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

[nismaratwork]

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

(bold and snip mine) It reduces the chances that you'll be hit because you were what was being aimed at... lovely logic. Essentially you're hoping that someone misses you in a crowd... well... there's a decent chance that someone else is going to catch that lead for you. The shooter could also over-compensate, or change buck into drift... which should already know.

And the fact that the effectiveness of suppressors is not the way it is depicted in movies. If you believe what you see in movies, you'd think one could screw on a suppressor the size of a roll of quarters on a 9mm and someone in the other room wouldn't even hear it. That's nowhere close to the ballpark of reality. Reality is that a pillow is far more effective than a screw-on suppressor.

As far as fully automatic weapons, it should be obvious that far less people would have been killed/injured had Loughner's glock been fully auto. Unlike in the movies, a 30 round clip doesn't last long in full auto, and accuracy suffers, to say the least. Especially with a light handgun used by a shooter unaccustomed to full auto. Most of the rounds probably would have gone way over the heads of the intended victims.

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

A pillow? Yeah, and a plastic bottle will act as a mediocre suppressor. If someone has a gun and a pillow against you... it's over; there's no comparison. Talk about believing what you see in movies!... remember that you're talking about a mythical, "SILENCER", which doesn't exist! The only quiet guns are designed from the GROUND UP, to eliminate a slide; after all the sound of the mechanics of a decent handgun isn't exactly the quietest thing on earth; although the point is that most won't say, "that's a gunshot!".

Where fully automatic weapons are concerned, you're making a straw man by assuming that ANYONE, but a fool with no experience would just hold the trigger down and go for it. Fully automatic action, as you know, ALSO vies you the ability to fire what we BOTH know we're supposed to: controlled bursts. I'll ask you personally; other than an honest to god sniper, or a skilled sentry, is there ANYTHING as casually effective as the ability to minimize the effect of recoil through a 3-round burst?

I have no idea if that would actually matter; people can modify guns, and this guy practiced a LOT and didn't need fully automatic fire (as most don't, except for cover... right?) to do what he did. I could make an argument that Giffords would be dead if hit with a burst, but that's true of mm in any direction so that would just be disingenuous. Again, this was never meant to be about owning specific weapons: other countries make a wider array of what Americans consider to be "powerful" weapons available to its citizenry, but they're not killing each other within several TIMES the rate we do. Obviously the device isn't the PRIMARY problem, but that doesn't mean in a country that's not GUN happy, but TRIGGER happy... well it doesn't mean that we shouldn't put some limits in place.

I'd say those limits matter a lot more if we're also going to be more liberal in allowing people to buy at gun shows, and the like. EVERY citizen has the constitutional right to bear arms, except where their own actions or mental health have been extreme compared to the vast majority of the country. Those same citizens however, do not seem to take FULL responsibility along with that legal right, to keep their guns in a manner that's sensible, use them in that same fashion, and not just sell them to GOK who!

 

[nismaratwork]

Ok I'll have to take your comments in reverse order. Just the logic of things. (shrugs)

Well, it's certainly not an issue with respect to hunting! I've never expending more than two rounds downrange while hunting.

I'm glad, but not surprised... do you see yourself as the average citizen when it comes to experience with firearms, and your attitude towards them? You're exceptionally responsible, former military member; that should count for something when it comes to getting whatever kind of gun license your state makes available. (assuming all other criteria are met)

When it comes to carrying a firearm for personal protection, however, I used to believe six rounds was enough, but events around town have indicated otherwise, particularly a few extended confrontations in which a few dozen rounds were expended. Thus, I carry a full 16-round clip, as well as a spare magazine. When I head downtown, I add two more magazines.

First, I'm sorry that you live somewhere that such encounters occur. Emotions aside, I note that you carry a 16 round clip, and AFAIK you can carry so many magazines that you can no longer walk.

I really hope I never have to use it! Still, might I ask what you pay for auto and home insurance each year? I sincerely think you hope it never comes time to collect on that, either, but you pay it just the same.

To go along with the metaphor; sure I'll buy you insurance that covers fire, accident, flood, tornado, theft, etc... I'll even take your money for Zombie insurance! How much do you want to insure your home and car for? Obviously we're going to assess the value of both, and then assign said value.

To leave the metaphor: Carry that gun, carry it with 16 in the clip and one it the chamber if you're feeling like a gambling man! I'd recommend that, for home protection, a shotgun is by far the most effective weapon, if you don't already have one. Relying on marksmanship when roused by intruders would be unfortunate!... as admittedly unlikely as that is.

So... I'm not disputing your legal or even practical right to bear arms, but your extreme scenario... did it call for sustained and inaccurate fire in a civilian area?! Somehow I guess that EXTENDED firefight is the keyword, and aimed-shots were your tactic... I don't see you, as you've described yourself and act, firing recklessly.

It's prudence. Some people ask me why I carry at all. I think the simplest answer is that I'd rather not be a victim.

I hope the same prudence that has you carrying a handgun (not a bad thing), also has you aiming your shots. In a scenario in which you have cover, and multiple magazines in a civilian area of the USA, I'm still not seeing anything like the need for an extended magazine, or even the desire. You're carrying concealed for self-defense... 33 round magazines are anything but 'stealthy'. I'd guess you also don't want to risk spring failure (also practical), or to attract constant attention.

Ten rounds, or thirty...

What matters most is that when responding to the threat, we don't run out. Thus, those of us who carry tend to carry whatever may be required.

I carry my P229, and I'm not sure that I've ever owned less than half a dozen magazines. I don't carry more than a spare, but that's from my experience and where I live. I've never, until this discussion, talked to someone WITHIN the USA, not involved in a criminal enterprise, who lived somewhere they felt the need to carry 4 spare magazines. I respect your prudence, but your atypical nature and situation means that it's hard to generalize from your experience. You have a full military career behind you; something that few (including myself... 20 years... that's really the full run unless you're going for full bird Col.) people in this country can claim.

The irony is that... you're probably the last person who'd need or want 30 rounds in one clip... in an SA action pistol... for self defense, hunting, or target. To answer your question: it matters because it confers an advantage ONLY on someone who relies on a very brief window to surprise... unless I'm missing a use. If you REALLY want to, I even support you wearing a bandolier of magazines if you want, although I think that's essentially a sign saying, "Rob and kill me! I have weapons, ammo, and if you shoot me with a rifle from the nearest apartment or roof, you get to keep it all!" That's how I'd feel at least, but hey...

As for the police, I'm not sure what the standard load is, but I think they carry 16 in their carry weapon, plus two more 16-round mags on their left hip. I usually carry less than that, but it's not like I go around blazing it away! I don't think we'd be having this conversation if I did!

Between 12-18 rounds for police, depending on which guns they use, or are allowed to use. The rest... of course you're not blazing away, and it's by blazing away from that point of surprise that is really the only use for an extended PISTOL clip to so many rounds. Oh... I assume that PART of why you carry extra magazines is why I do: not just running out, but if one fails...

Several people have asked me why I carry at all. I have difficulty figuring out why anyone wouldn't? Weight? Sure! About three pounds! Not too much fun lugging that weight around.

No argument; if you had been in the crowd in AZ, or the people there lived the rhetoric of, "we're all packing heat, and know how to use it!", then while some bystanders may well have been hit by blue on blue, I doubt even that from multiple sources could lead to the number of casualties seen in this event.

They didn't though, and while they shouldn't have to... those seconds you're about to mention in the next sentence...

Has anyone heard the expression, "when seconds count the police are just minutes away?" Seriously, most folks don't like thinking about it, but most deadly encounters are over in less than a minute. Yes, they're quite rare, and stats indicate it'll be perahaps 18 to 50 years before I may ever encounter a need to use my firearm. I sincerely hope that day never comes! But, I carry because someday it be necessary, and I'd prefer not to be a victim.

Good! I... don't disagree with any of that. I'd add that most encounters result in a high % of misses/hits, as the firefight you were in may go a long way to illustrating. More lead flying for a longer time, is not a good thing; engagement should be ended promptly, take cover and return fire (your situation), or flee. (with flee being first according to most state laws... no comment... some are absurd. Oh, I need to backpedal a few paces while being shot at... great.)

So, with all due respect to Frank, frankly, I'd much rather not be a victim. I think his politics are quite backwards.

Frank is what he is... a US senator... read: politician... and if he breaths before he considers what it does for his chances at re-election, I'd be shocked. His reasoning for his legislation stinks, and the actual legislation shouldn't be written in the heat of emotion, but the principle of limits on how many bullets are a trigger's pull from flight without even swapping your clip... maybe the source isn't the issue.

I kind of loathe W., but I wouldn't ignore him if he told me that my car was on fire.

 

[Jack21222]

My springfield 9mm has a 16 round clip. If this law passes, does that mean I'm stuck with it? I was considering selling it because I'm broke, and I might be moving to a different state for grad school in 18 months.

If this law passes and I'm not allowed to sell it, and I'm moving to a state that won't allow me to keep it, what can possibly be done with it? I can't just throw it in a landfill. I guess I can give it away to the police. Seems like a horrible waste of money though.

I think setting the limit to 10 is far too low, if only because that's lower than what many, if not most, guns come standard with.

 

[nismaratwork]

My springfield 9mm has a 16 round clip. If this law passes, does that mean I'm stuck with it? I was considering selling it because I'm broke, and I might be moving to a different state for grad school in 18 months.

If this law passes and I'm not allowed to sell it, and I'm moving to a state that won't allow me to keep it, what can possibly be done with it? I can't just throw it in a landfill. I guess I can give it away to the police. Seems like a horrible waste of money though.

I think setting the limit to 10 is far too low, if only because that's lower than what many, if not most, guns come standard with.

I think 16 is reasonable in my view... hence the need for THIS law to be scrapped. The concept isn't bad in my view. I think most would argue that 12 is average, with 16-18 being the usual "extended" clip for anything but a fully automatic pistol.

 

[CAC1001]

So on this bit about the silencers we see in movies being totally fake (I have heard this before), so that scene in the film "Air Force One" where the evil Secret Service agent turns around and shoots the other three SS agents with a silencer-equipped pistol is totally fake...? (the pistol would have been much louder?).

 

[nismaratwork]

So on this bit about the silencers we see in movies being totally fake (I have heard this before), so that scene in the film "Air Force One" where the evil Secret Service agent turns around and shoots the other three SS agents with a silencer-equipped pistol is totally fake...? (the pistol would have been much louder?).

I haven't seen the movie, but usually in them you'll hear (laugh if you like!) a "thppt" kind of sound. In reality, if you're using a gun with a slide (virtually non-revolvers), the action of the the slide, re-cocking, etc... is added. The "thhppt" sound is actually pretty accurate for a gun made without a slide, for a silencer. A .22 in that configuration could be extremely quiet. Of course for a sniper that can be very useful, but the trade-off is big: no supersonic ammo. I mean, if you're bullet is busting its little n-wave, it doesn't matter much that you're using even a mythical silencer... that "crack" is very distinct.

I think the point to remember is that the use suppressors are USUALLY put to is not the one depicted in movies; they are not a means of killing silently. One thing they ALL do very well however, is to make a gunshot sound like something OTHER than a gunshot, unless you're familiar with the real-world acoustics. They can be crucial in gaining an element of surprise when even a trained sentry (not ours) might mistake suppressed fire for something other than what it is.

For a criminal the uses are MUCH broader, because the feasibility to using a .22 or other low mass, low velocity round at close range is possibly desirable. The need for silence isn't there, but masking the nature of a gunshot to simply "noise", well... that's a pretty amazing advantage. The fact that it's not used much is a testament to the frank stupidity and machismo of many armed gangs and criminals.

edit: Ever pull back the slide of a 9mm and releae it in the manner so often seen in tv/movies? That is a very similar noise.

 

[CAC1001]

I haven't seen the movie, but usually in them you'll hear (laugh if you like!) a "thppt" kind of sound.

That's how it sounds, here is the scene (1:30 - 1:48):

I think the point to remember is that the use suppressors are USUALLY put to is not the one depicted in movies; they are not a means of killing silently. One thing they ALL do very well however, is to make a gunshot sound like something OTHER than a gunshot, unless you're familiar with the real-world acoustics. They can be crucial in gaining an element of surprise when even a trained sentry (not ours) might mistake suppressed fire for something other than what it is.

When you say "not ours," who do you mean?

 

[nismaratwork]

That's how it sounds, here is the scene (1:30 - 1:48):

OK, no that sound would JUST be the sound of the bullet leaving the barrel, assuming it was a 9mm, 10mm (light load if you're on a plane!) or less. In reality you'd hear a very rapid "clack-click" that varies from gun to gun.

When you say "not ours," who do you mean?

I mean that the USA Military (ask Mugaliens or someone else who's served if you care to check) generally trains very well, and doesn't let their sentries become so lax. In addition, when you add the ability to use a modern shot-tracker, even at night?... Tough to surprise the US military when they're in the field and encamped. I think that's why you see so many security personnel dying at checkpoints, and those successful attacks being locals driving a car/truck bomb as fast as possible through as much security as possible. An embassy might survive that, but a make-shift base can only do so much.

 

[mheslep]

This entire idea is mind numbingly stupid as a response to this act, or if this a political calculation by Lautenberg and the like it is equally cynical. Where is the bill proposal from Senator Whoever to actually do something that would have stopped this act? For instance, make the rules for the commitment of the mentally unstable, now nearly useless, workable; or in lieu of commitment revoke their ability to buy firearms or even get a get a driver's license.

 

[nismaratwork]

This entire idea is mind numbingly stupid as a response to this act, or if this a political calculation by Lautenberg and the like it is equally cynical. Where is the bill proposal from Senator Whoever to actually do something that would have stopped this act? For instance, make the rules for the commitment of the mentally unstable, now nearly useless, workable; or in lieu of commitment revoke their ability to buy firearms or even get a get a driver's license.

Of course it's a political move by Lautenberg... that doesn't mean that the kernel of a good idea isn't there.

 

[mheslep]

Of course it's a political move by Lautenberg... that doesn't mean that the kernel of a good idea isn't there.

Back to the gun issue, ignoring the actually useful elsewhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

Back to the gun issue, ignoring the actually useful elsewhere.

What?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Perhaps we should expand this to workers put in harms way along the border?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17087113

"Mexican gunman fires across border toward U.S. highway workers"

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps we should expand this to workers put in harms way along the border?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17087113

"Mexican gunman fires across border toward U.S. highway workers"

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, even tangentially?

 

[WhoWee]

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, even tangentially?

I'm in agreement with Ivan - when he posted
"it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons. ".

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm in agreement with Ivan - when he posted
"it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons. ".

Ahhhh... gotcha.

edit: Wow, I just plain MISSED that. I have to start getting more sleep on weekdays...

 

[Al68]

(bold and snip mine) It reduces the chances that you'll be it because you were what was being aimed at... lovely logic.

That's your logic, not mine.

Essentially you're hoping that someone misses you in a crowd... well... there's a decent chance that someone else is going to catch that lead for you.

Or vice versa. My obvious point was that complete misses are more likely in full auto. And I said exactly that in the part of my post you "clipped" out.

edit: Wow, I just plain MISSED that. I have to start getting more sleep on weekdays...

So that's the problem. You seem to be missing or mis-construing a lot of the posts you respond to.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's your logic, not mine.Or vice versa. My obvious point was that complete misses are more likely in full auto. And I said exactly that in the part of my post you "clipped" out.So that's the problem. You seem to be missing or mis-construing a lot of the posts you respond to.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3082046&postcount=89

...If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

Yeah, you could be arguing that, or you could be making a statistical argument. If you practice automatic fire, your target is a confused crowd of unarmed civilians, and you're at nearly point blank range... it's not obvious. You can control an automatic pistol, and while accuracy suffers, that's kind of the point of fully automatic fire. After all, he could have jammed, or he could have expended 33 rounds, reloaded, and shot FAR more people.

There is no "obvious" here, except that when accuracy is reduced (accuracy is a function of AIM) the risk in a crowd is more evenly distributed, increasing the pool of potential victims while reducing individual risk of being hit by anyone bullet.

Maybe you should make your arguments clearly when it comes to firing into a crowd?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Before a law is passed limiting the number of rounds allowed in a magazine, shouldn't the author of said law at least show some evidence that there's a problem in the first place? A lot of opinion has been presented in this thread, but no evidence that those opinions are based in anything but conjecture and hand-waving...

I'll say it again- California already has a mirror of this proposed federal law. Since California passed the law (magazine size limited to 10 rounds or less), have there been any studies which show it was effective in reducing shootings (or average number of deaths in shootings)?

 

[turbo]

I'll say it again- California already has a mirror of this proposed federal law. Since California passed the law (magazine size limited to 10 rounds or less), have there been any studies which show it was an effective in reducing shootings (or average number of deaths in shootings)?

As I mentioned earlier, when the slide stays back (gun is empty) it takes only a second or less to eject the empty clip, jam in another one and release the slide to reload and fire.

Limiting clip-size is just another feel-good measure (for anti-gun people) to try nibble away at gun ownership. It won't prevent nuts from killing people and it won't prevent gang-bangers in Compton from buying and packing any kinds of guns that they want with any magazines that they want.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...when the slide stays back (gun is empty) it takes only a second or less to eject the empty clip, jam in another one and release the slide to reload and fire.

I mentioned this at the very start of this thread- It isn't a given that a 30-round mag is "more deadly" than 3 10-round mags. If it isn't more deadly, and you aren't limiting the total number of rounds allowed to be carried, what's the point?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps we should expand this to workers put in harms way along the border?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17087113

"Mexican gunman fires across border toward U.S. highway workers"

I wanted to work the border problem into my statement but found it cumbersome. However, I agree this comes into play. In a very real sense, we are now fighting a border war with foreign invaders - the drug and human smuggling cartels, not the illegal immigrants just hoping to find a better life. The people living along the border need proper protection. Again, one has to assume there is no time to call for help when help is needed.

On this point alone, I think it can be argued that since the Federal government has failed in its primary responsibility to protect our borders, there is no moral justification, much less a Constitutional justification, for limiting the effectiveness of assualt weapons. They may be needed by law abiding citizens. Note that the drug lords have now begun to threaten police here in the US, as they have long done in Mexico.

 

[Al68]

As far as fully automatic weapons, it should be obvious that far less people would have been killed/injured had Loughner's glock been fully auto. Unlike in the movies, a 30 round clip doesn't last long in full auto, and accuracy suffers, to say the least. Especially with a light handgun used by a shooter unaccustomed to full auto. Most of the rounds probably would have gone way over the heads of the intended victims.

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

Yeah, you could be arguing that, or you could be making a statistical argument...Maybe you should make your arguments clearly when it comes to firing into a crowd?

I added back and bolded the part of my post you edited out. The part of my post that makes my point clear. The part you edited out for the purpose of misrepresenting my post.

BTW, it violates https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" to edit my post in a way that changes its meaning in a way relevant to your response.

 

[nismaratwork]

As I mentioned earlier, when the slide stays back (gun is empty) it takes only a second or less to eject the empty clip, jam in another one and release the slide to reload and fire.

Limiting clip-size is just another feel-good measure (for anti-gun people) to try nibble away at gun ownership. It won't prevent nuts from killing people and it won't prevent gang-bangers in Compton from buying and packing any kinds of guns that they want with any magazines that they want.

Yet this is the moment when an unarmed civilian can, and DID, (with some luck that's part of firearms...) stop Loughner. I also don't care how much you practice: what you do with a magazine on the range or hunting doesn't always equate to what a maniac does during a mass shooting where at any time another armed individual could arrive.

edit: While you have the rules there, I did actually offer your entire post, and give proper indication of the snip... you've edited mine with neither.

 

[nismaratwork]

I added back and bolded the part of my post you edited out. The part of my post that makes my point clear. The part you edited out for the purpose of misrepresenting my post.

BTW, it violates https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" to edit my post in a way that changes its meaning in a way relevant to your response.

Your argument about my supposed deception would have been much better if, when creating your post, you ignored the fact that I linked directly to your post, placed ellipses so that it was clear, even from a cursory reading that this was part of your post.

As it happens I wasn't trying to be muddle your post; the former portion does nothing to clarify the latter.

If I fire at a stand of trees, and I aim for a specific point on that tree, a lack of accuracy is only a boon, possibly, for that one tree. If someone is firing at you, and misses, you think it automatically sails into the sky forever, or just thuds into the ground like a brick? Fire into a crowd with a fully automatic Glock, and it would be a lot like trees; they wouldn't have much of any time to react.

There is a trade between accuracy, and fire-rate that you're ignoring or don't understand for lack of experience. I don't know which.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Yet this is the moment when an unarmed civilian can, and DID, (with some luck that's part of firearms...) stop Loughner. I also don't care how much you practice: what you do with a magazine on the range or hunting doesn't always equate to what a maniac does during a mass shooting where at any time another armed individual could arrive.

So your basic argument after all this is that more reloading gives good samaritans more of a chance to stop "maniacs" from reloading and continuing their rampage. Is this not also true for a person acting in self-defence?

 

[nismaratwork]

So your basic argument after all this is that more reloading gives good samaritans more of a chance to stop "maniacs" from reloading and continuing their rampage. Is this not also true for a person acting in self-defence?

A person acting in self defense has no need to discharge 33 rounds; if they do they should be in protective custody because their presence in society is an unreasonable and predictable risk to bystanders. If you over-discharge (read shoot too much) your weapon in self defense, get ready for a murder trial of some kind. Hell, most self-defense advocates will tel you: don't exceed the clip-size of your local police, and even leave one or two out of the magazine to show that you don't intend "overkill". In addition, use the ammunition type (JHP, FMJ, etc) that your local or state police use.

All of our other discussion aside, from one gun owner to what I presume to be another; that advice will keep you from unreasonable civil and criminal prosecution when you're just acting in self defense.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Nis, you've wandered far from your original intent in this thread. It almost seems that you're now trying to argue anything that doesn't agree with your personal opinion. You however started the thread off in the following fashion:

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 ANY statistics which back up your claim (opinion) that 33-round magazines are unnecessary and should be banned? You patronizingly called upon my status as a mechanical engineer saying I should be looking at the statistics and making a logical decision based in the spirit of risk mitigation. So I'm calling you out- do you have any statistics that make possible such a decision?

We're basically stuck in an infinite loop: the core problem is this law is meant to apply to people that don't obey the law in the first place. So what it accomplishes instead (as with most gun control laws) is limits availability to law-abiding citizens that we don't have to worry about in the first place.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nis, you've wandered far from your original intent in this thread. It almost seems that you're now trying to argue anything that doesn't agree with your personal opinion. You however started the thread off in the following fashion:



Do you have ANY statistics which back up your claim (opinion) that 33-round magazines are unnecessary and should be banned? You patronizingly called upon my status as a mechanical engineer saying I should be looking at the statistics and making a logical decision based in the spirit of risk mitigation. So I'm calling you out- do you have any statistics that make possible such a decision?

We're basically stuck in an infinite loop: the core problem is this law is meant to apply to people that don't obey the law in the first place. So what it accomplishes instead (as with most gun control laws) is limits availability to law-abiding citizens that we don't have to worry about in the first place.

*sigh* No... mine was a call to compile and scientifically compare those statistics instead of either:

1.) Doing nothing
2.) Having Lautenberg or another like him simply pick an arbitrary number.

I've already made this case... the fact that the thread continually turns into a general gun-rights debate, and my attempt to restrain that and eventual involvement in it doesn't change my original point.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You basically think that since (in your opinion) magazines over a certain capacity have little usefulness in a self-defence situation they can be banned with no negative repercussions, but many in this therad (including myself) are saying that in order to ban them you need to PROVE that:

1. Extended capacity magazines are used in many killings every year.
2. Reducing the legal maximum magazine capacity reduces the number of killings every year.

Just as you said in the start of the thread, we should look at the statistics and make a rational risk management decision. Problem is, such a decision can only be made if and when the statistics exist. We can't assume the findings of such a study before it exists and pass a law based on those assumptions.