No one needs 15 rounds

[Roysneon]

This is thoroughly entertaining.

[marshallnoise]

This is thoroughly entertaining.

It would be. History is fascinating.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[The Dark Side of Will]

The only purpose that high-capacity magazines serve is to make offensive killing easier. Period. You can fire more rounds at more targets in a shorter period of time while showing yourself in a defenseless posture (i.e. reloading) less frequently. In other words, it makes killing lots of people in a short time period easier. It has nothing to do with defensive shooting and everything to do with offensive shooting.

Mass shootings committed with high-capacity magazines between 1984 and 2013: 36

Recorded instances of guns with high-capacity magazines being used in self defense during the same period: 0

http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/VPCshootinglistSM.pdf

The idea that a mass-murder is in no way "inconvenienced" by the lack of a hi-cap mag, but that a private citizen is, would be laughable if it weren't directly responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people. I've heard so many people say "Hi-cap mags aren't the issue. It takes 2 seconds to reload. Banning them won't change anything". OK, so why do you need them if it's as easy to reload as you say it is? If it takes them 2 seconds to reload, it takes you 2 seconds also. A high-cap mag can't be a boon for you and a bust for them simultaneously. If it's easy for them to reload, it's easy for you too. If a hi-cap mag makes it easier for you to shoot a large number of assailants, it makes it easier for them to shoot a large number of victims. You don't get to cherry-pick the upsides and downsides and them apply them in whatever fashion furthers your own zealotry.

Here's where your bullshit shows: A mass shooting is planned. A shooter can show up with 30 mags on his person easily. He's not materially inconvenienced by capacity limits.

Home defense isn't planned, at least not by the defender. It happens when some jackass breaks into your house. In extremis, in your pajamas, do you want a mag with 10 bullets or 30? I want 30.

[marshallnoise]

Here's where your bullshit shows: A mass shooting is planned. A shooter can show up with 30 mags on his person easily. He's not materially inconvenienced by capacity limits.

Home defense isn't planned, at least not by the defender. It happens when some jackass breaks into your house. In extremis, in your pajamas, do you want a mag with 10 bullets or 30? I want 30.

I would prefer a 50 round drum filled with 45 acp attached to a Thompson but the ATF made sure I couldn't get one of those.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

It would be. History is fascinating.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I respect the point(s) you're trying to make here, but you'll never get through to some people. I've learned to never discuss politics or religion with family or people I consider friends...doing so anonymously on the internet is even more worthless. Fight the good fight on a local level, make sure your representatives know your stance, introduce open minded individuals to the sport of responsible shooting and gun ownership and support local businesses that share your views and avoid those that don't. Unless of course you feel like arguing with people and going around in endless circles, then by all means.

[marshallnoise]

I respect the point(s) you're trying to make here, but you'll never get through to some people. I've learned to never discuss politics or religion with family or people I consider friends...doing so anonymously on the internet is even more worthless. Fight the good fight on a local level, make sure your representatives know your stance, introduce open minded individuals to the sport of responsible shooting and gun ownership and support local businesses that share your views and avoid those that don't. Unless of course you feel like arguing with people and going around in endless circles, then by all means.

You are right. As far as mindless entertainment, this is about as fun as it gets. Pun intended. Indeed it is a lot like casting pearls before swine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

Yes. I believe you should be allowed to own an rpg.

What about a mentally ill felon on the terror watch list? Should they be able to own one?

[CorvallisBMW]

Here's where your bullshit shows: A mass shooting is planned. A shooter can show up with 30 mags on his person easily. He's not materially inconvenienced by capacity limits.

Home defense isn't planned, at least not by the defender. It happens when some jackass breaks into your house. In extremis, in your pajamas, do you want a mag with 10 bullets or 30? I want 30.

If it takes you 30 rounds to stop an intruder, you're either a) completely blind or b) mentally handicapped. In either case, you shouldn't have a gun.

Bottom line is that hi-cap mags are not needed for self defense in any case, period.

[Roysneon]

I respect the point(s) you're trying to make here, but you'll never get through to some people. I've learned to never discuss politics or religion with family or people I consider friends...doing so anonymously on the internet is even more worthless. Fight the good fight on a local level, make sure your representatives know your stance, introduce open minded individuals to the sport of responsible shooting and gun ownership and support local businesses that share your views and avoid those that don't. Unless of course you feel like arguing with people and going around in endless circles, then by all means.

I love shooting. I don't do it much, but I do enjoy it. I own guns as well. I don't think that a loaded, semi or full auto high cap weapon is a good idea at all. Since there are people who do, we need legislation that keeps people from doing stupid shit like that.

[BraveUlysses]

If it takes you 30 rounds to stop an intruder, you're either a) completely blind or b) mentally handicapped. In either case, you shouldn't have a gun.

Bottom line is that hi-cap mags are not needed for self defense in any case, period.

How many should it take, based on your extensive experience?

This is such a terrible argument because it all hinges on what *you* think is reasonable and not a determination based on anything meaningful.

Keep repeating your opinion over and over and misinterpreting everyone's posts, I'm sure you'll convince someone eventually

[profbooty]

If it takes you 30 rounds to stop an intruder, you're either a) completely blind or b) mentally handicapped. In either case, you shouldn't have a gun.

Bottom line is that hi-cap mags are not needed for self defense in any case, period.

There's usually exceptions when it comes to absoutes. I think your argument would be more persuasive if you said, "In many situtations, hi capacity magazines are not needed."

One the other hand:

For a single intruder, 30 rounds would be poor marksmanship. What about multiple intruders? The arguments against magazine size, reloading and accuracy are a bit less persusaive.

What if you are an older individual? A longer magazine is easier to load than a shorter one, as when the spring gets compressed more, it is more difficult to put in additional rounds (at least on a new magazine). It is possible to create a magazine with lower spring tension for such people, and perhaps they are on the market?

[ParsedOut]

I love shooting. I don't do it much, but I do enjoy it. I own guns as well. I don't think that a loaded, semi or full auto high cap weapon is a good idea at all. Since there are people who do, we need legislation that keeps people from doing stupid shit like that.

Legislation doesn't mean anything to people who don't respect the law...and people who do become at a further disadvantage. The fact that semi-auto (full auto is only legal for LEO by the way) firearms are in existence we can't just pass a law and now they go away. People with bad intentions will always find a way.

[CorvallisBMW]

Legislation doesn't mean anything to people who don't respect the law...and people who do become at a further disadvantage. The fact that semi-auto (full auto is only legal for LEO by the way) firearms are in existence we can't just pass a law and now they go away. People with bad intentions will always find a way.

If this is your argument against firearm laws, then why have any laws at all?

"Why have a law against rape if rapists will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against robbery if robbers will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against murder if murderers will just ignore it?"

See how illogical that is?

[rwh11385]

The only purpose that high-capacity magazines serve is to make offensive killing easier. Period. You can fire more rounds at more targets in a shorter period of time while showing yourself in a defenseless posture (i.e. reloading) less frequently. In other words, it makes killing lots of people in a short time period easier. It has nothing to do with defensive shooting and everything to do with offensive shooting.

Hmmm. Quite interesting approach Darin in stating your opinion as absolute fact. The sole purpose of high-capacity magazines is to make offensive killing easier? I guess you'd have to consider how many high-capacity magazines are owned in the US and how many offensive killings are done with them. Is everyone who owns a high-capacity magazine and hasn't committed a murder have just not put them into service yet? Or are you naively looking to simplify your argument against them by not understanding that good guys find them useful as well?

High-capacity magazines for the 10/22 are popular but pretty much the only thing it'd be truly effective against would be squirrels or other small game. So why would sales be what they are for high-capacity magazines for the 10/22? Maybe because people enjoy the sport of target shooting and swapping out 10-round rotary magazines is annoying and a BX-25 reduces the frequency of changing magazines by 150%. (And provides something to hold onto before releasing it instead of having to catch it as it drops) So no, the sole purpose of high-capacity magazines is not as simple as you perceive - to only be enable more efficient offensive killing.

More important disconnect of yours is not understanding the difference in time between swapping magazines and reloading magazines. Dropping a mag, inserting a new one, and racking it doesn't take that long compared to compressing the magazine spring and inserting one round at a time. If someone is destined to do harm (and not helped mentally before they do it) like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold or Elliot Rodger but have only access to limited capacity magazines, they simply will carry more magazines. The assault weapons ban didn't prevent Columbine and Elliot brought 41 10-round magazines. The most recent tragedy shows that even in a strong anti-gun state of California, the regulations of magazine capacity don't prevent people from doing wrong to their fellow human being. You can't legislate away crime nor evil. Look at how pathetic the war on drugs has gone in the country.

[marshallnoise]

If this is your argument against firearm laws, then why have any laws at all?

"Why have a law against rape if rapists will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against robbery if robbers will just ignore it?"
"Why have laws against murder if murderers will just ignore it?"

See how illogical that is?

Laws only work on honest people. That is the point. All you do is make honest people criminals. Laws don't stop crimes from being committed. Only strict enforcement.

If the Attorney General can run guns across the border with no repercussion even though it is illegal to do so, what is the point of the law in the first place?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk