asshole who commits a crime with an 11-round magazine.

What? Someone "commits a crime" and yet you need an 11-round magazine to press a prosecution? So I can commit crimes all day with a 6-shot revolver and I'll get a free pass?

Because ever extra second the criminal has to spend reloading is another second someone can stop him.

They type of person who is willing to charge an armed man and take him down will probably do it regardless of whether the person has a musket or a machinegun. And a person who is unliklely to charge an armed man will stay hunkered down and hiding as well. Most people (in spree shootings through recent history) just try to get away, not do an unarmed Banzai charge.

Because the 2nd amendment was written by men who had no conception that one day you’d be able to shoot continuously until your barrel melted.

Not really-- there were early experiments in the late 1770's with rapid-fire weapons (admittedly they didn't get much traction) and --believe it or not-- private citizens could get cannon. With grapeshot, if they so desired.

It's one more way to reduce gun crime by giving prosecutors another tool in their bag. Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine? "Because I want to and I can" is not a reason, otherwise I'd be driving 150 down the highway.

But you can drive 150 mph on your own private property if you are so inclined. Without a driver's liscence. But if you want to go out in public with a car (or in this argument, a gun) you can and should have some basic safety training. It is the type of basic training that is open for debate, and Arizona's complete lack of standards that makes this difficult.

Yeah, you're not competitive shooting, you're military play-acting. Let's not dress it up. That's fine, but if you want to play with the big toys ("the kid" included) you have to join up. Next you'll be telling me the strict anti-bazooka laws are putting a crimp in your weekend anti-tank competition. The 2nd Amendment does not exist to protect your hobby.

Bazookas (and other explosives) are not covered because the firer has no control over the detonation-- unlike a bullet, which must be aimed and the shooter has to assume responsibility for wherever it lands. This is an old trope argument about the 2nd and explosives.

[TheFeniX]

And why are those firearms popular? Is it that they are owned by former military personnel? That they are so reliable? Or because some redneck militiaist boot-camp dropout wants to play at soldier and wants the closest he can get?

Even if this "gun buyers are violent fucks living in fantasy land" bullshit wasn't a complete distortion of many firearms owners: it still wouldn't prove dick because the people who spend thousands of dollars on expensive guns and commit crimes with them encompass something like .1% of all firearms owners. The most committed "crime" with legally owned guns is suicide anyways.

Because if I establish a hard limit of 10-rounds period per magazine I can prosecute any asshole who commits a crime with an 11-round magazine.

So, a guy gets nabbed for murder 1 and you think tacking on a non-murder crime after the fact is going to accomplish anything? Do me a favor, look up the most popular firearms used it the commission of a crime. I didn't know they made 10-round mags for revolvers.

Because ever extra second the criminal has to spend reloading is another second someone can stop him.

So, he's got his 10 round magazine, because to own something larger would be illegal, and using it to murder people because he's a criminal... right. This is your argument, the guy has his 15-whatever round magazine to presumably murder numerous people (or stupidly get into a prolong firefight with a few) and he's going to worry about if his magazines are legal or not...

Because the 2nd amendment was written by men who had no conception that one day you’d be able to shoot continuously until your barrel melted. It's one more way to reduce gun crime by giving prosecutors another tool in their bag.

Why not just make cowboy boots and a bad attitude against the law?

Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine? "Because I want to and I can" is not a reason, otherwise I'd be driving 150 down the highway.

Maybe because driving 150 is actually dangerous? And yes, because I want to and I can is an argument if it involves an activity that is proven not to be dangerous.

Yeah, you're not competitive shooting, you're military play-acting. Let's not dress it up.

Fuck you and your little value judgments about me asshole. I have never met a single person who rated IPSC as some form as play-acting and the guys who shoot an IDPA match and say "At least now I can protect myself from 15 attackers at once" are usually met with "Yea, if they're made of cardboard."

Even after all your bullshit sermonizing about violent hicks blasting away with their penis compensators, you've still proven jack-shit about how mag-sizes are somehow dangerous or lead to crime other than you don't like guns and you'd like to make something illegal just because you're an asshole.

That's fine, but if you want to play with the big toys ("the kid" included) you have to join up. Next you'll be telling me the strict anti-bazooka laws are putting a crimp in your weekend anti-tank competition. The 2nd Amendment does not exist to protect your hobby.

Guess how many times I've mentioned the 2nd amendment? None. And no, I don't have to join up because dumb-shits like you haven't started writing more worthless legislation like the Brady Bill and then trying to take credit for a downward trend in crime that started over 5 years earlier.

And "The kid" you're making fun of actually placed a few times at nationals at the age of 14. Of course, you'll no doubt trash his single-mother for daring to support him in a hobby you don't agree with and that's because you're an asshole.

[eion]

Why does anyone who wants to own a military-style rifle some sort of lunatic racist retard in your opinion? That's a hell of a broad sweep, there.

People outside the military who dress up in military garb and carry military-style equipment fall into two groups:

1) Historical reenactors
2) Militia wingnuts

Hunters don't often get an opportunity for a follow up shot, and the 2nd amendment applies even less to hunting than it does magazine capacity. There is simply no purpose to a hunter carrying an AR-15 rifle with a 20-round clip into the forest. And I find no self-defense reason, outside of keeping the damn government off your property, for using an assault rifle. If you're mugged what use is an AR-15, if your property is invaded by a similarly armed group what use is one AR-15? Buy a true rifle and learn how to shoot accurately, not quickly.

Because if I establish a hard limit of 10-rounds period per magazine I can prosecute any asshole who commits a crime with an 11-round magazine.

What? Someone "commits a crime" and yet you need an 11-round magazine to press a prosecution? So I can commit crimes all day with a 6-shot revolver and I'll get a free pass?

It's called a tack-on. Sometimes the only charge that will stick is a petty one. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. Similarly, I may not be able to prove that Joe committed robbery because he wore a mask and I can't find the money, but he does have a handgun with a 17 round magazine in his car, which is illegal, so I charge him with that and get him off the street for a while. A perfect golfer playing a perfect game could get by with a driver, an iron, and a putter, but the sand-wedge will get you out of some sticky situations, even if you only need it once every 10 holes.

Because ever extra second the criminal has to spend reloading is another second someone can stop him.

They type of person who is willing to charge an armed man and take him down will probably do it regardless of whether the person has a musket or a machinegun. And a person who is unliklely to charge an armed man will stay hunkered down and hiding as well. Most people (in spree shootings through recent history) just try to get away, not do an unarmed Banzai charge.

Did I mention the general public specially? They may well stop him, but as you point out, we have cops for a reason, and when the perp is reloading is the perfect time for the police to shoot them.

Because the 2nd amendment was written by men who had no conception that one day you’d be able to shoot continuously until your barrel melted.

Not really-- there were early experiments in the late 1770's with rapid-fire weapons (admittedly they didn't get much traction) and --believe it or not-- private citizens could get cannon. With grapeshot, if they so desired.

Rapid-fire, so 4 rounds a minute instead of 2? I'm talking about a machine gun with a belt-fed magazine so you have to replace the barrel more often than you have to reload it. In 1770 they could also practice medicine without a license, buy heroin in the general store, and own people. What's your point? Society sure has come a long way. I can't really think of too many modern regulations drafted with as much word-slavery as the 2nd amendment is. We don't regulate cars the same way horse-drawn carts were regulated in 1786? Nor food, medicine, communications, etc.

It's one more way to reduce gun crime by giving prosecutors another tool in their bag. Why the fuck does anyone need a 17-round magazine? "Because I want to and I can" is not a reason, otherwise I'd be driving 150 down the highway.

But you can drive 150 mph on your own private property if you are so inclined. Without a driver's liscence. But if you want to go out in public with a car (or in this argument, a gun) you can and should have some basic safety training. It is the type of basic training that is open for debate, and Arizona's complete lack of standards that makes this difficult.

That was where the debate started, but like most gun debates it has devolved to a more basic level.

Yeah, you're not competitive shooting, you're military play-acting. Let's not dress it up. That's fine, but if you want to play with the big toys ("the kid" included) you have to join up. Next you'll be telling me the strict anti-bazooka laws are putting a crimp in your weekend anti-tank competition. The 2nd Amendment does not exist to protect your hobby.

Bazookas (and other explosives) are not covered because the firer has no control over the detonation-- unlike a bullet, which must be aimed and the shooter has to assume responsibility for wherever it lands. This is an old trope argument about the 2nd and explosives.

Fine, then you would have no problem with a private citizen owning a Royal Ordnance L7 with sabot-round ammunition. After all, that's just a big rifle basically.

[Coyote]

Why does anyone who wants to own a military-style rifle some sort of lunatic racist retard in your opinion? That's a hell of a broad sweep, there.

People outside the military who dress up in military garb and carry military-style equipment fall into two groups:

1) Historical reenactors
2) Militia wingnuts

Awesome-- I must fall into some weird categorical anomaly somewhere, because I have military style gear and weapons, yet I am neither of these. So I suppose that you-- with your indepth training on psychology and sociology, no doubt-- will provide evidence of your claim?

Hunters don't often get an opportunity for a follow up shot, and the 2nd amendment applies even less to hunting than it does magazine capacity. There is simply no purpose to a hunter carrying an AR-15 rifle with a 20-round clip into the forest. And I find no self-defense reason, outside of keeping the damn government off your property, for using an assault rifle. If you're mugged what use is an AR-15, if your property is invaded by a similarly armed group what use is one AR-15? Buy a true rifle and learn how to shoot accurately, not quickly.

Once again, you are seeking to apply a "need" based argument where none exists. What was said earlier was true-- it is a bill of Rights, not what you Need (or not).

What? Someone "commits a crime" and yet you need an 11-round magazine to press a prosecution? So I can commit crimes all day with a 6-shot revolver and I'll get a free pass?

It's called a tack-on. Sometimes the only charge that will stick is a petty one. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. Similarly, I may not be able to prove that Joe committed robbery because he wore a mask and I can't find the money, but he does have a handgun with a 17 round magazine in his car, which is illegal, so I charge him with that and get him off the street for a while.

And what about a guy who has never done anything wrong but owns a gun with a 20+ round magazine? You'll arbitrarily toss him in jail, too?

Because ever extra second the criminal has to spend reloading is another second someone can stop him.

They type of person who is willing to charge an armed man and take him down will probably do it regardless of whether the person has a musket or a machinegun. And a person who is unliklely to charge an armed man will stay hunkered down and hiding as well. Most people (in spree shootings through recent history) just try to get away, not do an unarmed Banzai charge.

Did I mention the general public specially? They may well stop him, but as you point out, we have cops for a reason, and when the perp is reloading is the perfect time for the police to shoot them.

Well, you did say "someone" so that left it open. But the type of person who is going to have no qualms about going head-to-head with cops in a gunfight isn't likely to be deterred by gun or magazine capacity laws, and you know this. How many criminals do you think really truly thought, "well, I was going to commit robbery today, but there are no guns around, so I'll just get a job at McDonald's instead". Arbitrary bans on guns or magazines are not even speed bumps on the road to committing crime. We've covered it here before many times-- crime comes from a confluence of many different factors, many times related to poverty levels, living conditions, drug addictions, or/and other socioeconomic factors.

Taking an entire social category and blaming them (gun owners) for the actions of a small minority of people (spree killers who use semi-automatic weapons and high-cap magazines) without any empirical data to back up the mass punishment makes no sense. It is the same psychology of people who see that the majority of men in prison are black, ergo, all black men must be criminals-- without looking at what other factors may be contributing to the prison ratio.

Because the 2nd amendment was written by men who had no conception that one day you’d be able to shoot continuously until your barrel melted.

Not really-- there were early experiments in the late 1770's with rapid-fire weapons (admittedly they didn't get much traction) and --believe it or not-- private citizens could get cannon. With grapeshot, if they so desired.

Rapid-fire, so 4 rounds a minute instead of 2? I'm talking about a machine gun with a belt-fed magazine so you have to replace the barrel more often than you have to reload it. In 1770 they could also practice medicine without a license, buy heroin in the general store, and own people. What's your point? Society sure has come a long way. I can't really think of too many modern regulations drafted with as much word-slavery as the 2nd amendment is. We don't regulate cars the same way horse-drawn carts were regulated in 1786? Nor food, medicine, communications, etc.[/quote]
And in 1770, "free speech" would have been limited to voice and what you could print with movable-type. The drafters of the Constitution clearly could not have foreseen radio, internet, TV... so what's your point?

That was where the debate started, but like most gun debates it has devolved to a more basic level.

Yes-- people decide "well, I just don't like guns and they scare me, so I want them all to go away!"

Fine, then you would have no problem with a private citizen owning a Royal Ordnance L7 with sabot-round ammunition. After all, that's just a big rifle basically.

IIRC, the L7 is a cannon, and indirect fire is also harder to control. Don't try to manufacture smokescreens; face it-- there is already a lot of regulation on military-style hardware in civilian hands. A semi-automatic pistol or rifle is about where it peaks out for civilian gun ownership. And as anyone in the military will tell you (raises hand) that pretty close to the bottom of the barrel as far as capability. Bear in mind that most terrorists and criminal mass-casualty scenarios are perpetrated with explosives more so than firearms; the Columbine shooters were actually counting on their homemade IEDs to be the "real" casualty producer in their attack; they practiced with homemade pipe bombs for months --the cops heard about it but never acted on it. And we know about McVeigh.

Spree-killer scenarios, statistically speaking, are rarer than lightning strikes. And murder --firearm crime in general-- has actually been going down for years, and that is both through the era of the Brady Bill, and then through the era of the Brady Bill's sunset, and the subsequent mass popularity of CCW granting that has swept the nation since. Both sides claim the decreased murder rate as the results of their own brilliant plans. But the truth is, gun crime shows a remarkable resilience to the status of gun laws. Even now, in the midst of this recession, the notion that gun crime is tied to poverty has been challenged because even as income fell and joblessness rose, gun crime continued to go down --and again, that is with more CCWs issued and the sunset of the Brady Bill. So there may be other factors at work that statisticians previously were unaware of.

No one wants or likes gun crime, least of all gun owners. But before jumping off a bridge in hysteria about "ban ban ban anything I don't like" take a look at what is actually happening and address evidence. I don't like the mass-issue of CCWs to untrained retards, and I don't like crazy militia types running around screaming for "revolution". But don't just scoop all gun owners up and shove us all in the valley of the damned or something, based on some hysterical notion about what "all you people" are like.

[TheFeniX]

A perfect golfer playing a perfect game could get by with a driver, an iron, and a putter, but the sand-wedge will get you out of some sticky situations, even if you only need it once every 10 holes.

That's a really cool analogy. Kind of like you would only need a hi-cap mag in a self-defense situation maybe 1/100 times, but it's easy to have one around anyways and it might come in handy.

Spree-killer scenarios, statistically speaking, are rarer than lightning strikes.

While it started out as a bank-robbery, the Hollywood shoot-out where two guys in body-armor and illegally modified weapons fired 1,300 rounds at police, civilians, and even helicopters. No one died except the two gunmen, one by suicide. Really, the only instance I've ever heard of in the U.S. that anywhere meets the criteria of "Military equipment" he's been on about, they couldn't kill a single person (wounded a few) and ended up dead themselves. And interviews with police talk about how the deciding factor was the body armor, not the weapons themselves.

Yet, you can cite examples where crazies with much cheaper weaponry with legitimate uses (like hunting rifles, which is basically what an AR-15 is) succeeding in killing many more people.

You can argue intentions as the robbery was the main goal of the Hollywood shooters, but they had the cops outgunned for 20 minutes until SWAT showed up.

[Mr. Coffee]

Do I "need" a 30 round magazine? Probably not, but who knows, maybe the Zombie Apocalypse will happen right after I post this shit. Then I'll be the guy with the 30 round mags and fru-fru hippies like Eion will get eaten by the zombie hordes. No, I don't "need" them. They're just fun to have. Anyone that doesn't get it, well, they just need to do a mag dump with an automatic weapon once and they'll understand.

[eion]

Awesome-- I must fall into some weird categorical anomaly somewhere, because I have military style gear and weapons, yet I am neither of these. So I suppose that you-- with your indepth training on psychology and sociology, no doubt-- will provide evidence of your claim?

Well you must be in the third group, 12 year old boys That definition was too broad, it is retracted.

Firearms in the hands of private citizens have three purposes (generally): Self Defense, Hunting, and Sport.

The first is explicitly mentioned in the text of the 2nd amendment, the other two are not. As we've established, most self-defense is at short range, and resolved with relatively few rounds fired. the amendment also requires the militia to be well-regulated, which even if we interpret "regulated" to mean "disciplined and trained" rather than "appropriately restricted" (as SCOTUS has done recently) the Arizona law, and most gun laws, clearly fail that definition.

Once again, you are seeking to apply a "need" based argument where none exists. What was said earlier was true-- it is a bill of Rights, not what you Need (or not).

Much as we would like it to believe, the rights enshrined in the Constitution and its amendments are not unbreakable. They may be curtailed, infringed, or limited if a justification can be made under strict scrutiny, that is: The government must have a compelling interest in curtailing a right, the curtailment must be narrowly tailored, and the policy must be the least restrictive means possible.
Limiting a magazine’s size to 3, 5, or X rounds, if it could be shown to have a measurable impact on crime, or gun deaths, or what have you could be argued to fall under those limits.
-The government has a compelling interest in reducing crime/fatalities
-The government is not restricting firearms to single-shot, or banning the storage of multiple rounds in some other manner, including stripper clips.

And what about a guy who has never done anything wrong but owns a gun with a 20+ round magazine? You'll arbitrarily toss him in jail, too?

if the law applied retroactively (which would be necessary as how do you tell a pre-ban magazine from a post-ban) and he had failed to acquire any necessary permit then the conviction would hardly be “arbitrary” any more than a ban on sawn-off shotguns is “arbitrary” or possessing Cuban cigars is “arbitrary”; it’s against the law. I don’t care if he had a good reason to break the law, it’s the law, and you can work to change the law, but just breaking it “because I feel like it” is not a valid argument.

Did I mention the general public specially? They may well stop him, but as you point out, we have cops for a reason, and when the perp is reloading is the perfect time for the police to shoot them.

Well, you did say "someone" so that left it open. But the type of person who is going to have no qualms about going head-to-head with cops in a gunfight isn't likely to be deterred by gun or magazine capacity laws, and you know this. How many criminals do you think really truly thought, "well, I was going to commit robbery today, but there are no guns around, so I'll just get a job at McDonald's instead". Arbitrary bans on guns or magazines are not even speed bumps on the road to committing crime. We've covered it here before many times-- crime comes from a confluence of many different factors, many times related to poverty levels, living conditions, drug addictions, or/and other socioeconomic factors.

How many crimes are committed using “destructive devices” like grenade launchers? You think criminals are deterred from acquiring those out of some sense of honor? The reason is that legal acquisition of grenade launchers by civilians, while possible, is heavily regulated and taxed enough to discourage it. If high-volume magazines are similarly restricted (and it is impossible or prohibitively difficult to modify existing magazines and firearms to violate the law, as it should be) then the use of high-volume magazines in crimes will likewise decrease.
One of the easiest routes for arms trafficking is for an individual to purchase a firearm and sell it to someone who cannot purchase the firearm. Since there is no law requiring “lost” firearms to be reported, most are not, and so many end up in the hands of criminals either because they were stolen and the owner didn’t report it, or the owner sold it, and later claimed it was stolen. Rights carry responsibilities as well, and if it is indeed the intrinsic right of Americans to own any firearm of their choosing, it should carry responsibilities at least as heavy as owning a car, and in any rational world many more than that.

Taking an entire social category and blaming them (gun owners) for the actions of a small minority of people (spree killers who use semi-automatic weapons and high-cap magazines) without any empirical data to back up the mass punishment makes no sense. It is the same psychology of people who see that the majority of men in prison are black, ergo, all black men must be criminals-- without looking at what other factors may be contributing to the prison ratio.

Exactly how would the gun community be hurt by being limited to 10-round magazines as opposed to 20-round magazines for their AR-15? They’d have to reload more often? If I can save one life because the criminal couldn’t fire that one extra round without reloading, isn’t that a small price to pay for a little extra time at the firing range? Again, the 2nd amendment is about national defense; it does not exist to protect ones hobby. Any argument from a sporting/hunting perspective is specious.

Society sure has come a long way. I can't really think of too many modern regulations drafted with as much word-slavery as the 2nd amendment is. We don't regulate cars the same way horse-drawn carts were regulated in 1786? Nor food, medicine, communications, etc.

And in 1770, "free speech" would have been limited to voice and what you could print with movable-type. The drafters of the Constitution clearly could not have foreseen radio, internet, TV... so what's your point?

And the laws regarding expression have, and are developing to this day. But mention firearms and everyone goes 18th century, “The founders this…” and assumes ANY gun control is somehow a categorical infringement of their right to shoot tin cans and find new and creative ways to make bacon, which again is not why the 2nd amendment exists.

That was where the debate started, but like most gun debates it has devolved to a more basic level.

Yes-- people decide "well, I just don't like guns and they scare me, so I want them all to go away!"

Yes, by all means lump me in with a group as irrational as the gun-nuts. I do not fear firearms. They are a tool, and you can do as much damage with an axe as you can a glock. They deserve our upmost respect and attention, and to simply do something because we can represents an immaturity of such dangerous levels.

Fine, then you would have no problem with a private citizen owning a Royal Ordnance L7 with sabot-round ammunition. After all, that's just a big rifle basically.

IIRC, the L7 is a cannon, and indirect fire is also harder to control. Don't try to manufacture smokescreens; face it-- there is already a lot of regulation on military-style hardware in civilian hands. A semi-automatic pistol or rifle is about where it peaks out for civilian gun ownership. And as anyone in the military will tell you (raises hand) that pretty close to the bottom of the barrel as far as capability. Bear in mind that most terrorists and criminal mass-casualty scenarios are perpetrated with explosives more so than firearms; the Columbine shooters were actually counting on their homemade IEDs to be the "real" casualty producer in their attack; they practiced with homemade pipe bombs for months --the cops heard about it but never acted on it. And we know about McVeigh.

It’s a rifled barrel, it shoots a cartridge using a trigger, and the sabot round is non-explosive. It is a damn big rifle, and nothing more. How that is illegal but a .50 BMG rifle is somehow okay boggles me. The level of destruction may be lesser with the .50 BMG rifle but it is still above any reasonable threshold for civilian use.

And as many on this board have told us it is simplicity itself to modify magazines or weapons to violate gun control bans, which points to a casual detachment from the seriousness of such actions. The punitive measures need to be raised, and harsher punishments for companies that manufacture firearms easily modifiable into illegal firearms should face harsh penalties as well.

McVeigh is a perfect example of why we need strict gun-control, especially with permits. He was caught 75 minutes after the bombing for two reasons, 1) He was driving without tags on his car, and 2) He had an unlicensed firearm. Had he been in a state that did not require a permit to carry a handgun he probably would have been released sooner, and then who knows what the hell would have happened.

No one wants or likes gun crime, least of all gun owners. But before jumping off a bridge in hysteria about "ban ban ban anything I don't like" take a look at what is actually happening and address evidence. I don't like the mass-issue of CCWs to untrained retards, and I don't like crazy militia types running around screaming for "revolution". But don't just scoop all gun owners up and shove us all in the valley of the damned or something, based on some hysterical notion about what "all you people" are like.

I apologize for being so broad in my definitions earlier, though I was careful to exclude intrinsically civilian firearms and equipment.

I trap shoot a bit when I’m on vacation, and I have a nice .22 target rifle from my father that he used as a kid, so please don’t lump all us gun-control activists as against guns in principle. I like my hobby, but I recognize there is no constitutional protection to be found for it in the 2nd amendment.

[eion]

A perfect golfer playing a perfect game could get by with a driver, an iron, and a putter, but the sand-wedge will get you out of some sticky situations, even if you only need it once every 10 holes.

That's a really cool analogy. Kind of like you would only need a hi-cap mag in a self-defense situation maybe 1/100 times, but it's easy to have one around anyways and it might come in handy.

Exactly what situations would the average citizen find themselves in that they need this?


MWG 90 ROUNDER for AR-15/M16

You cannot base permisable activies on the outside 1%. 1% of drivers might be able to drive their cars safetly at 150 mph, but that is not reason to allow the other 99% to do it.

[Sea Skimmer]

You cannot base permisable activies on the outside 1%. 1% of drivers might be able to drive their cars safetly at 150 mph, but that is not reason to allow the other 99% to do it.

Too bad for your argument that we don’t restrict the sale of 150mph cars at all, and people are quite capable of dieing in 45mph accidents, just like someone is quite able to go on a killing spree with pockets full of five round magazines.

[eion]

You cannot base permisable activies on the outside 1%. 1% of drivers might be able to drive their cars safetly at 150 mph, but that is not reason to allow the other 99% to do it.

Too bad for your argument that we don’t restrict the sale of 150mph cars at all, and people are quite capable of dieing in 45mph accidents, just like someone is quite able to go on a killing spree with pockets full of five round magazines.

It's a poor analogy, I admit. Perhaps you could suggest a better one.

They may well go on a spree with 18 five round mags as they could with a 90 round mag, but the extra time it takes to reload those magazines, coupled with the additional weight would give law enforcement the time needed to dispatch the threat.

And that still doesn't explain how a perfectly reasonable restriction on magazine size in any way infringes the rights of people to bear arms. No one is stopping you from buying 18 five round magazines, but can't we all agree that no normal self-defense situation calls for a 90 round magazine? Aren't hi-cap magazines also prone to excessive wear and tear and jamming? I see no images or text on the website linked advertising this 90-round magazine as a time saver at the range or a boon to hunters. In fact they more or less say it’s strictly for the military or for standoff situations. What the fuck kind of upstanding civilian gets into standoff situations against a highly armed force on a regular basis?

[Mr. Coffee]

I've got a better question...

Other than the Hollywood Bank Robbery, can you name any other incidents involving criminals using weapons with high capacity magazines and is the number of incidents high enough to warrant the cost of having to make weapons over a certain capacity, the added law enforcement expense, added expense on our courts and prison, ect worth it?

I mean, it seems like you're against high capacity magazines not because they actually present a real threat so much as you personally can't find a "need" for why anyone should have them and you're making up a threat to cover that personal bias up.

[Alyeska]

Exactly what situations would the average citizen find themselves in that they need this?


MWG 90 ROUNDER for AR-15/M16

You cannot base permisable activies on the outside 1%. 1% of drivers might be able to drive their cars safetly at 150 mph, but that is not reason to allow the other 99% to do it.

I bet you $100 that not a single crime has been committed with that magazine. It has a 100% safety rating.

You have a solution in search of a problem. High capacity magazines have relatively little impact on crimes. The worst shooting tragedy in the United States occured with weapons that were limited to 10 round magazines. The sniper spree was a result of single aimed shots. You want to set an arbitrary value based on emotional argumentation without actually understanding the issues at hand. I have over two dozen magazines for my various guns that hold more than 10 rounds.

Six 15-round magazines for my Glock 22

Ten 30-round magazines and One 40 round magazine for my AR-15

Six 30 round magazines for my AK rifles

Four 16-round magazines and Two 18-round magazines for my Springfield Armory XD9

Three 16-Round magazines for my Springfield Armory XDM 40

Four 20-round magazines for my M1A

You get the picture. Not a single crime committed with them.

Oh, and just to give you an idea of what your ban does. The Assault Weapon Ban actually caused a stagnation in Rifle and Pistol design in the world. The US is one of the largest markets. And without the civilian market looking for newer and better given the restrictions that got put on the weapons, designs started to stagnate and the military/law enforcement suffered as a result. The only benefit is that companies like Glock took the 10 round limit and started building the smallest possible pistol that could still hold 10 rounds.

The one thing the AWB inspired was a plethora of concealable pistols to be developed.

[eion]

I've got a better question...

Other than the Hollywood Bank Robbery, can you name any other incidents involving criminals using weapons with high capacity magazines and is the number of incidents high enough to warrant the cost of having to make weapons over a certain capacity, the added law enforcement expense, added expense on our courts and prison, ect worth it?

I mean, it seems like you're against high capacity magazines not because they actually present a real threat so much as you personally can't find a "need" for why anyone should have them and you're making up a threat to cover that personal bias up.

Waco off the top of my head.

The biggest risk of having high-cap magazines on the market is the ease with which most semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 can be turned into fully-automatic weapons. The plans are freely available online, the work takes about an hour, costs almost nothing, and the part can fire upwards of 5,000 rounds without wearing out, more if it is well-made. Pair a fully-automatic AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine (as was done in Hollywood) and you have a very deadly weapon.
The LAPD has countered the Hollywood scenario by issuing AR-15s to their patrolmen, which allows them to now penetrate the type of body armor worn by the shooters, which was arguably an even bigger threat than their high powered automatic rifles. Why do we see no great religion of body armor, why is every measure to limit who can purchase body armor and how strong it can be not decried by all as a infringement of a basic right? The founders knew of plate armor and foresaw the development of semi-automatic weapons; surely they knew someone would perfect a material that could resist bullets at some point.

My big beef is with firearm manufacturers "civilianizing" military equipment, and doing a piss-poor job of it. You can have a semi-automatic firearm that looks like an M16, but shares none of its internal mechanisms, which will greatly increase the work needed to make it into a fully-automatic weapon.

Since it is far more difficult to get all the AR-15s off the market, I'd rather focus on what wears out on firearms faster, magazines and even more so ammunition.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's a poor analogy, I admit. Perhaps you could suggest a better one.

They may well go on a spree with 18 five round mags as they could with a 90 round mag, but the extra time it takes to reload those magazines, coupled with the additional weight would give law enforcement the time needed to dispatch the threat.

Do you realize you can change a magazine in under two seconds with practice right? So swapping twenty magazines wouldn’t even give the police ONE extra minute to respond. You think that’s going to fucking matter? At best it provides opportunities for armed citizens to return fire, since you’d be damn lucky if the cops show up in even five minutes, and the first cops to arrive aren’t going to rush head first into a shooting situation until they have significant numbers. But hey, you just limited those law abiding gun owners to 5 rounds, while the murder criminal has zero fucking reason to give a shit and will easily be able to find preban high capacity magazines because fucking tens of millions of them already exist.

Magazine capacity limits are pointless. In fact they may even be detrimental in some shooter situations. A person spraying gunfire as quickly as they can pull the trigger is going to be far far less accurate then a person who knows they only have limited ammo, and aims every shot. Aimed fire is deadly fire. Unaimed or poorly aimed rounds, even fired into a crowd are likely to miss over peoples heads. See the North Hollywood Shootout for what I mean, the two suspects fired an estimated 1,300 rounds from several illegally modified machine guns… and killed no one. 17 police and civilians wounded, but none of them died. The police BTW fought back in part with civilian model AR-15 rifles they grabbed from a local gunshop because SWAT took a considerable time to arrive. At the time the LAPD did not have rifles or slug ammo for shotguns in its patrol cars.

Since the US already has 200 million guns in circulation owned by over 80 million individuals, and hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines removing them is totally unrealistic. A ban accomplishes nothing but to fuck over law abiding citizens. Additionally most magazine fed guns have a minimal useable magazine length, which means restricting magazine size consists of placing a pin or crimp in the magazine. You can’t just make the entire magazine shorter if you want a really low capacity. That can easily be undone by anyone who feels like breaking the law. That’s one of countless reasons why the Assault Weapon Ban with its 10 round magazine limit was completely pointless and had absolutely no detectable effect on criminal activity.

I see no reason to do anything. While tragic and spectacular mass shootings are very rare, and most still only involve a few deaths, making a magazine capacity limit all the more pointless. We have way bigger issues to worry about rather then spending a vast amount of money trying to enforce yet another totally unenforceable law.

And that still doesn't explain how a perfectly reasonable restriction on magazine size in any way infringes the rights of people to bear arms.

Actually the Supreme Court already ruled that lack of military utility is the grounds for outright weapons and accessories. This is how they got away with banning sawed off shotguns. High capacity magazines have more military utility then small capacity ones, so banning them is on absurdly shaky legal grounds at best.

No one is stopping you from buying 18 five round magazines, but can't we all agree that no normal self-defense situation calls for a 90 round magazine?

So fucking what if it lacks a very specific self defense utility. That is not the basis of the fucking second amendment, and you might notice that criminals ABSURELY RARELY ever use such magazines either. In one of the very rare instance when they did, spraying 1,300 rounds killed no one. Horrors.

Aren't hi-cap magazines also prone to excessive wear and tear and jamming? I see no images or text on the website linked advertising this 90-round magazine as a time saver at the range or a boon to hunters. In fact they more or less say it’s strictly for the military or for standoff situations. What the fuck kind of upstanding civilian gets into standoff situations against a highly armed force on a regular basis?

What kind of criminal uses an assault rifle for ANYTHING AT ALL? It’s rare to say the least because they cost a shitload of money and cannot be concealed. Assault rifles are used in less then 1% of gun crimes, and about .2% of all violent crime. A typical criminal wants a small compact weapon that is cheap enough that he can throw it away after robbing someone for a few hundred dollars.

This is America, the way our constitution and government is supposed to work is that the government must justify why it takes things away, not that the people justify why they have things. If you want to start banning guns based on use in crime, then you better start fucking arguing why we should ban .38 caliber handguns, because those are by far the most commonly used in crime and the largest killer of cops. he reason is simple; they are small, cheap and compact. You can buy one for about as much as one of those 90 round drum magazines costs on its own. But somehow I bet you didn’t know that and are basing your entire argument on the fact that a 90 round magazine looks dangerous. Just like that wonderful assault weapon ban restricted guns from having such mean looking features as pistol grips and bayonet lugs.

[eion]

I bet you $100 that not a single crime has been committed with that magazine. It has a 100% safety rating.

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. Is there some independent agency that tracks gun crimes and lists all the weapons used in said crimes? Regardless, this was just the first example that popped up in Google. I could have just as easily pulled up the Beta-C which I know has been used by criminals.

You have a solution in search of a problem. High capacity magazines have relatively little impact on crimes. The worst shooting tragedy in the United States occured with weapons that were limited to 10 round magazines. The sniper spree was a result of single aimed shots. You want to set an arbitrary value based on emotional argumentation without actually understanding the issues at hand. I have over two dozen magazines for my various guns that hold more than 10 rounds.

<snip>

You get the picture. Not a single crime committed with them.

Good for you, you want a medal? 99% of gun owners don't commit crime with their guns, what a shocker. Too bad the 1% are doing enough killing for the rest of you. Switzerland, a country that loves guns almost as much as us. In Switzerland, the per 100,000 firearm homicide rate is 0.56, here it's 2.97. If we are so bloodthirsty and immature regarding firearms as to account for a firearm homicide rate more than five times higher than Switzerland perhaps it's time we put our toys away until we've matured a bit.

I'd actually be perfectly happy going back to semi-automatic, bolt or lever operated integral magazine rifles. Shotguns you can have a double barreled. That covers all your hunting needs right there. Pistols, you can have a revolver, 6 rounds max or a pistol with a 6 round integral magazine, your choice. There's your sport and self-defense. Want anything else? Join your state militia, also known as the National Guard. But that is in an ideal world. I can't get rid of the guns, and it's pointless to spend political capital trying for the most part. We just have to work to make the next generation a little less enamored and a little more respectful of them. My point was that a ban on high-capacity magazines would be entirely constitutional in my interpretation, at least as far as the 2nd amendment goes.

I'll say this again, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with your hobby, it is about the security of the states through a regulated and disciplined militia (organized or unorganized) under the command of the President. SCOTUS can twist it all they want, but the words say what they say. You want protection for your hobby you need to look elsewhere.

Oh, and just to give you an idea of what your ban does. The Assault Weapon Ban actually caused a stagnation in Rifle and Pistol design in the world. The US is one of the largest markets. And without the civilian market looking for newer and better given the restrictions that got put on the weapons, designs started to stagnate and the military/law enforcement suffered as a result. The only benefit is that companies like Glock took the 10 round limit and started building the smallest possible pistol that could still hold 10 rounds.

The one thing the AWB inspired was a plethora of concealable pistols to be developed.

You're not at all concerned that one of least invaded lands in history feels a need to arm itself so excessively? You're going to tell me that we haven't been invaded because we're armed, but them I’m just going to point out Switzerland again. They manage a pretty high firearm ownership rate and a firearm homicide rate 5 times lower than us.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Lots of gun mags.

I bet you don't keep them in a fucking safe either.

[eion]

But somehow I bet you didn’t know that and are basing your entire argument on the fact that a 90 round magazine looks dangerous. Just like that wonderful assault weapon ban restricted guns from having such mean looking features as pistol grips and bayonet lugs.

The AWB was an attempt to ban civilianized military weapons. It was incredibly poorly designed and executed and was thus horribly ineffective. A far more effective ban would have been on percent of common parts with fully-automatic firearms. This is a common problem when technical laws are written by non-technical people, and is an argument for more involvement by gun owners in gun control legislation.

There is no silver bullet to gun control. And like everything you have to attack the common and widespread along with the rare and the punctuated. Just because a crime is uncommon is not reason to spend time figuring out how to prevent it. Momentum counts for something.

We live in a country where ideally you need a reason to make something illegal, you're right. But as many things that kill absolutely no one are illegalized for no more reason than fear and distrust, I find our reality is a long way from our ideals, and until I can buy pot legally, marry whomever the fuck wants to marry me, and do every other harmless thing I want, I find your argument unpersuasive. If we’re going to ban anything out of fear and mistrust, can it be the things that actually kill someone?

[Mr. Coffee]

Waco off the top of my head.

So two incidents in the last thirty years, one of which might not have happened had the ATF not been pants-on-head-retarded about how they served a fucking warrant, and this makes high capacity magazines a dire threat how? I've got a greater likelihood of bleeding to death from accidentalyl cutting my thoat while shaving than getting gunned down in a shooting involving a weapon with high capacity magazine. I'm more likely to get shot by a cop using a pistol with a high capacity magazine then I am a criminal.

Seriously, where's the threat?

The biggest risk of having high-cap magazines on the market is the ease with which most semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 can be turned into fully-automatic weapons. The plans are freely available online, the work takes about an hour, costs almost nothing, and the part can fire upwards of 5,000 rounds without wearing out, more if it is well-made. Pair a fully-automatic AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine (as was done in Hollywood) and you have a very deadly weapon.

If it's that easy to convert the AR-15 to a fully automatic weapon (trust me, it isn't) then why not just ban AR-15s? If you've got the tooling and experience to modify a civilian sporting weapon into a military grade assault rifle then you've probably got everything you need to make a 30 round magazine (it's really easy, two stamped side pieces, a baseplate, a spring, and a follower). But hell, if it really is as easy as you say it is (again, it's not easy), then why haven't we seen a surge of illegally modified weapons with high capacity magazines used in crimes?

Again, where's the fucking threat you keep harping on about?

The LAPD has countered the Hollywood scenario by issuing AR-15s to their patrolmen, which allows them to now penetrate the type of body armor worn by the shooters, which was arguably an even bigger threat than their high powered automatic rifles.

Yes, they started issuing rifles to counter a set of threats that never materialized. They had a one off shooting incident and after that... Bunch of cops now have rifles. Again, what's the big scary threat that you keep going about that needs high capacity magazines taken away from law abiding citizens?

Why do we see no great religion of body armor, why is every measure to limit who can purchase body armor and how strong it can be not decried by all as a infringement of a basic right?

Because you seriously can't argue a need for bodyarmor outside of a few select professions. Though given some of the silly shit I've witnessed during deer season, having body armor might not be a bad idea.

The founders knew of plate armor and foresaw the development of semi-automatic weapons; surely they knew someone would perfect a material that could resist bullets at some point.

Wait, you mean the same founders that didn't see anything wrong with owning other humans as livestock and that the only people that should be able to vote were white land owning men? Yeah, they were such a forward thinking group...

Not sure what the fuck that has to do with your bullshit about the threat high capacity magazines supposedly present, but I'm sure you'll eventually pull your head out of your ass, stop tossing out non-existent boogie men and actually address that.

My big beef is with firearm manufacturers "civilianizing" military equipment, and doing a piss-poor job of it. You can have a semi-automatic firearm that looks like an M16, but shares none of its internal mechanisms, which will greatly increase the work needed to make it into a fully-automatic weapon.

Yeah, they do that by replacing the trigger group, some of the bolt group, all manner of things. Seriously, I don't know where you got this horseshit about AR-15s being easy to modify into being fully automatic weapons, but it's a fucking retarded brain bug spouted by people who generally have no goddamned idea what they're talking about, so knock it the fuck off already.

Since it is far more difficult to get all the AR-15s off the market, I'd rather focus on what wears out on firearms faster, magazines and even more so ammunition.

Repairing magazines isn't that difficult, and ammo's already expensive enough to keep most people from having more than a few dozen rounds of a given caliber on hand. Face it, you're making up fucking boogey men to justify your own bias against firearms. They took away high cap magazines for a while there, it had fuck all effect on firearms crimes. They did the same to 'assault weapons", same thing, no fucking effect. They went ahead and removed most of the restrictions on both and what do you know, no rise in firearms crimes.

You're talking out of your ass on many levels here, eion.

[Coyote]

Awesome-- I must fall into some weird categorical anomaly somewhere, because I have military style gear and weapons, yet I am neither of these. So I suppose that you-- with your indepth training on psychology and sociology, no doubt-- will provide evidence of your claim?

Well you must be in the third group, 12 year old boys That definition was too broad, it is retracted.

Hey, I topped out at 16, I swear. Heh.

the amendment also requires the militia to be well-regulated, which even if we interpret "regulated" to mean "disciplined and trained" rather than "appropriately restricted" (as SCOTUS has done recently) the Arizona law, and most gun laws, clearly fail that definition.

I agree with that-- there need to be some standards of training.

Much as we would like it to believe, the rights enshrined in the Constitution and its amendments are not unbreakable. They may be curtailed, infringed, or limited if a justification can be made under strict scrutiny, that is: The government must have a compelling interest in curtailing a right, the curtailment must be narrowly tailored, and the policy must be the least restrictive means possible.
Limiting a magazine’s size to 3, 5, or X rounds, if it could be shown to have a measurable impact on crime, or gun deaths, or what have you could be argued to fall under those limits.
-The government has a compelling interest in reducing crime/fatalities
-The government is not restricting firearms to single-shot, or banning the storage of multiple rounds in some other manner, including stripper clips.

But in all the big-name spree killings the last 20 years, none of them would have been mitigated by magazine capacity limits. Spree killers from the 80's postal workers to Columbine, VTech, etc have reloaded many times, and some of them even died (typically by their own hands) with leftover ammunition in their pockets when the police closed in several minutes after firing stopped.

Part of the problem is that spree-killers have typically had all the time in the world they wanted to carry out their work. Police always responded with the principles of "cordon the area off, seal it away from the public, and wait for negotiations"-- ie, a hostage scenario with demands. That works for some things, but spree-killers typically don't make demands, aren't interested in hostages, and have no intention of walking out alive. The cops are beginning to realize this, and that the old way of "sealing an area off and waiting" means caging the victims in with the psycho so he can complete his task uninterrupted. The cops, basically, enable them.

Now, the problem with that is not hi-cap magazines, but inadequate Police response and training. Once Police realize they have a spree-killer situation, they need to storm the place immediately and stop the guy.

And what about a guy who has never done anything wrong but owns a gun with a 20+ round magazine? You'll arbitrarily toss him in jail, too?

if the law applied retroactively (which would be necessary as how do you tell a pre-ban magazine from a post-ban) and he had failed to acquire any necessary permit then the conviction would hardly be “arbitrary” any more than a ban on sawn-off shotguns is “arbitrary” or possessing Cuban cigars is “arbitrary”; it’s against the law. I don’t care if he had a good reason to break the law, it’s the law, and you can work to change the law, but just breaking it “because I feel like it” is not a valid argument.

But the Cuban cigar ban is a poor analogy, because we all know that the ban on Cuban cigars is part of a failed political policy. Arbitrary magazine bans would also be a reflection of a political policy born of failure and the need to "pass something, even if it is only feel-good" legislation.

How many crimes are committed using “destructive devices” like grenade launchers? You think criminals are deterred from acquiring those out of some sense of honor? The reason is that legal acquisition of grenade launchers by civilians, while possible, is heavily regulated and taxed enough to discourage it.

That seems like an odd cause-and-effect. You're saying that crimes are not committed with grenade launchers because grenade launchers are regulated and taxed? You're ignoring the fact that grenade launchers are also very impractical for crime (you risk destroying the thing you're trying to steal or wounding yourself if using it in close quarters) and hard to conceal. These would be more practical reasons to avoid using grenade launchers in crime.

If high-volume magazines are similarly restricted (and it is impossible or prohibitively difficult to modify existing magazines and firearms to violate the law, as it should be) then the use of high-volume magazines in crimes will likewise decrease.

But which crimes are those? The crimes that are so statistically rare that you are more likely to be struck by lightning or mauled by a wild animal? The problem with these "feel-good" "solutions" is that they place the blame for wrongdoing on a convenient scapegoat, not necessarily the thing that is the source of the problem. Remember the assault rifle ban; it also banned bayonet lugs and carry straps-- how many people were killed with bayonets or whipped to death with carry straps? None. But the bans were passed because it allowed certain ignorant lawmakers the opportunity to say that they had done "something". It's like the guy who loses his car keys by the dumpster on a dark night, but is searching for the keys by the street light because the visibility is better.

One of the easiest routes for arms trafficking is for an individual to purchase a firearm and sell it to someone who cannot purchase the firearm. Since there is no law requiring “lost” firearms to be reported, most are not, and so many end up in the hands of criminals either because they were stolen and the owner didn’t report it, or the owner sold it, and later claimed it was stolen. Rights carry responsibilities as well, and if it is indeed the intrinsic right of Americans to own any firearm of their choosing, it should carry responsibilities at least as heavy as owning a car, and in any rational world many more than that.

In principle I don't have a problem with this, and it could be discussed more, but look up at what you wrote. Notice anything? Magazine capacity has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation.

Exactly how would the gun community be hurt by being limited to 10-round magazines as opposed to 20-round magazines for their AR-15? They’d have to reload more often? If I can save one life because the criminal couldn’t fire that one extra round without reloading, isn’t that a small price to pay for a little extra time at the firing range?

But you have to prove that "just one life" would be saved by such an arbitrary measure that so far does not seem to have been any deciding factor in crime. Saying that the gun community would be "hurt" or punished may seem silly but the truth is, you're applying a pointless ban on people for nothing other than some posturing.

Look at it this way; "Doom" is a game with, what, 20 levels in it? And some people say "Doom" has promoted violence in teens. So a law comes out that says that violent video games must never have more than 10 levels in them. It's random and arbitrary and has no basis in sense, but you know folks like Tipper Gore would be all over that idea like Genghis Khan on a Swedish princess.

Again, the 2nd amendment is about national defense; it does not exist to protect ones hobby. Any argument from a sporting/hunting perspective is specious.

If it is indeed about national defense, then you're best not limiting potential troops to 5 or 10 round magazines. The M-16 started with 20-round magazines as standard issue and it was found to be inadequate so they started issuing 30-rounders...

And the laws regarding expression have, and are developing to this day. But mention firearms and everyone goes 18th century, “The founders this…” and assumes ANY gun control is somehow a categorical infringement of their right to shoot tin cans and find new and creative ways to make bacon, which again is not why the 2nd amendment exists.

Part of the Heller case, some of the discussion and opinion commentary IIRC, did state that the establishment of the 2nd as an individual right (rather than a collective right) did not preclude some restrictions and controls. But establishing what those controls and restrictions could be was yet to be established. And another early case, US vs. Miller, expressly stated that a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd Amendment because it was not a "proper militia weapon" that was covered. So individuals have a right to own weapons, and those weapons must be militia-service compatible. Military style rifles, restricted to semi-automatic fire (as stipulated in the 1934 gun control act), would be protected. The issue of magazine capacity would seem to be part and parcel with this, since current military-defense doctrine involves routinely issuing 30-round magazines to troops.

So you're talking about an aspect of military style rifles that has been left undefined. Now, a court in the future may decide that 30-round mags are, indeed, un-necessary to a militia --a conclusion I would find odd-- but until the decision is made, basing a ban on any emotional basis would be wrong.

IIRC, the L7 is a cannon, and indirect fire is also harder to control. ...

It’s a rifled barrel, it shoots a cartridge using a trigger, and the sabot round is non-explosive. It is a damn big rifle, and nothing more. How that is illegal but a .50 BMG rifle is somehow okay boggles me. The level of destruction may be lesser with the .50 BMG rifle but it is still above any reasonable threshold for civilian use.

Oh, a .50 type heavy rifle. The type of which has never been used in any crime. And those .50-cal heavy anti-materiel rifles also have very low magazine capacity already. if you applied your own logic evenly, such rifles would be "okay". It seems to me that you ar ebasing your argument son what seems unreasonable to you based on what you think should and should not be.

Want to know a secret? If I had my way, I'd ban sports cars. Those $40,000.00 plastic two-seaters with no trunk and more horsepower, speed, and handling that no civilian would ever need or could ever really handle? Damn, ambulances and police cars don't handle like that, and if anyone had a need to, it'd be them! But that's because I personally find sports cars to be foolish, selfish indulgences with no practical value. My desire to be rid of them is based on just that-- my personal desire. (The damn things are even advertised on their basis for speed and handling-- practically begging people to buy one and go all Le Mans on some backcountry road somewhere).

And as many on this board have told us it is simplicity itself to modify magazines or weapons to violate gun control bans, which points to a casual detachment from the seriousness of such actions.

Or a serious contempt for the utter foolishness such a law would represent.

The punitive measures need to be raised, and harsher punishments for companies that manufacture firearms easily modifiable into illegal firearms should face harsh penalties as well.

Modern semi-autos are already made with substandard rifling to handle full-auto conversions. And punishing people or companies for what someone might do if they got ahold of their wares and decided to use them destructively? The liability insurance on that would be astronomical-- follow that to its logical conclusion and you'd see Ford held liable any time someone used their car as a getaway vehicle for a bank robbery.

McVeigh is a perfect example of why we need strict gun-control, especially with permits. He was caught 75 minutes after the bombing for two reasons, 1) He was driving without tags on his car, and 2) He had an unlicensed firearm. Had he been in a state that did not require a permit to carry a handgun he probably would have been released sooner, and then who knows what the hell would have happened.

So you'd re-write the basis for all law based on a one-off situation that fell together by chance and stupidity? It's a good thing you weren't there for the very first drunk driving incident; we'd have Prohibition and horse-buggies to this day! Really, it was more because of the car driven without tags-- were it not for that, he would not have been stopped at all. So the hero that day was car registration, not weapons permits.

Although again, I do agree that permits to carry concealed is a good idea. But basing an entire body of law on one incident.... not so.

I trap shoot a bit when I’m on vacation, and I have a nice .22 target rifle from my father that he used as a kid, so please don’t lump all us gun-control activists as against guns in principle. I like my hobby, but I recognize there is no constitutional protection to be found for it in the 2nd amendment.

Why do you not see it that way? If you are responsible and safe and follow gun regulations, you are indeed "well-regulated". As an able-bodied person between 18 and 45, you are automatically part of the "militia", potentially able to be called up in case of something horrific happening. And you already "keep and bear arms" even if not 24 hours a day (hell, neither do I).

[Sea Skimmer]

The AWB was an attempt to ban civilianized military weapons. It was incredibly poorly designed and executed and was thus horribly ineffective. A far more effective ban would have been on percent of common parts with fully-automatic firearms.

You are an obviously ignorant person on this matter and its getting annoying. The ATF already fucking requires that civilian model assault rifles be impossible to convert into automatic weapons without completely replacing the firing mechanism, and be designed so that the ‘normal’ automatic mechanism won’t even fit. You can only get a special custom mechanism highly illegally or else make it yourself highly illegally if you are highly trained machinist, so what the fuck is your point?

This is a common problem when technical laws are written by non-technical people, and is an argument for more involvement by gun owners in gun control legislation.

It’s also a common problem that ignorant people like you waste everyone else’s time claiming we should make laws we already have to deal with problems that are virtually irrelevant on a national scale. You want to save lives; then send all the cops to go after drunk drivers.

There is no silver bullet to gun control. And like everything you have to attack the common and widespread along with the rare and the punctuated. Just because a crime is uncommon is not reason to spend time figuring out how to prevent it. Momentum counts for something.

Ends justify the means hun, however minor the ends are and sweeping and unjust the means?