--10 Round Clip Maximum For Modified Assault Rifles--

[video=youtube;lLk1v5bSFPw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw[/video]

Why is the capacity even an issue?

 

If you actually wanted to think about it you would realize that these criminals aren't gun owners. They do not practice fast reloads. They get mad and do these things on the fly. Colorado bought his weapon just before the act, probably at a gun show because they don't do background checks because of the right wing....Sandy stole his which proves testing won't matter. People who buy guns on the fly and people who steal them don't sit around for a lifetime practicing world record reloads and shooting like you posted. Maybe you should put some thought into what you post before posting it.

 

I doubt you know Peabody..

 

Maybe you should think about what you read/see. The point is with practice you can even take a 6 shot gun and push a round a second out of it. Loonies sitting around in their Mom's basement have all the time in the world to do that.

 

Now, now, children try to keep your postings adult.

 

woodystylez. ever unwilling to recognize inconvenient truths. the language has in fact changed over 225 years. don't believe me? 225 years before the constitutional convention, do you think we said thee, thou? duh. regulated militia meant trained/disciplined militia. and as much attention as you like to pay to that first part about the militia, you so aptly always forget the main part: "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." infringed, however, still has the same meaning.

and why 10? why is 10 okay, but 11 isn't?

 

Actually in the case of mass shooters the attacks are usually extensively planned often for months in advance. More than sufficient time to practice changing out a clip if he doesn't simplydecide to build his own high capacity clip from scratch. It isn't that difficult.

 

We read the opinions of extremists from both sides. We have the anti-gun nuts that propose gun laws based upon appearance but then, from the opposite camp, we have anti-tax nuts like members of the Tea Party that aren't willing to pay for the expendatures of our government. Just pick a topic and there are very vocal extremists related to it and their arguments make no sense.

Something that virtually everyone forgets is that with most mass killings (to my knowledge) the individual often commits suicide. If we looked world-wide most mass killings are probably done by suicide bombers and a bomb is far more effective at killing a lot of people all at once than a gun. If we eliminated all guns in America today (which is unconstituional) then we'd merely see more suicide bombings. Is that our goal? A bomb can be easily produced from common commodities (e.g. fertilizer and diesel fuel) and the Oklahoma City Bombing shows how devastating they can be. Gun control laws will not stop mass killings and won't even reduce the number of mass killings. There isn't a magic solution and never was.

 

Very true and, of course, the individual would still be able to purchase any weapons they want as well as high capacity magazines as those currently owned cannot be banned.

 

It was 10 minutes before law enforcement arrived on scene. That's 6 seconds between shots to fire 100 rounds. Think someone vaguely familiar with the way a firearm functions can swap 10 - 10 round magazines and cycle the trigger 100 times in the span of 600 seconds?

 

The point isn't obvious?

You asked a question that assumed limiting magazine capacity would limit lethality of a firearm. This is somewhat akin to assuming that reducing the size of NASCAR gas tanks decreases the speed of a NASCAR vehicle. Adding a few pit stops to a NASCAR race isn't going to lengthen a 1 hour race by more than a minute or two. NASCAR gas tanks can be filled very quickly in the same way detachable magazines can be replaced very quickly.

Who's rear end did you pull this statistic out of? No mass shooter whether using 10 round magazines, 30 round magazines, or even 100 round magazines maintains continuous fire for 10 minutes. Any shooter completely defeats your unloaded weapon downtime simply by carrying a second loaded weapon, or a knife, or a new trend: a gas canister.

Your entire premise is based on silly hypotheticals that do not address the actual lethality of the weapon. It only takes 1 bullet to kill a victim, not 30. Beyond that, the attackers tend to pick victims that are helpless. 5 year old kids are not Dwight Shrute. 3 seconds of reload time does not give them a chance to overpower their attacker.

 

Ahh, it's the old I didn't say what you said I didn't say you said I said line of defense. Good luck with that.

How quickly we abandon the I didn't say what you said I didn't say you said I said line of defense. It only took the span of time of a return keystroke. I don't think anyone could reload a 10 round magazine in that timeframe, I'll give you that.

I'm telling you it's like arguing for shorter shoelaces to slow down footraces in the olympics. If you want to reduce someone's capacity to commit murder, limiting the size of mass produced magazines for the masses is a stupid idea that will not accomplish that goal. It's a feel good idea that allows people to feel like they accomplished something, when in reality the change makes little to no difference.

You asked what statistic I was talking about before. This "seconds matter" argument is what I'm talking about. Did seconds matter to the people who were trapped in the movie theater by the gas wielding nutcase who's 100 round drum jammed so he switched to smaller arms? Exactly how many lives were saved by that jam? Is that an argument for the production of low quality Chinese drum magazines to slow attackers down? To strain the NASCAR analogy further you're proposing that everyone is restricted by this magazine limitation. If that's the case everyone in the race should have the same reduced range. Reducing the size of the gas tank, thus makes NO difference to make the car safer, to make the race last longer, or to make the race more entertaining.

The one that doesn't crash on lap 10.

 

Trouble is, I didn't make up your premise. You did that. And you confirmed my statement by completely abandoning your claim that I made it up right in the very next sentence. I mean seriously. If you going to claim I made things up don't be like, "that being said, you're totally right."

Great. So does the logic behind limiting magazine capacity to reduce the murder capacity of someone in the possession of a trigger finger, an opposable thumb, and an IQ above molding cheese.

Because stupid laws have consequences. They tie up law enforcement in stupid activities, they waste resources, and they cause undue hardship to otherwise safe and responsible people.

What your asking is one of those stupid hypothetical situations I was talking about. There is no answer to your question just as there is no answer to the question I asked you. The reality is, the 100 round jam made little difference. He simply switched arms. The lack of a 100 round drum jam would have made exactly the same hypothetical lack of a difference. He was on the loose for 7 minutes, and the only thing that limited his ability to kill during that time was the fact that he had thrown a gas canister and he couldn't see. But that also meant that people couldn't see him.

So exactly how many angels can you fit on the head of a .223?

Yeah, let's not get hung up with reality. Let's just do what feels good.

 

Quick, TACKLE THIS GUY! He's reloading!

[video=youtube;lii1mrsT6D4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lii1mrsT6D4[/video]

oops. Too late.

 

Yes, we need to have an argument about the argument. This is productive.

Exactly what is the premise of this question:

Are you trying to claim that this question is not based on the premise that "limiting magazine capacity would limit lethality of a firearm?" Because that's the part you claim I made up, right? Is that what you're trying to claim here with your argument about the argument? Really?