Should High-Capacity Mags be Banned?

Originally posted by TheBloop
Sure.

Because it's none of McCarthy's business what the capacity of anybody's mag is, nor is it any of yours.

So you oppose ANY regulation of any dangerous devices?

Would it be any of society's business if I possessed a tactical nuclear weapon?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The ten round limit was the law in the US from 1994-2004; I don't recall any crazed killer being as inventive as you.

Your last paragraph is too cynical for me; I'd prefer something to be done rather than nothing even granting the possibility that the something might discourage "better" somethings in the future. Speculative possibilities not take measures which are likely to reduce the lethality of such incidents in the future.

The ten round limit was the law in the US from 1994-2004; I don't recall any crazed killer being as inventive as you.
Just because in one interval of time that hasn't occured yet, it doesn't follow that it will never occur in any other intervals.


More importantly, my opposition to this proposal really stems from the fact that I don't see it going far enough. When the next mass shooting occurs (and I'm certain one will; even if the shooter has to target a group of people less able to overpower him as he reloads - like a school for example) people will be reflecting on this bill and asking whether they're approaching the issue of gun safety vs the right to self defence from the right angle. If you think the voice for banning gun ownership is loud now it will be a lot louder in the future. I say that a far more restrictive proposal needs to be sought (but not so restrictive as an outright ban).

Finally, I'm not so sure the resistance I suggest really is so speculative. Indeed reading what theBloop is posting leads me to suspect he'd be p!ssed as hell if this bill was passed - and if not him, then others who's mindset he represents would certainly stand in the way of any other proposals regardless of how many deaths occur in the next killing spree.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]The ten round limit was the law in the US from 1994-2004; I don't recall any crazed killer being as inventive as you.
Just because in one interval of time that hasn't occured yet, it doesn't follow that it will never occur in any other intervals.


More importantly, my opposition to this proposal really stems from the fact that I don't see it going y of any other proposals regardless of how many deaths occur in the next killing spree.[/b]

Didn't a 69 year old granny overpower him as he reloaded?

EDIT Nope, my mistake:

[i]But two men tackled the gunman when he stopped to reload, and Maisch, 61, restrained his hand as he reached for an ammunition clip, helping stop the attack in a Tucson shopping center that killed six people and wounded 14, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords...

Two men tackled the gunman, and they fell close to Maisch. She saw the shooter reach into his pants pocket for another ammunition clip, and she grabbed his hand. Then she knelt on his ankles to help subdue him.

"He said, 'You're hurting me' or something to that effect," said Maisch, a petite, gray-haired woman who served blueberry tea during an interview at her Tucson home, decorated with African ceramics.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-heroes-20110110[/i

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Didn't a 69 year old granny overpower him as he reloaded?

Does one special case prove that in all cases, a crazed killer shooting people to sh** will be overpowered by the old, disabled, or otherwise???

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You have to realize that we don't have the luxury of relying on another, more powerful, more violent country to help protect us if things really go to Hell and we need to start fighting a real enemy*. Costa Rica, Europe, Australia, etc. can all come running to us if they have to, and they have, and we've usuallu been there for them (not out of charit ...[text shortened]... no disrespect to the allies that are helping us and have helped us in the past in our wars.

We seem to be dwelling on conspiracy theories here, the likelihood of the US government turning on its own citizens is the same as that of the Rolling Stones breaking up, or Richard Dawkins becoming a Christian, or Berlusconi becoming celibate, well, you get the point.

Furthermore, the argument that even in our modern age the possession of firearms might be useful for self-defense in the occasion of an authoritarian govt taking over is surely flawed. Do you really think that a pistol is going to save you from being wiped out by the big guns of the US army? Yes, a rifle killed JFK, but in this nightmare scenario of a rogue US govt the death of the President would only result in his replacement by another member of such regime.

nvm

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Didn't a 69 year old granny overpower him as he reloaded?

EDIT Nope, my mistake:

[i]But two men tackled the gunman when he stopped to reload, and Maisch, 61, restrained his hand as he reached for an ammunition clip, helping stop the attack in a Tucson shopping center that killed six people and wounded 14, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.. ...[text shortened]...
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-heroes-20110110[/i

She should have kicked him in the nuts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you oppose ANY regulation of any dangerous devices?

Would it be any of society's business if I possessed a tactical nuclear weapon?

Tactical nuclear weapon? Looks like my friend from the left might be just a little off-topic?

Originally posted by TheBloop
Tactical nuclear weapon? Looks like my friend from the left might be just a little off-topic?

It's not off-topic at all. You were claiming that it's "none of anybody's business" what weaponry someone possesses. Does that "logic" still hold?

Originally posted by TheBloop
Tactical nuclear weapon? Looks like my friend from the left might be just a little off-topic?

As a reductio ad absurdum, it's a valid contention. Surely, by your way of thinking, if people can look after tactical nukes responsibly then it is no one's business whether they possess them or not. Feck, I certainly wouldn't be robbing people in the middle of night if I thought they had nukes under their pillows.

Originally posted by TheBloop
Tactical nuclear weapon? Looks like my friend from the left might be just a little off-topic?

At what point does it become someone's business what weapon you have? How do you decide a tacnuke is inappropriate and a 30 round magazine is not? What about less obvious choices, like an M249 SAW? How about one of those new "Automatic Rifles" the Marines are using?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

What about an M16, or an AK47? Semi-auto AR-15?

An Uzi?

This 30 round clip is intended for something like an Uzi.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
At what point does it become someone's business what weapon you have? How do you decide a tacnuke is inappropriate and a 30 round magazine is not? What about less obvious choices, like an M249 SAW? How about one of those new "Automatic Rifles" the Marines are using?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

What about an M16, or ...[text shortened]... 47? Semi-auto AR-15?

An Uzi?

This 30 round clip is intended for something like an Uzi.

The Glock 30 round and more clip was intended for the Glock 18 which has the option for fully automatic fire. http://www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/18/index.htm

Apparently a mere 17 round mag wasn't "manly" enough.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Glock 30 round and more clip was intended for the Glock 18 which has the option for fully automatic fire. http://www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/18/index.htm

Apparently a mere 17 round mag wasn't "manly" enough.

From your link:

threw the switch over to full auto. Wow! The gun emptied the mag in a blink of an eye! In proper technical terms, the C18 cycles between 1100 and 1300 rounds per minute, dependent upon the ammunition used.

The easiest way to describe shooting the G18 full-auto is that it feels just like turning on a high pressure water hose. The gun bucks and just starts pushing straight back in your hands, while you note an ejected stream of brass cases arcing up and over your right shoulder.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
From your link:

threw the switch over to full auto. Wow! The gun emptied the mag in a blink of an eye! In proper technical terms, the C18 cycles between 1100 and 1300 rounds per minute, dependent upon the ammunition used.

The easiest way to describe shooting the G18 full-auto is that it feels just like turning on a high pressure water hose. ...[text shortened]... ds, while you note an ejected stream of brass cases arcing up and over your right shoulder.

HOT!!!!!!

Originally posted by TheBloop
... in your opinion.


And that might be true for some on the left, but not for the vast majority.

Of course, plenty of folks on the left, like Rosie O'Donnell, think that no one should be allowed to have guns except for the bodyguards of her kids.

And of course, there's Carl Rowan...

And we have four Supreme Court judges who say that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says.

Can you post a link to any legislation that has been propose to make shotguns or rifles illegal?

And who is Rosie O'Donnell? Does she represent "the vast majority" of Democrats? I know literally thousands of Democrats and I don't know one that wants to make shotguns or hunting rifles illegal?