McCarthy to call for ban on high-capacity "ammo clips"

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55124

 

So a Glock is an assault weapon? Is an "assualt weapon" defined as any weapon that you could assualt someone with?

It is ok with me if they outlaw 30 round clips for pistols, as long as they don't outlaw 30 round magazines.

What if he had two Glocks with standard 15 round mags?

These knee-jerk reactions are all as senseless as the tragedy that is causing them.

 

Naturally, I'm against this ban.
Even though a 30 round magazine is an extra-high capacity mag for that kind of pistol, it's the perfectly normal and standard-capacity magazine for an M/11 9mm, an AR type rifle, a U.S. .30 carbine, and many others.

But I have to say, it's true that a criminal who uses a semi-auto gun with a 30 round mag, or a 40 round mag, or a 75 round drum, or a 90 round drum, has the ability to do a lot more damage than a guy with one ten round mag in the gun and several extra 10-round mags in his pockets or in pouches.

From a self-defense perspective, I'm okay with 10 rounds. 20 would be better, but 10 should be enough in most situations. Two of my carry pistols have early 1990s era "Assault Weapon Ban compliant" 10 round mags when they could have 12 or 14 round mags. I never bothered to buy the full capacity ones after the federal ban ended.

My SKS home defense rifle and unorganized militia weapon wears the standard internal 10 round mag. I'd rather that it hold 20, but I'd rather have 10 than use one of those big, ugly, poorly-fitting 30 rounders.

I have a feeling that when a criminal or crazy shoots ten rounds into a crowd of people and kills a few of them and wounds several others, the media will scream for a ban on 10-round mags, and they'll want to cut it down to 5 rounds. Then three. Just like for duck hunting-- three rounds maximum.

 

Robyn Thomas is a Moron.
The magazines were not the same, neither were the calibers of the weapons.

 

Any gun control legislation will have to clear both the Senate and the House before it can become law. I don't think that the newly elected House majority of Republicans feel it is their job to pass gun control legislation. There is going to be a lot of discussion and a lot of rhetoric, but in the end, I think this bill (and any others that may be introduced) is just political grandstanding.

 

Imagine the damage this nut could have done if he had driven a SUV at 40 mph into the crowd. How many would be dead and injured? Would the knee jek eaction be to ban SUV's? Pobably not, I hope enough people let their legislatues know this is not what most Americans want. If this bill gets through congress there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would sign it before the ink was dry. We have to fight this to make sure a ban doesn't happen again.

 

No, the reaction would be to call for a reduction in the size of SUVs fuel tanks and engine size so that they still function but could not be driven as far and so easily be used to run over innocent people.

 

Here's the thing... There are nuts and wackos on all sides of this. Some nut uses a gun to murder people. Other nuts want good people's 2A rights diminished or destroyed. This could likely fire up some other nut who will go after the gun banners with a gun. Meanwhile, good people who understand that guns aren't the problem, will be dragged into the middle.

Will it get to the point where good people are backed into a corner and are forced to take real action?

 

so are they gonna limit people from carrying multiple mags of a lower capacity? or is this just another one of those things where they just want to pass a bill so they can say they passed a bill..................

 

http://www.botachtactical.com/vima.html

In case they are successful in banning them, here's a link where you can get them from now. The 31-round for Glock .40 normally goes for $12.00, but is on sale for $9.95.

Nutcases will use any length magazine to hurt people, and they will possess them regardless of what laws are passed. Laws won't stop them. The AZ congreewoman should have had armed security, and at a least a few in the crowd should have been armed. That would have been a lot more effective in limiting the harm to innocent people than any law banning useful products. Those who think a 31-round mag is not useful for home defense haven't been invaded by 4 or 5 bad guys with each having a gun.

 

So let's say that such a law was already in place, and the killer brought 3 10 round mags with him. Instead of 6 dead and 13 injured, let's say there were only 3 dead and 7 injured.

Is it no less a tragedy? If only 3 of the original 6 dies in my hypothetical scenario, which 3? Do they draw straws? Would someone prefer to die from a 10 round mag as opposed to a 13 round mag?

Good people will be the ultimate victims of these knee-jerk reactions. Criminals (or potential criminals like Loughner) are never hindered by laws.

 

No doubt. And with the number of high capacity magazines that are freely available from private transactions, banning them commercially isn't really going to do a whole lot of good. If a criminal wants to be a criminal, they're not going to let a law get in their way.

Personally, I can do plenty of damage with a standard 10 round magazine... as can anyone who actually practices at the range... and if we follow the logic of of this proposed legislation, how long will it be before it's illegal to simply be a proficient shooter? I hope this legislation is docked and forgotten, otherwise it'll just give the anti-gun numbnuts another foothold to limit our freedoms even more.