Charleston shooting

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm not sure I understand the relevance there, could you explain it?

[Gravekeeper]

It's worth noting that high capacity magazines and fancy drums tend to jam up and cause the weapon in question to become unusable entirely. This happened with several of the recent incidents, including Sandy Hook and Aurora (just off the top of my head).

Yes, well, they clearly don't jam fast enough if that's the benchmark. -.-

I mean, with Aurora he got off 65 out of 100 rounds before it jammed, but he still had two other guns regardless.

With Sandy Hook, he had a jam with his glock. But they don't know if he had a jam or was just reloading with the carbine ( either way it was only a brief respite ) and it was the carbine that he got off 154 out of 156 shots with in the span of 5 minutes.

So, yeah, they're certainly reliable enough.

[Greenday]

And yet, are you guys REALLY going to imply that if we ban high capacity magazines, we suddenly won't have mass shootings? I've already produced visual proof of how it will have zero effect. It takes almost no time at all to change magazines if you've practiced it at all.

[Andara Bledin]

Ayup. It takes about as long to change a magazine as it does to visually acquire a new target. Limiting magazines to 10 rounds isn't going to change a damned thing, especially seeing as how it's a reaction to a particularly rare event.

Meanwhile, time wasted on that bullshit isn't being spent on measure that might actually save lives. >_<

[Gravekeeper]

Ayup. It takes about as long to change a magazine as it does to visually acquire a new target. Limiting magazines to 10 rounds isn't going to change a damned thing, especially seeing as how it's a reaction to a particularly rare event.

and yet arguably the three worst and most horrifying mass shootings in the last few years were all enabled by the use of high capacity magazines. One of which was stopped when he had to reload.

Also, while mass shootings are rare, high capacity magazines are enjoying an increase in usage in day to day street crime. Its not just a problem confined to the rare killing spree by some nutjob. Its also not a knee jerk reaction by some random politicians. Its law enforcement and the ATF also weighing in.

Rapidly and properly changing magazines requires training. Especially under "live" conditions so to speak. Which is quite a bit different than showing off on Youtube at a gun range.

Meanwhile, time wasted on that bullshit isn't being spent on measure that might actually save lives.

High capacity magazine legislation is only one part and parcel of gun control legislation. Its not being introduced by itself in a vacuum. -.-

[Greenday]

and yet arguably the three worst and most horrifying mass shootings in the last few years were all enabled by the use of high capacity magazines. One of which was stopped when he had to reload.

Also, while mass shootings are rare, high capacity magazines are enjoying an increase in usage in day to day street crime. Its not just a problem confined to the rare killing spree by some nutjob. Its also not a knee jerk reaction by some random politicians. Its law enforcement and the ATF also weighing in.

Rapidly and properly changing magazines requires training. Especially under "live" conditions so to speak. Which is quite a bit different than showing off on Youtube at a gun range.

Unless you and the anti-gun crowd can produce even a shred of evidence that these events could have been prevent by using smaller magazines or that it contributes in some way instead of just happening to constantly be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the argument is ridiculous. At no point did anyone who has ever done a mass shooting thought to themselves, "Gee, thank God I have these "high capacity" magazines or else this would be impossible." Of course they didn't! They can just reload after firing 10 rounds! Even if you don't practice it, it's still insanely easy for even a novice gun user. It's a joke to think that high capacity magazines contribute to gun crime and whenever anti-gun people try to argue against them, it makes the other side facepalm because it's so absurd.

High capacity magazine legislation is only one part and parcel of gun control legislation. Its not being introduced by itself in a vacuum. -.-

There is plenty of legislation that can be enacted to make everyone safer. Background checks, no straw purchases, etc. It's like saying if we prevent cars from going over 50mph, suddenly people will stop driving like idiots and killing each other doing dumb things with their cars.

[Gravekeeper]

Unless you and the anti-gun crowd

Sigh, really? We've had this discussion so many times on here and you still don't grasp my position? Do you not remember the last thread? Or the one before that? Or the one before that? Etc etc? -.-

Thats even putting aside what an idiotic term "anti-gun" is.

It's a joke to think that high capacity magazines contribute to gun crime and whenever anti-gun people try to argue against them, it makes the other side facepalm because it's so absurd.

Of course they contribute. If someone committed a crime with one, it contributed. Its a joke to say they don't. You could argue whether or not they made a particular crime worse, yes. But saying they don't contribute is the joke. =p

They are being used more often in crime since the federal ban was lifted. Do they make crime worse? Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure there's enough data one way or another. ANecdotal accounts from law enforcement say yes but gun crime statistics are poorly kept as is in the US.

But as a police officer, would you rather face a dude with 10 rounds or 30? Probably 10.

Again, the Tuscon shooter was stopped when he had to pause to reload. But a high capacity magazine let him squeeze off 33 rounds before that. Killing 6 and wounding 13. If he had a standard clip would he have hit that many people? No, not even if he had superhuman aim. Aurora? Again, 65 uninterrupted shots.

For a mass shooter in a crowded space a high capacity magazine is definitely an advantage. For an active roaming shooter in an area, not so much, sure.

The only thing a high capacity magazine provides a law abiding citizen is convenience. If giving up some convenience could potentially save some lives what exactly is the problem? By both your arguments you claim that such magazines are unreliable and that someone could keep shooting just as fast by reloading smaller magazines. Thus your own arguments render a high capacity magazine effectively null and there would be no loss if people didn't have them but some potential to save some lives.

There is plenty of legislation that can be enacted to make everyone safer. Background checks, no straw purchases, etc.

Yes, and absolutely no one here said those should NOT be pursued. Quite the opposite. But given that even a pile of dead children and majority support couldn't make congress pass even the most rudimentary common sense legislation I'm not holding out hope for any of this anyway. -.-

[Nekojin]

Sigh, really? We've had this discussion so many times on here and you still don't grasp my position? Do you not remember the last thread? Or the one before that? Or the one before that? Etc etc? -.-

Thats even putting aside what an idiotic term "anti-gun" is.

While I agree that characterizing everyone who is in favor of greater gun control as "anti-gun" is idiotic, it's still a valid term. There's a significant percentage of the pro-control side who have the naive idea that banning guns (in some cases, ALL guns) will somehow remove them from society, and vigorously argue this position. I call it naive because the entire concept of firearms is a genie-out-of-the-bottle situation - you can't undo it, you can't make it go away, any more than we can wipe the concept of nuclear weaponry, or electronics, or alloys from human knowledge.

As for the rest - I don't really have a problem with limiting the public access to high-capacity magazines*, as they don't do much for personal defense (which I think is the BEST public use for firearms).

* (20+ rounds, IMO - other people put the bar lower. 10 rounds is a commonly suggested level, despite there being a large number of semi-automatic weapons that default to 12 or 15 round magazines. And I've heard some people suggest that they should be limited to 2 rounds - I put those people in the same "nuts" category as the people who want to remove guns from society completely.

[Greenday]

The only thing a high capacity magazine provides a law abiding citizen is convenience. If giving up some convenience could potentially save some lives what exactly is the problem? By both your arguments you claim that such magazines are unreliable and that someone could keep shooting just as fast by reloading smaller magazines. Thus your own arguments render a high capacity magazine effectively null and there would be no loss if people didn't have them but some potential to save some lives.

Because it doesn't save lives. It's a feel good measure that actually accomplishes nothing. There's just no reason to get rid of them. It'd be like if I wrapped my car around a tree and blaming Ford for making a car that has over 300hp and claiming they should limit all cars to under 200hp as if that somehow changes things when in reality it doesn't.

[wolfie]

And I've heard some people suggest that they should be limited to 2 rounds - I put those people in the same "nuts" category as the people who want to remove guns from society completely.

WTF? Some guns CAN'T be limited to 2 rounds without affecting their reliability. For example, what used to be the standard police sidearm - a .38 revolver. To restrict it to 2 rounds, you'd need to put plugs in 4 of the holes in the cylinder. If it's not "clocked" properly, you can have up to 4 "clicks" before the first "bang" - definitely NOT what you want in a defensive weapon. Another example - "Drillings" (3-barrel rifles, essentially 3 single-shot weapons packaged together, and in many cases each barrel is a different caliber). Disabling one of the barrels would ruin the value of the rifle - and many of them are valuable antiques.