Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

turbo

I was selling off a collection of antique (yes, real antique) Winchesters to finance the purchase of a Canon camera system, and a fellow showed up with a cased, new Glock 20 with all documentation and offered it to me in trade for a well-worn .38-55 Model 94 with a blood-stained receiver. I had about $300 in the rifle, and the Glock package would have cost me over $500 on a lucky day. Plus, I had always kept an eye out for 10mm Auto handguns after the round was introduced - like a .45 ACP on steroids.

Just a good trade on a well-designed pistol. The Model 20 does not exhibit much muzzle-climb, so you can quickly recover your sight-picture in controlled fire. Unfortunately, it is too much of a handful for many law-enforcement personnel, and if they can't qualify in rate-of-fire and accuracy tests, the departments can't afford to splurge on them.

nismaratwork

Meh... no accounting for taste, and even the FBI admits to issues with over-penetration they just want to be able to defeat barricades or armor. Still, the most important quality in any gun is that it's comfortable for you, not that I need to tell you that.

So um.. a bloodstained receiver... high drama or did someone not watch where their finger was?

Al68

Sure it's a leap. There's no particular reason to think the pot connection would happen to end up dealing in black market magazines, but that was for the extreme case of confiscation, anyway, not the versions likely to be introduced.

As a side note, while I have owned a few glocks, I never bought one of those 30 round mags. From what I have heard (anecdotally), they are as unreliable as one would predict them to be. Switching mags takes less than a second, clearing a jam takes a few seconds at best. Concealability issues aside, I just didn't think the extra capacity was worth sacrificing reliability.

turbo

Deer-hunters were not always careful of cleaning their rifles. Cosmetics were not high on the list when such rifles were tools. That made the rifle cheap, and the caliber and short magazine made it highly salable.

BTW, you ought to take a critical look at "over-penetration" data. A hollow-point 10mm Auto slug isn't going anywhere soon. It is designed to stop very quickly and deliver stopping power. Simple physics. I'd be way more worried about .22 magnum or .223 bullets penetrating walls and killing unintended people.

nismaratwork

Debate aside: I can tell you from personal experience: the springs stink. I never owned one, but I've used one for fun (and yeah, it's fun) and that was the LEAST fun gun I've ever used. Not innacurate, just... blegh. I'll take my Sig 229 ANY day.

Debate: I think it's more than a leap, unless this kid's pot dealer wasn't a "connection", but actually one of the freaking Los Zetas or something.

nismaratwork

Yeah, but what's the point of a hollowpoint 10mm? I use a JHP sig .357 which is very close to the 10mm, but less likely to get me in jail if I use it in self-defense! I'd add, that sig load is very very close to the 10mm...

turbo

I'll take my chances. In the very unlikely event that I'll have to use it, the bullet-configuration will be minor.

BTW, I don't expect to have to rely on a 30+ round magazine to defend my home. Some of this is getting silly.

nismaratwork

That's what I'm saying... if you need 30 rounds to defend yourself, you're in a zombie apocalypse, or such a bad shot you shouldn't have a gun.

You... I'm just guessing here, could probably shoot the tick off a doe without spooking her. Sounds as though you were raised having to use that kind of skill, but how many people do now, as opposed to sport? How many even for sport hunting, OR target?

Jasongreat

It seems like it would be a superfluous law. If someone uses a thirty round clip to commit a mass murder, does an extra charge for an illegal clip on top of the many murder or attempted murder charges really matter? The perp in most states would be facing numerous death penalties, in the others states numerous life sentences. Imo, the only ones that would be affected by this law would be the ones who didnt/wouldnt commit a heinous crime. Since trying to prevent heinous crimes is the reason for attempting to ban the magazines it doesnt make much sense to me. Another thing is since there are those who already have high capacity magazines and more than likely would get to keep them, those would still be able to be gotten. The last thing is if one wanted a high capacity magazine, how hard would it be to get some sheetmetal, a spring, and build their own? Not very, I bet I could whip one up in less than an hour, it wouldnt be as pretty as a factory made piece but it would be just as effective. Imo we have plenty of meaningless laws in the country already, we dont need anymore, since every law that is percieved as meaningless erodes the value of the laws that matter.

mugaliens

Definately.

Our politicians need to be spending their time, if not our hard-earned tax dollars, doing something useful.

drankin

Put me down for two. I'll pay you $50ea for functional 20 round magazine for a HK USP .45 Compact.

Ivan Seeking

It depends on the number of people coming at you. If five gang members break into your home at night intent on theft, rape, and murder, you might need a 30-round clip.

To me, guns and hunting are coincidental subjects. For all I care, all hunting could be limited to slingshots, bows, and arrows. When it comes to concepts like common home defense, civil chaos following a disaster like Katrina [recall the cops that almost lost control of their own building to roving bands of thugs!], an oppressive government out of control, or foreign invaders, it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons. Citizens should be able to band together to form an effective army. You don't do that with rabbit guns. You need big poweful guns designed to kill people, and lots of ammo.

nismaratwork

I know you're kidding, but honestly... no, you STILL don't, and a pistol is arguably the LEAST useful firearm (other than a .22 pellet round) for use against a group invading your home. Home-Invasion really isn't the time people need to be spraying and praying: I call it "AIM". If that's too hard, and in a situation where you're roused from sleep by (I assume) your fellow gang members (statistics would indicate that)... use a shotgun. You'd have a fighting chance then, and you could hold a room, safely discharge without undue concern that your rounds will continue into your neighbor's house (not with a 9mm, probably) or your neighbors. (all assumes you don't do the smart thing: get out, call the police. That gun is a last resort, because a firefight can be unpredictable, whereas being blocks away on your cell with the cops is not.

In short, I'll ask again: when does someone properly trained in the use of a firearm NEED 30+ rounds of ammunition in a single clip? Really... preferably in a situation whe

Well hunting certainly isn't, and just saying "guns" isn't. That isn't a good reason that people need rifles designed from an AM stock to be AP (.50 caliber). Let me guess... this time the gang members are in your house, but you have a good scope, and are 1000 meters distant? Maybe you're hunting APCs. We all accept limitations on the arms we can own; we already know we have to draw the line. I'm not arguing against pistols, or ammo; I'm saying that anyone who has business holding a gun, shouldn't need that many rounds in a single clip. Period. If we're talking about an assault rifle, or a sub-machine gun, that's different, and I'm not bringing up the issue of WHICH guns we should be allowed to own.

That may sound odd, but in fact the Barret rifle is impressive, but a toy example. In fact, you require training and skill to be accurate to that kind of distance with a rifle, and that's assuming you have a perch, blind or other vantage point. Plus, WOW would someone want you dead to do that... probably enough that as you say, they'd do it with their bare hands or a slingshot.

I know... I know you're making a satirical point, and I appreciate it believe me. Of all the pistols I mentioned, I only practice and load the 229 and 92FS for self-defense (JHP). I have no illusions that my pea-shooter is going to dent a SWAT team, never mind the military. On the bright side, one way to reduce the population of fools would be to see who actually shoots a side-arm, or other civilian AP weapon, at people with assault rifles, exceptional training, numbers, and an air support if they REALLY want it. I believe Flex or Mug could explain how a human being often fares against a gun you need a hardpoint to mount.

In fact, from what I've seen the major risk factor in having the government marshal serious paramilitary forces against you, is to stockpile weapons, illegally modify them, and try get a few rockets for fun. That seems to do wonders; the ATF and FBI have a proven history of taking that with the same kind of light humor I've displayed here, only without the constant breaks for laughter. <--- my sarcasm!

edit: Plus, the military knocking your door down might as well be a zombie apocalypse: your personal world is certainly ending.

Drankin: Thanks, now I know who can hit the broad-side of a barn in this conversation, and who can't.

nismaratwork

Well, history indicates that isn't going to happen, so within the realm of merely being somewhat useful in highly selective circumstances, that's kind of what's being done. Oh, and trying to make political capital, lets not forget that.

Still, who do you want with a "spray-pray" mentality in their self-defense?

Al68

I agree with you there. Except mine is a P228 (effectively costing me two glocks). And I prefer 9mm because ammo is much cheaper, and practice is far more important than either mag capacity or caliber if you ever have to use it.

And us poor folks can't afford much practice with pricey ammo.

Mech_Engineer

I'm not hearing any real justification for a law banning 30-round mags, just that you don't want one. If they're going to be banned by a federal law, it's perfectly reasonable to first ask for proof that a problem exists, and second the law being proposed will fix that problem.

Just because it isn't NEEDED for self defense doesn't make it ripe for banning either... By your logic no one should need more than 3 or 4 rounds because they're well-trained shooting machines that hit their mark every time. You definitely wouldn't need more than a revolver can carry. 15 or 17 is just as much overkill as 30, so I ask again: where do we draw the line?

Different issue, different thread. Still, how many people are killed every year by .50 cal rifles?

If we all accept a few limitations on the arms we own, we should accept any limitations? I still have yet to see proof that extended magazines are tearing up the city streets.

How can you logically defend allowing large magazines in sub-machine guns or assault rifles but not in pistols? You say people "shouldn't need that many" rounds in a pistol, but is that reason enough to ban a 30-round mag?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I <think> Ivan was being serious, and I agree with him. His post echoes the purpose of the Second Amendment...

nismaratwork

Mech, if you think that a well armed civilian militia stands a chance in hell against the US military, you're as crazy as those poor bastards in Montana.

If you need 30 rounds in a clip to hit someone... get rid of your gun. These are common sense issues that should be part of a gun owner's repertoire, or frankly they shouldn't have guns.

The rest is just a mess of your rhetoric... I mean, you think I'm justifying sub-machine guns in civilian hands?! Talk about missing the damned point. Oh, let me guess, you use that AR-15 to hunt ducks, and the Uzi is for quail.. right.

For a person, what more do you want than pistols, rifles, and shotguns? Hell, why not just put down mines and concertina wire if you feel like it... although if I were in a gang, and knew that the crazy mechanical engineer down the road was alone, and packing an arsenal... I'd kill him and take the arsenal. How are you safer with 30 rounds in a pistol clip, than 17? or 12?! Have you even fired a pistol at something other than a target in your entire damned life?