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

[nismaratwork]

http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=587865&Itemid=28
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/12/5824805-gun-surprise-2nd-amendment-advocate-says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster

Unlike other discussions which have taken place in the public discourse about guns, this is a valid concern. I'm not interested in the politics of it, and yes, I realize people are doing this for political points.

What I can't figure out is why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip. I'm sure some people here can explain to me why someone who's responsible enough to own such a thing, would be so poor at handling their weapon that they require that kind of ammunition in one magazine. I think people have been watching 'Equilibrium' too damned much.

Oh, I realize that starting a thread gives me no right to make demands, but I can ask; please don't turn this into a debate about gun ownership. I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The problem is mainly where do you draw the line?

I own a Glock 23 which utilizes a 13-round magazine, and I can get an "extended" magazine that is 15 or even 22 rounds if I want; is the 15 round magazine really more dangerous than the standard one? Can you really PROVE a 30 round magazine is more dangerous than 3 10-round magazines?

There are lots of reasons to have extended magazines in shooting sports, mainly to reduce reload times and increase time working on aiming/shooting. A 30-round magazine in a Glock is ungainly and makes the gun more difficult to hold and conceal, and a well-practiced shooter can put nearly as many rounds downrange with 3 10-round magazines as long as the mags are readily available.

My opinion is that extended magazines are not "the problem."

Edit- note also that a standard frame size 9mm Glock holds 17 rounds +1 in the chamber. That's already a lot more than a single stack 1911 clone which holds around 8.

 

[Gokul43201]

What I can't figure out is why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip.
...
I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."​

According to the Constitution, everyone's a "soldier" in waiting. You can't stamp out tyranny with a six-shooter!

 

[nismaratwork]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."​

According to the Constitution, everyone's a "soldier" in waiting. You can't stamp out tyranny with a six-shooter!

I know you're joking, and I appreciate the levity. Of course, if I take you literally, then we stamped out "tyranny" with muskets and cannon, and now we'd be fighting the US military with firearms?

Mech_Engineer: Where do you draw the line in mechanical engineering? You look at the statistics and try to find, as we do with the legal limit for blood alcohol or a speed limit, the optimal balance between adequate self-defense, and undesired results.

Given your name, I'd think it would be a very obvious answer: apply science and break the problem down; don't aim for perfection, just make it work reliably according to the best science and ability of the time. What else are we supposed to do?

I own a Sig Sauer P229, 226, and 228, in addition to a new Beretta 9mm FS converted to a sig .357 (the bottle-necked up-loaded 9mm). Magazines average 12-13 rounds, dictated MOSTLY by...

... The grip.

I don't think extended magazines are "The Problem", because "The Problem" is a STRAW MAN. This is about risk management, about fewer people POSSIBLY being shot, weighed against the need, not for 12, or 17 rounds, but 33. If you can find a point my posts where I'm looking for a single problem other than the fact that this man was insane, undiagnosed, and untreated (which is really THREE issues), then by all means call me on my hypocrisy.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Mech_Engineer: Where do you draw the line in mechanical engineering? You look at the statistics and try to find, as we do with the legal limit for blood alcohol or a speed limit, the optimal balance between adequate self-defense, and undesired results.

Do you have a study which shows a 30-round magazine is more dangerous than (3) 10 round magazines? The point is if the magazines are limited in capacity, all you need to do is carry more of them.

I don't think extended magazines are "The Problem", because "The Problem" is a STRAW MAN. This is about risk management, about fewer people POSSIBLY being shot, weighed against the need, not for 12, or 17 rounds, but 33.

How do you define how many rounds you "need"? How do you account for the fact that limiting the number of rounds allowed in a magazine can easily be adjusted for by carrying more of them? If the man was carrying 17-round magazines would we be calling to ban those? That's a lot more than a 6-shooter or single stack 1911 after all...

California has a gun law which prohibits magazines from having more than 10 rounds, have they proven a statistical reduction in gun crime or gun-related deaths as a result of this law?

 

[drankin]

Maybe we should be looking at the number of bullets rather than extended magazine. I have no use for an extended mag on my .45. But, I only have 8+1 in the pistol at one time. As explained above, a 9mm can hold twice that.

Is there a magic number of bullets we're talking about?

As for my assault rifle, I prefer 30 round magazines. More target shooting between reloads. I don't want the actions of a psycho to dictate how I legally target shoot. Unfortunately, this is exactly what tends to happen concerning all sorts of issues outside of firearms.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do you have a study which shows a 30-round magazine is more dangerous than (3) 10 round magazines? The point is if the magazines are limited in capacity, all you need to do is carry more of them.

No I don't have a study, I have a casual relation; that's why I'm proposing the very act of study. "you look at the statistics and try to find, as we do with the legal limit for blood alcohol or a speed limit, the optimal balance between adequate self-defense, and undesired results."

You can pretend to ignore that if you wish, of course.

How do you define how many rounds you "need"? How do you account for the fact that limiting the number of rounds allowed in a magazine can easily be adjusted for by carrying more of them?

Jamming, and failure of the magazine or act of reloading is a weak point of firearms. For instance, Loughner was foiled by this very thing, albeit after a number of rounds had been expended. As for how many you need, see the quote above.

If the man was carrying 17-round magazines would we be calling to ban those? That's a lot more than a 6-shooter or single stack 1911 after all...

I wouldn't be, although I'm not sure that 17 round magazines for a handgun carried by a civilian is necessary or even wise. Work on your aim, and hope you're not attacked by a private army. If you're in such mortal peril, call the police. One fact that cannot be disputed is that without the number of rounds expended, with a standard 17 round clip, he could not have killed 6, and wounded 14 without a number of (for the shooter) exceptionally lucky over-penetration; unlikely with a 9 mm. If you know as much about firearms as you act, you know this, and the math is simple arithmetic. Besides, part of this is about justifying the need for a massive number of bullets IN ONE PISTOL CLIP
and not just arguing against it; I'm not getting into why you shouldn't be allowed to own a fully equipped M1 Abrams tank either. In other words I'm not going to address argument ad absurdem or straw men in general, including Drankin's assault rifle which is not covered by the proposed legislation.

California has a gun law which prohibits magazines from having more than 10 rounds, have they proven a statistical reduction in gun crime or gun-related deaths as a result of this law?

See that quote about STUDYING the statistics again.

 

[Al68]

http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=587865&Itemid=28
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/12/5824805-gun-surprise-2nd-amendment-advocate-says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster

Unlike other discussions which have taken place in the public discourse about guns, this is a valid concern. I'm not interested in the politics of it, and yes, I realize people are doing this for political points.

What I can't figure out is why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip. I'm sure some people here can explain to me why someone who's responsible enough to own such a thing, would be so poor at handling their weapon that they require that kind of ammunition in one magazine. I think people have been watching 'Equilibrium' too damned much.

Oh, I realize that starting a thread gives me no right to make demands, but I can ask; please don't turn this into a debate about gun ownership. I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

Free people are not subject to such a "why do you need it" criteria to be free from government force. Depriving people of liberty, not liberty itself, has that kind of burden for justification.

And people don't "need" drugs to hunt either, but banning them doesn't result in their absence from society. The amount of bloodshed it would require to effectively enforce such a magazine ban is just not a reasonable option. Definitely not a peaceful one. High-capacity magazines are here to stay, whether such a law is passed or not.

 

[nismaratwork]

Free people are not subject to such a "why do you need it" criteria to be free from government force. Depriving people of liberty, not liberty itself, has that kind of burden for justification.

And people don't "need" drugs to hunt either, but banning them doesn't result in their absence from society. The amount of bloodshed it would require to effectively enforce such a magazine ban is just not a reasonable option. Definitely not a peaceful one. High-capacity magazines are here to stay, whether such a law is passed or not.

Yes, crooks will get them, but will absolute nut-cases? He did his shopping at Wal-Mart, and I don't know if they became subject to Federal regulation again that it would leave them in the hands of his pot connection.

As crooks tend to kill each other more often than not, I can live with that state of affairs. Given his police history, and history with the military, maybe a better background check for a gun?

 

[Al68]

Given his police history, and history with the military, maybe a better background check for a gun?

You mean his history of never being convicted of a felony and never being admitted to a mental institution? I think the fact that his mental illness wasn't diagnosed is the problem, not the fact that his background check accurately showed that he had diagnosis no mental illness on record. A background check can't find a record that doesn't exist.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

No I don't have a study, I have a casual relation; that's why I'm proposing the very act of study. "you look at the statistics and try to find, as we do with the legal limit for blood alcohol or a speed limit, the optimal balance between adequate self-defense, and undesired results."

You can pretend to ignore that if you wish, of course.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm asking if proposing such a law is warranted in the first place! Given that we have a single data point and are receiving a knee-jerk legislation as a result, it's not too much to ask for more than "this crazy guy would have killed fewer people."

As for how many you need, see the quote above.

Perhaps such a study should be done BEFORE legislation is passed (if it's even possible to do such a study). I'm guessing that there is relative rarity of data regarding 30-round Glock magazines used in shooting crimes due to their rarity compared to more common handgun magazine capacities. A 30-round mag makes the gun significantly more difficult to conceal, so it's my guess that this fact tends to discourage its use in crimes.

I wouldn't be, although I'm not sure that 17 round magazines for a handgun carried by a civilian is necessary or even wise. Work on your aim, and hope you're not attacked by a private army. If you're in such mortal peril, call the police.

So you would draw the line below 17 rounds, but your reasoning is that someone can be just as deadly with fewer rounds if they are better at aiming. Isn't this an argument that ANY gun is a very deadly weapon in the right (or wrong) hands, regardless of magazine capacity?

One fact that cannot be disputed is that without the number of rounds expended, with a standard 17 round clip, he could not have killed 6, and wounded 14 without a number of (for the shooter) exceptionally lucky over-penetration; unlikely with a 9 mm.

It can absoluetly be disputed- a smaller clip would have been fully discharged more quickly, giving him more time to reload before people were able to react and subdue him. It all depends on how quickly he was getting shots off.

The single data point cannot be used as statistical evidence of a trend that requires legislative action.

If you know as much about firearms as you act, you know this, and the math is simple arithmetic.

It's a lot more than simple artithmetic, it's a statistical question which cannot be easily answered. I think it's a valid request to ask if the California law has been effective, since it mirrors the proposed federal law. If California's law was statistically ineffective, why would a federal law fare any better?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I own a Glock 23 which utilizes a 13-round magazine, and I can get an "extended" magazine that is 15 or even 22 rounds if I want;

You'd better hurry up. Wait, am I the first person to think of that?

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean his history of never being convicted of a felony and never being admitted to a mental institution? I think the fact that his mental illness wasn't diagnosed is the problem, not the fact that his background check accurately showed that he had diagnosis no mental illness on record. A background check can't find a record that doesn't exist.

Interesting, you answered a bit of that... and Mech Engineer copy-pasta'ed me again...

... yet neither of you addressed this: "Yes, crooks will get them, but will absolute nut-cases? He did his shopping at Wal-Mart, and I don't know if they became subject to Federal regulation again that it would leave them in the hands of his pot connection."

Huh.

 

[Al68]

Interesting, you answered a bit of that... and Mech Engineer copy-pasta'ed me again...

... yet neither of you addressed this: "Yes, crooks will get them, but will absolute nut-cases? He did his shopping at Wal-Mart, and I don't know if they became subject to Federal regulation again that it would leave them in the hands of his pot connection."

Huh.

I didn't address it because "subject to federal regulation" is too vague to answer. It depends on the specific regulation. If the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were re-enacted, it applied only to newly manufactured magazines, not existing ones, so there were always still plenty around legally.

If you're referring to confiscation, most would be hidden, and sold on the black market, so his "pot connection" could very well be his mag connection.

 

[turbo]

You'd better hurry up. Wait, am I the first person to think of that?

I have that covered. Not extended, but multiple. 3-15 rd magazines came with my cased Glock 20 along with a loading tool. 10mm auto is kind of large, so it's not possible to fit as many rounds in the magazines as 9mm or smaller rounds.

If you are willing to just eject a spent magazine and let it hit the ground and get dirty (a negligible concern if you want to assassinate people), you can reload in a second or less. No extended magazine needed. Banning extended magazines strikes me as window-dressing, similar to banning cosmetic features on "assault rifles". It won't deter the deranged one little bit.

Plus, as has been mentioned, a double-length magazine makes a pistol pretty ungainly and hard to conceal.

BTW, the Glock model 20 was originally touted as a way to give law-enforcement harder-hitting rounds than the guns that were popular with criminals. Unfortunately, the high recoil made the reject-rate too large. Many policemen (especially smaller male officers and women) had a very difficult time qualifying with that particular pistol, so they had to drop to sidearms with milder recoil. Hard to standardize on a pistol that can only be used by officers with large or strong hands.

 

[nismaratwork]

I didn't address it because "subject to federal regulation" is too vague to answer. It depends on the specific regulation. If the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were re-enacted, it applied only to newly manufactured magazines, not existing ones, so there were always still plenty around legally.

If you're referring to confiscation, most would be hidden, and sold on the black market, so his "pot connection" could very well be his mag connection.

Uh huh... his pot connection... is going to move into gun smuggling. Bit of a leap there... usually something you see with cocaine and the like, if at all, but if it works for you...

Turbo-1: I'd add that 10mm auto overpenetrates too much, hence the development of the sig .357 Of course, if I were planning a mass killing it would be staged, with any CQ pistol work not bothering with magazines at all, just drop and reach for a new gun. Since we don't live in "Woo land", 4 or so handguns, and a couple of sawed offs would be very useful.


Then again, I'm not INSANE; my thoughts are not plagued by delusions of colors nobody else sees, mind control, or any of the other issues seen here. His planning, despite his access to weapons and ammo, was pretty minimal, or at least it ended in an execution that was crude.

Now, give me extended magazines, and it just cuts down on how many guns I need to carry, and the gun is by far the harder illegal item to procure.

NOTE: EXAMPLE, I am not, nor would I plan or do such a thing.

Lets be blunt, this sane, criminal, assassin that is so fantasized about rarely EXISTS, and if they do it's not a pistol they tend to use. This guy could have used a hunting rifle from across the street to the same result, with the possibility of escape, or from far longer distances given LoS, planning, patience, practice.

ALL things which crazy people struggle with, as you can see. Given his obsession with practicing with his guns, and all of that time spent in his own head... in the end he just walked up with a pistol and opened fire.

The right to arms isn't a right to all arms (see the tank example)...efficacy is a different issue, which as I said should probably come from study. Too bad this is a political/religious issue for so many, so the noise drowns everything else out.

 

[nismaratwork]

By the way... why the heck did you buy a Glock? If you were willing to spring for a decent gun... why that?

 

[turbo]

By the way... why the heck did you buy a Glock? If you were willing to spring for a decent gun... why that?

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]

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.

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]

Uh huh... his pot connection... is going to move into gun smuggling. Bit of a leap there...

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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...

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]

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.

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 doesn't 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 wouldn't 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 don't need anymore, since every law that is perceived as meaningless erodes the value of the laws that matter.

 

[mugaliens]

It seems like it would be a superfluous law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI".

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

 

[drankin]

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 doesn't 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 wouldn't 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 don't need anymore, since every law that is perceived as meaningless erodes the value of the laws that matter.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

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]

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.

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

To me, guns and hunting are coincidental subjects.

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.

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.

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]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI".

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

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, let's not forget that.

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

 

[Al68]

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

We all accept limitations on the arms we can own; we already know we have to draw the line.

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.

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.

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?

I know... I know you're making a satirical point, and I appreciate it believe me.

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?

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

I don't practice MUCH with that ammo... I don't really fear for my life at the hands of random violence... it's rare. By and large I'm interested in high accuracy target shooting, but yeah, it's a very expensive hobby.

Still, that fusion between the body and mind, and the satisfaction of a nice tight grouping is a blast. (no pun). Btw, P228... I call that a good choice, and 9mm... it's still going to do the job for defense, and it's better for target.