McCarthy Introduces Bill Banning High-Capacity Magazines

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by KingYaba, Jan 19, 2011.

  1. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #1
    For starters, I want people to recognize the difference between a clip and a magazine. To the writer who wrote this article: do not use these terms interchangeably. See the attached picture for reference. :p And when you're talking law, is it not important to be accurate? The bill aims to ban ammunition feeding devices with a capacity of +10.

    People died because of one deranged idiot. I have magazines that hold more than ten rounds and no one has died because of 'em. And never will. People, like me, use these for sport and recreation. Others for defense.

    I also dislike what she said in her letter:

    Unbelievable. I don't' think she shoots much. :p

    If high capacity magazines are problematic, then so are high-capacity hard drives. After all, their only purpose is to house gigabytes and gigabytes of child porn. :rolleyes: And of course high-speed internet is only used for copyright infringement.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #2
    Pretty sick that she is using this to push her own agenda, and try to pass yet one more gun law that would not have done anything to prevent this crime.

    Why do I not see anyone pushing for reforming mental health care and pushing for more outreach centers where people can go to for help, and spend some money on advertising to educate people about mental illness and how to get help for someone you know is mentally ill.

    In any case, even with this I doubt they will get any anti-gun legislation passed anytime in the near future. The votes just aren't there and no democrat with half a brain would vote for gun control for fear of losing the senate.

    Anyway, Im glad Ive got my Beta C Mags for the upcoming zombie apocalypse.:D:D
     
  3. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #3
    Hope that knee jerk didn't break the table she was writing on.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    People dying because of large clip sizes? Come on. :rolleyes:
     
  5. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    If he had to reload, wouldn't have less people most likely have died? Makes sense to me. And you really need them for "self-defense". Please.
     
  6. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #6
    FYI, a "normal" Glock 17 has a capacity of 18 rounds (17+1).

    And even if there was a ban, it's not like the hundreds of thousands of "high capacity" magazines currently in use by thousands of people would suddenly disappear. Anyone could still purchase a 30 round magazine in 1995, they just had to pay a little more for it.
     
  7. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    Don't let people sell them used. At all. Legal to keep what you have but no more new sales. Or used sales.

    Prevents some psycho going out getting a gun AND the extended magazine to do extra damage before he's taken down.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    But, there's a balance test. We can argue that some usages of the Internet and hard-disks are unsavory, but on the balance, most usages are legal and socially useful.

    On the other hand, the balance test for 30 round magazines for 9mm pistols is more troublesome: one deranged idiot can kill a lot of people balanced against the recreational shooter's right to fire more rounds with fewer reloads. The home defense is available, but I'd argue again that the difference between 10 and 30 rounds is much more likely to be an offensive quality rather than a defensive quality.

    And, bobber's correct: in Tucson, the shooter was stopped when one woman grabbed the magazine from his hand as he tried to reload. This is an important consideration.

    That said, I don't think this law should be passed: it's won't be effective in the near or long-term.
     
  9. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    Joy. More window dressing, do-nothing political BS.


    Lethal
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10
    Actually, you do...

    ...if you live in a world like The Walking Dead or "28 Days Later".

    Typical America? Not so much.
     
  11. glocke12, Jan 20, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2011

    glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #11
    So who exactly has the right to determine what an individual citizen "needs" ? there are plenty of things people own but do not need.

    Cars that go over 65 mph, the legal speed limit (speeding kills MANY more people that guns).

    Sports cars

    McMansions with TERRIBLE carbon footprints

    Dangerous animals as pets

    the list goes on..

    Stupid law that wont do anything, and like I said I can pretty much guarantee that if any gun control legislation is passed the dems wont have a chance of keeping the senate or getting the house back, and they know it. I think it was 1994 that the AWB was passed and they lost both the house and the senate. They are not about to let that happen again any time soon.

    This shooting was not due to a failure to have a ban on guns or magazines in place, this shooting was a failure on the part of those who recognized signs of serious mental illness in this individual to alert the proper authorities and have him involuntarily committed.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    You'd be hard-pressed to find a more anti-gun person than me... but I've pretty much resigned myself to accepting this aspect of American culture.

    Individual state laws have been ineffective because there's little to prevent the transporting guns across state lines. The only way to truly make a difference would be to institute national laws... but that ain't likely to happen.

    So we'll simply have to put up with the approximately 30,000 (2007 CDC) firearm deaths each year. 85 people every day.

    I guess that's just the price we pay for our freedom.
     
  13. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    We have national laws it's just not in the politicians' best financial interests to actually have the ATF enforce them. Enforce the laws on the books and rethink the epic failure that is the War on Drugs and I'll bet dollars to donuts that there is a significant drop the rate of guns used in violent crimes in the US.


    Lethal
     
  14. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #14
    I doubt that would ever happen. Machine guns are the same way. Anyone that can own a semi-automatic can own a fully automatic gun as long as they purchase one used that was registered before May 1986. You just have to pay a lot more for one.
     
  15. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #15
    This guy is an idiot. He continually called them 'clips'. A clip is something you bind paper together with. A magazine is what goes into semiautomatic and automatic pistols. Also, a 'Glock 9' does not exist. There are four different generation of 9mm Glock pistols with 5 different models currently available in 9mm, ranging from subcompact to target-sport, and even a fully automatic (Glock 18) which is available to LEAs only. He's one of those people that labels anything that looks scary as an 'assault weapon'. The shooting occurred with a Glock for no other reason than its wide-spread availability at a substantially reduced cost compared to other law-enforcement grade pistols in its class. IIRC, about 3/4 of LEOs carry Glocks off duty as a personal carry pistol. This guy, and many others, for some reason decide to drive gun laws without doing research and understanding 'gun-culture', and this almost always has catastrophic results with (as to date) no reduction in crime rates committed with firearms, but higher victimization rates, which indicates that the only people who are having reduced access to guns are law abiding citizens and not criminals. This is also why so many gun advocates essentially refuse any additional gun litigation as thus far, gun litigation in America has had a catastrophically poor track record.

    Hi cap mag bans won't do ****. I can do a 'tactical' mag swap in the time it takes most people to recover for a follow-up shot. People who are good with guns can change out mags so quickly that a delay doesn't even exist (check out the IPSC vids). Furthermore, the 33 round Glock 9mm mags actually can give you a tactical disadvantage due to decreased mobility, weight offset, difficulty to reload, bulk, and a few other variables which if I started discussing would have the anti-gunners scratching their heads.

    Also, you can make your own hi-caps if you so want to.

    Above all, no gun laws are going to deal with the issue with any significant results. Banning guns and their components is like putting a band-aid on a bullet would...it is avoiding attacking the other issues at hand and a 'quick-fix' that historically has had negative results in the United States.

    Before anyone tries to tell me that 'guns have no purpose other than killing', take a look at the stats in terms of ammo sales and reported use of firearms by owners. The overwhelming majority of firearms are used for recreational shooting that does not involve shooting at other people or any other living animal for that matter. Almost all ammo sold constitutes 'practice' ammo and are not hollow-points, ballistic tips, Noslers, tungsten core, etc. I would even argue that (at least around here), the main reason people purchase guns is for non-hunting recreation. Most of us shoot paper, steel, old cars, and random crap that is fun to shoot at. No, we aren't practicing to 'kill' anything, we are having fun (while of course practicing good gun safety at all times though). Gun making for many is an art as is collecting. If you take a look at some of the custom guns, (ex: Les Baer 1911s), you almost can't avoid appreciating the hours and hours that a skilled person spent crafting and perfecting it to make an artistic creation.

    I am not saying that guns are not good (and a guaranteed right) for self-defense. They are, and by our Constitution, civilians should be able to defend themselves. In the US, some of the most notorious violations of personal freedoms have been centered around firearm restriction and confiscation. Obviously, gun ownership requires responsibility and I think that every person, pro or anti gun, should be given basic gun safety courses at some point in their earlier life. Basic gun safety saves lives, especially lives of children. You aren't going to ever child-proof anything, including guns, you need to gun-proof your children. On an interesting side note, check out the 'Pink Pistols'...I would think that anyone of a historically persecuted minority, such as homosexual persons, would be both pro gun and gun owners.
     
  16. KingYaba, Jan 20, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2011

    KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #16
    Legal use of large magazines that hold 30+ rounds far outweigh the illegal use. I'd say the ratio is favorable for magazines considering how pervasive online piracy is. :D Being socially useful. Is that the new standard at which we're to judge an item's legality? Magazine reloads takes a second so you're really not sparing lives. That lady, though, who stopped Loughner needs to be recognized and thanked.

    I'm not convinced at all. He had a 30+ rd magazine and killed six people. 14 others injured. Instead of two 30rd magazines, he could have six 10 round magazines or perhaps he could have purchased two or three, lesser expensive handguns and simply throw 'em away when empty. There are oodles of $100 handguns out there. Your typical Glock 19 is in the $400 (used) to $500 range. I could buy three or four Hi-Points ($130 new) with that much money. Loughner, after all, was determined to kill...

    Why not? When stressed, everyone's aim worsens and one bullet hitting a man in the torso does not guarantee stoppage. Handguns, in general, are poor ways of killing people. Think about this: 00 Buck from a shotgun is essentially 8-9 rounds of 9mm coming out at once. Chances of incapacitation are far greater... wounds more devastating. But you still have to aim!

    Anyway, some good reading if you want to know more about handgun calibers, stopping power, and effectiveness see the link below. Self defense against many attackers and those under the influence of drugs absolutely justifies having a high-capacity magazine. As if they need to be justified in the first place.

    http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
     
  17. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #17

    All the more reason to not have you be able to fire more rounds so quickly. You're presenting an argument AGAINST yourself here. If it takes me < 5 seconds to load two magazines, should those < 5 seconds buy me 60 bullets or 20?
     
  18. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #18
    There is no argument for or against here. Mag swaps, like any tasks, can be perfected and done very quickly by our ability to adapt. That man was going to use any means necessary to kill. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a bomb.
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Who are you? Tony Montana?

    "Say hello to my little friend!"
     

    Attached Files:

  20. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    So let's say he was able to fire 160 bullets without reloading.

    It's still ok? What if he had to load every 2 or 3 bullets?

    Taking it to the more extreme side either way makes my point more clear.

    Can you actually justify the RIGHT to be able to shoot 30 people before reloading? 10 isn't enough?
     
  21. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #21
    It was never ok for Loughner to open fire on a crowd. Murder is illegal but that didn't seem to stop him. It is also not acceptable to have the government subvert the 2nd amendment in the wake of one high-profile shooting because you damn well know it will not end with McCarthy's magazine bill. The support's not there so I'm not worried. :)

    Just because a gun houses a billion rounds, doesn't mean it's intended or used to kill people. The potential to misuse is there I'm not naive but guns do have sporting and recreational uses as well. And most people, like me, use 'em for such activities. It's like you want to punish me for Loughner's actions.
     
  22. Kestrel452 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #22
    God dam, you people certainly love giving up your constitutional rights.
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    I'm glad high capacity mags are the new boogie men. I will feel much safer knowing that a person's ability to acquire a high capacity might become slightly more difficult in the near future.:rolleyes:

    How many people die from violent crimes in this country each year and this is what we get (after some well-to-do white people get shot, of course)? A proposed law so narrowly tailored it's basically worth less than the paper it's written on? Awesome. It's like the little brother of AWB (assault weapons ban) which was another piece of high quality window dressing.

    We do have a problem with gun violence in this country but BS legislation like this does more harm than good, IMO. It gives a false sense of security and a false sense of accomplishment while the real problem continues to be ignored.


    Lethal
     
  24. Kestrel452 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #24
    Any kind of gun control legislation is totally counterproductive. The only gun control "law" we need is concealed carry to be allowed everywhere.
     
  25. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #25
    Because people just NEED assault rifles to protect themselves. :rolleyes:

    What is the 2nd Amendment the only one people "fight" for?
     

Share This Page