Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[Hoffstra]

Then exactly, what does it accomplish?

-Geaux

it reduces the number of rounds that can be shot almost instantly.

it forces criminals and mass-shooters to lug around more magazines.

it possibly gives folks time to rush the shooter and take him down.

that's the whole objective.




also, I am a shooter. I know a thing or two about guns.

I know that the more rounds you shoot, the hotter the barrel gets, and the less accurate the shots become. A good shooter will shoot a few rounds....then wait a few minutes to let the barrel cool down.

shooting 50 rounds at a time is not for folks who care about accuracy, hunting, or marksmanship, its for folks who just want to waste money and waste rounds.

 

[Geaux4it]

Then exactly, what does it accomplish?

-Geaux

it reduces the number of rounds that can be shot almost instantly.

it forces criminals and mass-shooters to lug around more magazines.

it possibly gives folks time to rush the shooter and take him down.

that's the whole objective.




also, I am a shooter. I know a thing or two about guns.

I know that the more rounds you shoot, the hotter the barrel gets, and the less accurate the shots become. A good shooter will shoot a few rounds....then wait a few minutes to let the barrel cool down.

shooting 50 rounds at a time is no for folks who care about accuracy, hunting, or marksmanship, its for folks who just want to waste money and waste rounds.

It's their choice to waste money and rounds as you state

According to the link I just posted, the Columbine shooter reloaded multiple times.

Arm the teachers and that would save lives far more than limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly an hour.

-Geaux

 

[Hoffstra]

It's their choice to waste money and rounds as you state

According to the link I just posted, the Columbine shooter reloaded multiple times.

Arm the teachers and that would save lives far more than limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds

-Geaux

arming teachers runs the risk of some kid grabbing the gun.

 

[Geaux4it]

It's their choice to waste money and rounds as you state

According to the link I just posted, the Columbine shooter reloaded multiple times.

Arm the teachers and that would save lives far more than limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds

-Geaux

arming teachers runs the risk of some kid grabbing the gun.

No it doesn't. That would be considered acceptable risk when faced with the greater odds in taking down a school shooter

-Geaux

 

[Hoffstra]

Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly an hour.

-Geaux

in a low stress environment, yes...one can unload and reload a new magazine very quickly.

in the heat of mass-murder, with blood everywhere, screaming, shouting, cops on the way, the possibility of suicide very close, thinking about one's family, it might take a little more time to change magazines.

yes, limiting magazine size is not a perfect solution.

but its a solution.

i think a good compromise would be to limit magazine size for the general public to 10 rounds.

and allow folks to get a permit with a more extensive background check to allow them to own high-capacity magazines.

 

[Geaux4it]

Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly an hour.

-Geaux

in a low stress environment, yes...one can unload and reload a new magazine very quickly.

in the heat of mass-murder, with blood everywhere, screaming, shouting, cops on the way, the possibility of suicide very close, thinking about one's family, it might take a little more time to change magazines.

yes, limiting magazine size is not a perfect solution.

but its a solution.

i think a good compromise would be to limit magazine size for the general public to 10 rounds.

and allow folks to get a permit with a more extensive background check to allow them to own high-capacity magazines.

I disagree. It's is not a solution at all. Arming the teachers is a better one IMO. They will carry concealed thus limiting access to students.

Impacting law abiding citizens for the act of a very small minority, is illogical

-Geaux

 

[Hoffstra]

I disagree. It's is not a solution at all. Arming the teachers is a better one IMO. They will carry concealed thus limiting access to students.

Impacting law abiding citizens for the act of a very small minority, is illogical

-Geaux

i support having armed trained personnel in schools.

but not teachers.

their job is to teach, not to make sure some bad kids aren't eyeing their piece.

 

[Geaux4it]

I disagree. It's is not a solution at all. Arming the teachers is a better one IMO. They will carry concealed thus limiting access to students.

Impacting law abiding citizens for the act of a very small minority, is illogical

-Geaux

i support having armed trained personnel in schools.

but not teachers.

their job is to teach, not to make sure some bad kids aren't eyeing their piece.

OK- fair enough. However, teachers should be allowed to make that choice themselves if they want to be armed. Right now, they can only be a potential victim

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly an hour.

-Geaux

in a low stress environment, yes...one can unload and reload a new magazine very quickly.

in the heat of mass-murder, with blood everywhere, screaming, shouting, cops on the way, the possibility of suicide very close, thinking about one's family, it might take a little more time to change magazines.

yes, limiting magazine size is not a perfect solution.

but its a solution.

i think a good compromise would be to limit magazine size for the general public to 10 rounds.

and allow folks to get a permit with a more extensive background check to allow them to own high-capacity magazines.

It definitely is a solution. As I posted with the Tucson shooting, the shooter was stopped by unarmed citizens when he tried to reload. The more times he has to reload the more opportunities there are.

 

[Brain357]

I disagree. It's is not a solution at all. Arming the teachers is a better one IMO. They will carry concealed thus limiting access to students.

Impacting law abiding citizens for the act of a very small minority, is illogical

-Geaux

i support having armed trained personnel in schools.

but not teachers.

their job is to teach, not to make sure some bad kids aren't eyeing their piece.

OK- fair enough. However, teachers should be allowed to make that choice themselves if they want to be armed. Right now, they can only be a potential victim

-Geaux

Though I think it's sad, I don't disagree that somebody in the school should be capable of stopping a shooter. An actual police officer would be optimal.

 

[Brain357]

They have already been banned once

That bad law once was on the books is not an argument to repeat the mistake and reinstate (or expand) bad law.

and there is a long list of arms that are banned.

"IS" or "WAS"?
"ARE" or "WERE"?

I'm pretty sure a modern hi cap semi-auto is just as dangerous as a 30's automatic.

And your personal feelings on the "dangerousness" of the various types of "modern hi cap semi-auto" firearms is of zero consequence in the determination of the constitutionality of federal or state laws restricting their possession and use.

The determination of whether a type of arm is "dangerous" is a product of the application of the protection criteria that has been established by SCOTUS. Government does not get to begin the process of restricting possession and use of a type of arm by declaring it to be "dangerous". That descriptor can only be examined after all the protection criteria has been applied (and failed).

It made sense in the 30's to limit who could have automatics, it makes sense now to limit hi cap semi-autos.

Such rational basis criteria has no place in determining the constitutionality of gun laws.

It's not 1994 anymore. The legal standards are much different today and to dismiss that fact is only evidence of agenda driven ignorance of the law.

If you really want to know what the current situation is, then I would simply say that of all the weapons that can be said to be 'protected by the 2nd Amendment', semi-auto, detachable magazine, military look-alike rifles in .223/5.56 or .308/7.62 calibers, (so called 'assault weapons") enjoy the highest degree of protection for civilian possession and use . . .

Why is it you think those arms are so protected, yet others are illegal? Can you buy a brand new automatic rifle? Nope. So I see no reason why you can buy a hi cap semi-auto. Both can kill lots of people really fast.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then exactly, what does it accomplish?

-Geaux

it reduces the number of rounds that can be shot almost instantly.

it forces criminals and mass-shooters to lug around more magazines.

it possibly gives folks time to rush the shooter and take him down.

that's the whole objective.




also, I am a shooter. I know a thing or two about guns.

I know that the more rounds you shoot, the hotter the barrel gets, and the less accurate the shots become. A good shooter will shoot a few rounds....then wait a few minutes to let the barrel cool down.

shooting 50 rounds at a time is not for folks who care about accuracy, hunting, or marksmanship, its for folks who just want to waste money and waste rounds.

All true and correct.

But to prohibit or restrict a class of weapons based on their magazine functionality, configuration, or capacity there must be evidence in support.

The objective for limiting the capacity of magazines is understood, but where are the data in support?

 

[Brain357]

Then exactly, what does it accomplish?

-Geaux

it reduces the number of rounds that can be shot almost instantly.

it forces criminals and mass-shooters to lug around more magazines.

it possibly gives folks time to rush the shooter and take him down.

that's the whole objective.




also, I am a shooter. I know a thing or two about guns.

I know that the more rounds you shoot, the hotter the barrel gets, and the less accurate the shots become. A good shooter will shoot a few rounds....then wait a few minutes to let the barrel cool down.

shooting 50 rounds at a time is not for folks who care about accuracy, hunting, or marksmanship, its for folks who just want to waste money and waste rounds.

All true and correct.

But to prohibit or restrict a class of weapons based on their magazine functionality, configuration, or capacity there must be evidence in support.

The objective for limiting the capacity of magazines is understood, but where are the data in support?

I think the body counts in all the mass shootings using hi cap magazines should be more than enough evidence.

 

[Brain357]

Here is how the Thurston High school shooting ended:
"When Kinkel's rifle ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker tackled him, assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel."

Again he was stopped when he was reloading.

 

[Geaux4it]

it reduces the number of rounds that can be shot almost instantly.

it forces criminals and mass-shooters to lug around more magazines.

it possibly gives folks time to rush the shooter and take him down.

that's the whole objective.




also, I am a shooter. I know a thing or two about guns.

I know that the more rounds you shoot, the hotter the barrel gets, and the less accurate the shots become. A good shooter will shoot a few rounds....then wait a few minutes to let the barrel cool down.

shooting 50 rounds at a time is not for folks who care about accuracy, hunting, or marksmanship, its for folks who just want to waste money and waste rounds.

All true and correct.

But to prohibit or restrict a class of weapons based on their magazine functionality, configuration, or capacity there must be evidence in support.

The objective for limiting the capacity of magazines is understood, but where are the data in support?

I think the body counts in all the mass shootings using hi cap magazines should be more than enough evidence.

Should be, but unfortunately, it's not

-Geaux

 

[Jarlaxle]

Even easier again meaning that you still couldn't do it I suppose? You've lost your credibility on something being easy.

I could...but have no reason to, since (yet again) I do not own any firearm that uses a detachable magazine! God and goddess, THINK!!

Ok so you don't have a firearm that uses magazines. So you've never grafted two magazines together? Then how can you say it is easier? You should try to only comment on things you know about.

Because I have seen it done. It requires tools you can get at Harbor Freight and is not all that unusual for competitive shooters.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The most prolific spree shooter in America, Cho at Virginia Tech, killed 32 and injured 17 with a .22 pistol (10 round magazine) and a 9mm pistol (15 round magazine).

He fired 174 rounds of ammunition.

That's, AT A MINIMUM, 15 reloads.

Mr. Brain, I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but this idea just isn't going to work.

It's just like anything else...there's always a workaround.

Cho found it.

With two guns, one is always loaded.

There is no reloading window.

So, you just wasted a shitload of money (had your proposal been implemented) for zero return.

Cho reloaded 15 times.

The only way anyone was going to stop him, or slow him down was with another firearm.

Those are the facts.

That is certainly a terrible story. But a hi cap magazine was used. If anything it supports a limit lower than 10 rounds.

Now lets look at the Tucson shooting. The shooter was stopped while he tried to reload:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/u...on-shooting-case-gabrielle-giffords.html?_r=0

If his first magazine had been smaller lives would have been saved.

I don't think so, the guy reloaded 15 times at a minimum.

The size of the magazine is inconsequential.

Loughner was stopped, but almost every spree shooting ends in the shooter committing suicide.

If one event makes an argument, Vice Principal Joel Myrick ended the spree of the Pearl High School shooter with a Colt .45, never firing a shot.

How an Assistant Principal With a Gun Stopped a School Shooter | FrontPage Magazine

Loughner was stopped when his weapon JAMMED! He did NOT run out...as often happens with large mags, it tied up!

 

[Jarlaxle]

i see nothing wrong with a 10-roung magazine limit
though....it will only slow down a mass-shooter, not stop him

and should the lives of tens of millions of legal and law-abiding gun owners be affected by 5 mass shooters a year?

Nope- And it didn't slow down the loons at Columbine either.

Arming our teachers will stop this chit after a few of these loons get taken our in the hallway

-Geaux

you're assuming that irrational and suicidal people will think logically and rationally.

You are assuming criminals will follow the law!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then exactly, what does it accomplish?

-Geaux

it reduces the number of rounds that can be shot almost instantly.

it forces criminals and mass-shooters to lug around more magazines.

it possibly gives folks time to rush the shooter and take him down.

that's the whole objective.


also, I am a shooter. I know a thing or two about guns.

I know that the more rounds you shoot, the hotter the barrel gets, and the less accurate the shots become. A good shooter will shoot a few rounds....then wait a few minutes to let the barrel cool down.

shooting 50 rounds at a time is not for folks who care about accuracy, hunting, or marksmanship, its for folks who just want to waste money and waste rounds.

Depends what you're shooting. You can shoot a .22 rifle as fast as you can load it all day and all night without a problem. I have put eight mags through an M1911 one after the other and it didn't hurt accuracy. (Of course...is IS a 1911.) Gone through a 100-round box in my Model 29 in an hour without a problem. (Of course...it IS a Smith & Wesson.)