• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Magazine limits

Do magazine limits reduce gun violence?

  • Yes to mass shootings, no to general gun crime

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No to mass shootings, yes to general gun crime

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes to both

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    34

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,157
Reaction score
50,756
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?
 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?

And to think, some people actually believe there's no such thing as a stupid question.
 
And to think, some people actually believe there's no such thing as a stupid question.

Well isn't this thread off to a great start.
 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?

I honestly don't see how it could, at least, I haven't seen any evidence that it could. Which is why I don't see reducing magazine cartridges as one of the answers to prevent mass shootings from occuring in the future.
 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?

80% or more of murders with firearms are perpetrated by people who cannot lawfully own a firearm. Now if someone is going to ignore that law, why would they obey a magazine limit? if someone is willing to commit multiple counts of capital murder why would they worry about the penalty for owning a banned magazine? the only thing magazine limits do is harass honest gun owners and guarantee those who follow the law will be handicapped when they are confronted by violent criminals
 
80% or more of murders with firearms are perpetrated by people who cannot lawfully own a firearm. Now if someone is going to ignore that law, why would they obey a magazine limit? if someone is willing to commit multiple counts of capital murder why would they worry about the penalty for owning a banned magazine? the only thing magazine limits do is harass honest gun owners and guarantee those who follow the law will be handicapped when they are confronted by violent criminals

So your point is that even if the limits themselves did work for those who followed it, that is a small set of people who are far less likely to murder anyway, rendering any claimed benefit from a magazine limit moot?
 
How many bullets does it take to kill a person?

1.......

while realistically, why do we need a magazine, in excess of 10+ rounds in a normal everyday situations.

Sure Ill take 10 magazines with 9 rounds in them...

this is a revolver,

REVOLVER SPEED RELOAD! 16 rounds in 4 seconds on slow mo! S&W 929 Jerry Miculek - YouTube

Imagine, what proper training does with a magazine type weapon,


So limiting how many you fit in a magazine does not really matter, 30 or 1, the fact that the person using 1 bullet or 30 bullets for the wrong reason at one time should be examined, rather than how many are in the magazine.....
 
So your point is that even if the limits themselves did work for those who followed it, that is a small set of people who are far less likely to murder anyway, rendering any claimed benefit from a magazine limit moot?

1) a magazine ban is far more likely to limit the rounds a good person has to defend himself with than limiting someone who already is violating laws by using a gun

2) criminals usually decide the time and place to attack honest people, honest people are thus forced to REACT to an attack. limiting honest people in the face of a premeditated attack is idiotic

3) at what point does the second amendment cease to prevent government actions at a certain number of rounds?
 
So your point is that even if the limits themselves did work for those who followed it, that is a small set of people who are far less likely to murder anyway, rendering any claimed benefit from a magazine limit moot?

Think of it this way, do speed limits stop people intent on running from the cops? Do prescription limits stop people intent on overdosing from doing so?

The people we are worried about with guns are criminals, not "normal" people. Criminals, spree killers in particular, don't care about limits and laws. They just want to inflict as much damage as they can and then get offed by the cops or off themselves. A limit on the number of rounds a magazine can hold won't stop them.

My regular carry pistol has a magazine that holds 8 rounds. I can fire all 9 shots and reload with 8 more before you can get your phone out of your pocket. I can fire those 8 and load another magazine before you can dial 911. I can easily carry a dozen magazines without my pants falling down. Basically, the time it takes to reload hardly slows a shooter down at all so magazine capacity doesn't really make much difference.
 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

The AWB did no such thing. The law didn't consider the capacity of any magazine that could be used by a particular firearm on the banned list. All previously owned firearms on the list were still legal to own, and new firearms that were capable of using 30 round magazines were still legal to buy, sell and own.
 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?

You can change out a magazine very quickly so I don't know that limits would reduce the number of mass shootings. The only way you could do that is somehow get all pistols and semi automatic rifles off the market and out of private ownership leaving on revolvers, bolt action, lever action, pump, and so on.

Then again, I don't even think that would make much of a difference even if it were somehow possible, much less constitutional.

I mean hell look at what Chuck Connors could do with an old Winchester 1892 ;)

 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?
So... The bad guy is about to open the door, enter the room and start murdering people. But he stops in his tracks and says "rats, these 30 round magazines are illegal". I don't think so.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?

See the 2010 DOJ report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies" for the answer to your first question. For an answer to your second, review the data collected and aggregated by Mother Jones for mass shootings:

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2017: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones

Looking at that list, let's look at the last 25 years of data. We see that in all of the shootings in the US over that time that there were just 9 with more than 10 dead. In only three of those shootings (Pulse, Fort Hood, Sandy Hook), was a single weapon with a magazine greater than 10 rounds used. In all of the rest, multiple firearms, using large or reduced capacity magazines, were used to kill more than 10 people. At Columbine, more victims were killed using shotguns than with the two semi-automatic weapons used by the killers, and that's after one of them reloaded his ten rounds magazines at least 9 times during the shooting.

If you look at shootings where "assault weapons" were used, the average number of murdered victims is 12. If we remove Pulse from the listing as an outlier, the average number of dead victims in a mass shooting where at least one "assault weapon" was used is just over eight, and those types of shootings happened, on average, just once per year since the end of the 1994-2004 AWB.
 
You can change out a magazine very quickly so I don't know that limits would reduce the number of mass shootings. The only way you could do that is somehow get all pistols and semi automatic rifles off the market and out of private ownership leaving on revolvers, bolt action, lever action, pump, and so on.

Then again, I don't even think that would make much of a difference even if it were somehow possible, much less constitutional.

I mean hell look at what Chuck Connors could do with an old Winchester 1892 ;)



And bullets, too. I'm sure you've heard Chris Rock's bit on "bullet control"!

There is this idea that has pervaded our society that there exists a sort of arm race between the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens." Due to the availability of illegally-acquired guns, the gun lobby can successfully convince people with a clean criminal record that in order to level the playing field, they need the right to possess the same type of weapons.

Look at it this way: Guns don't grow on trees. They have to be manufactured, distributed, sold, and in some cases exchanged. The fact that we don't see that many fully automatics, rocket launchers, or grenades out on the street does suggest that if you don't let them get out there in the first place, they won't be widely distributed.
 
And bullets, too. I'm sure you've heard Chris Rock's bit on "bullet control"!

There is this idea that has pervaded our society that there exists a sort of arm race between the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens." Due to the availability of illegally-acquired guns, the gun lobby can successfully convince people with a clean criminal record that in order to level the playing field, they need the right to possess the same type of weapons.

Look at it this way: Guns don't grow on trees. They have to be manufactured, distributed, sold, and in some cases exchanged. The fact that we don't see that many fully automatics, rocket launchers, or grenades out on the street does suggest that if you don't let them get out there in the first place, they won't be widely distributed.


so what you are really insinuating is we ought to ban or severely restrict honest people from having guns and hope it will keep criminals from having them? its a constant theme of those who either pretend there is no value to honest people owning guns or worse yet, those whose real goal is to punish the NRA and pro gun voters for opposing the leftwing candidates that are invariably supported by gun banning activists
 
Look at it this way: Guns don't grow on trees. They have to be manufactured, distributed, sold, and in some cases exchanged. The fact that we don't see that many fully automatics, rocket launchers, or grenades out on the street does suggest that if you don't let them get out there in the first place, they won't be widely distributed.

I guess that's why we can't find meth or heroin anywhere in the US.
 
You can change out a magazine very quickly so I don't know that limits would reduce the number of mass shootings. The only way you could do that is somehow get all pistols and semi automatic rifles off the market and out of private ownership leaving on revolvers, bolt action, lever action, pump, and so on.

Then again, I don't even think that would make much of a difference even if it were somehow possible, much less constitutional.

I mean hell look at what Chuck Connors could do with an old Winchester 1892 ;)



Here's a guy shooting 25 shots in 16 seconds, using 19th century techonology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw
 
Prohibition doesn't work, leave us the **** alone.

Yes and no-if your goal is to prevent crime, its a failure. If your goal is to limit legal gun ownership it does.
 
And bullets, too. I'm sure you've heard Chris Rock's bit on "bullet control"!

There is this idea that has pervaded our society that there exists a sort of arm race between the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens." Due to the availability of illegally-acquired guns, the gun lobby can successfully convince people with a clean criminal record that in order to level the playing field, they need the right to possess the same type of weapons.

Look at it this way: Guns don't grow on trees. They have to be manufactured, distributed, sold, and in some cases exchanged. The fact that we don't see that many fully automatics, rocket launchers, or grenades out on the street does suggest that if you don't let them get out there in the first place, they won't be widely distributed.

You realize that people can make their own magazines, right?
 
so what you are really insinuating is we ought to ban or severely restrict honest people from having guns and hope it will keep criminals from having them? its a constant theme of those who either pretend there is no value to honest people owning guns or worse yet, those whose real goal is to punish the NRA and pro gun voters for opposing the leftwing candidates that are invariably supported by gun banning activists

You're making the same mistake that I see most anti-gun-controllers make, and that is to assume that I am considering gun control at the point of purchase.

You can't purchase what's not available for sale legally or illegally.
 
I guess that's why we can't find meth or heroin anywhere in the US.

True, but it is my understanding that meth can be made in the confines of a house or apartment. Almost all guns are manufactured elsewhere.
 
You're making the same mistake that I see most anti-gun-controllers make, and that is to assume that I am considering gun control at the point of purchase.

You can't purchase what's not available for sale legally or illegally.

there are millions upon millions of magazines in the USA. soldiers and cops will always have easy access to them. Soldiers "lose" thousands of them a year. tell me how you are going to stop the illegal supply of items that have no serial numbers and are easily smuggled.

what exactly are you considering? did you even vote in your poll?
 
You realize that people can make their own magazines, right?

Again, that seems to be the "arms race" argument in favor of mag limits. Hell, one could just duct tape two mags together.
 
Back
Top Bottom