• 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!

Absurdity Of Magazine Bans

uptower said:
Gun sellers? Oh wait did I forget to tack 'semi-' onto that?

See i don't get excited over terminology, especially when looking at the bigger picture.

A trained shooter with a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round magazine is more dangerous than spray-and pray on full auto anyway. One with a 20 or a 10 round magazine, isn't that much less harmful. Maybe at five rounds the reload times start to dent the ability to wreak havoc, but personally I've never tried quick reloads with small capacity magazines.
Click to expand...

The Orlando nightclub shooting last for nearly 3 hours. Reload time was irrelevant.

At the Annapolis newspaper shooting, the shooter used a pump shotgun with a 3-5 round capacity, that had to be reloaded one round at a time. Reload time didn't make any difference.

In Ukraine, the shooter used a pump shotgun, capacity unknown (I would guess no more than 8 rds), killing 20 and wounding 70. Reload time didn't make a difference.

Magazine capacities making a difference is just another lie from the anti-gunners.
 
apdst said:
The Orlando nightclub shooting last for nearly 3 hours. Reload time was irrelevant.

At the Annapolis newspaper shooting, the shooter used a pump shotgun with a 3-5 round capacity, that had to be reloaded one round at a time. Reload time didn't make any difference.

In Ukraine, the shooter used a pump shotgun, capacity unknown (I would guess no more than 8 rds), killing 20 and wounding 70. Reload time didn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

So the Orlando guy loaded his gun once and kept shooting for three hours, and supposedly everyone who might have escaped in those 3 hours, during potential reloads, never had the chance?

At Annapolis he shot up the whole staff and got everyone who might have escaped and none escaped?

Or in Ukraine the shooter killed twenty people with only 3-5 shots?

Look It's fair to say many of those who escaped had a few seconds' help when the shooter was reloading isn't it. Or are mass shooters [and their guns] just so damn awesome that they get everyone they aimed for?

There has to be a point where they can do less damage with fewer rounds in the clip, law of averages. Here's a list of times when malfunctions and reloads gave people a chance to escape or stop the shooter:

Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range
Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens - Field of View
Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount Of Ammunition – ThinkProgress


It is no stretch to say that if any of us were in a mass shooting tomorrow, we'd have a better chance to get out of it the more often the shooter was forced to reload.
 
uptower said:
So the Orlando guy loaded his gun once and kept shooting for three hours, and supposedly everyone who might have escaped in those 3 hours, during potential reloads, never had the chance?

At Annapolis he shot up the whole staff and got everyone who might have escaped and none escaped?

Or in Ukraine the shooter killed twenty people with only 3-5 shots?

Look It's fair to say many of those who escaped had a few seconds' help when the shooter was reloading isn't it. Or are mass shooters [and their guns] just so damn awesome that they get everyone they aimed for?

There has to be a point where they can do less damage with fewer rounds in the clip, law of averages. Here's a list of times when malfunctions and reloads gave people a chance to escape or stop the shooter:

Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range
Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens - Field of View
Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount Of Ammunition – ThinkProgress


It is no stretch to say that if any of us were in a mass shooting tomorrow, we'd have a better chance to get out of it the more often the shooter was forced to reload.
Click to expand...

Then given no restrictions on a government to limit capacity, the safest limit is one. Fortunately, government has no Constitutional authority to limit said capacity. There's also no science to back up a limit of ten., nor would ten be acceptable if someone shot up a school or business with ten round magazines. Oregon has already proposed a five round limit.

And given the hundreds of millions of mangazines already in existence, there's no real expectation that a ban would collect enough of them to prevent then from being used in a future mass shooting.

Then there's 3D printing...
 
uptower said:
So the Orlando guy loaded his gun once and kept shooting for three hours, and supposedly everyone who might have escaped in those 3 hours, during potential reloads, never had the chance?

At Annapolis he shot up the whole staff and got everyone who might have escaped and none escaped?

Or in Ukraine the shooter killed twenty people with only 3-5 shots?

Look It's fair to say many of those who escaped had a few seconds' help when the shooter was reloading isn't it. Or are mass shooters [and their guns] just so damn awesome that they get everyone they aimed for?

There has to be a point where they can do less damage with fewer rounds in the clip, law of averages. Here's a list of times when malfunctions and reloads gave people a chance to escape or stop the shooter:

Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range
Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens - Field of View
Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount Of Ammunition – ThinkProgress


It is no stretch to say that if any of us were in a mass shooting tomorrow, we'd have a better chance to get out of it the more often the shooter was forced to reload.
Click to expand...

If you insist that luck be a strategy, then you don't want to outlaw 30 rd magazines, nor semi-automatics. Those are more likely to malfunction than a manually operation firearm.

Me? Luck isn't a strategy.
 
Rucker61 said:
Then given no restrictions on a government to limit capacity, the safest limit is one. Fortunately, government has no Constitutional authority to limit said capacity. There's also no science to back up a limit of ten., nor would ten be acceptable if someone shot up a school or business with ten round magazines. Oregon has already proposed a five round limit.

And given the hundreds of millions of mangazines already in existence, there's no real expectation that a ban would collect enough of them to prevent then from being used in a future mass shooting.
Click to expand...

Nor am I supporting mag bans - It's a band aid, nothing more - but it is just pure physics that people have a better chance of escape during reloads and a reasonable assumption based on the data that if the shooter spends less time reloading he has more opportunities to kill. So I can see the reasoning behind it.
 
apdst said:
If you insist that luck be a strategy, then you don't want to outlaw 30 rd magazines, nor semi-automatics. Those are more likely to malfunction than a manually operation firearm.

Me? Luck isn't a strategy.
Click to expand...

I don't insist on anything and I have already said twice in this thread I do not advocate magazine limits. However pure practicality dictates that people have a better chance of escape while the shooter is reloading. Doesn't matter whether we call it strategy or luck.
 
uptower said:
I prefer to call them 'clips'...
Click to expand...

Or as one knowledgeable California legislator stated. 30 caliber clip magazines. They go in ghost guns that fire 6000 rounds a second.
 
In actuality, what they're saying is this..."we don't REALLY want to do what is needed to get to the root of the issue, we just want to be able to say that we did something....in order to appease stupid people." The holy grail for leftie socialists is getting rid or the 2nd amendment.
 
ryzorsden said:
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
Click to expand...

i remember reading years ago that when the soldiers wanted more firepower in the detachable magazine AR's, they simply taped two back to back. A simple flip reversed the expended magazine with virtually no time expended.
 
itsforthekids said:
In actuality, what they're saying is this..."we don't REALLY want to do what is needed to get to the root of the issue, we just want to be able to say that we did something....in order to appease stupid people." The holy grail for leftie socialists is getting rid or the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

So true. Among the safer gun proposals: Thumb hole stocks. Pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash surpressors (sometimes called silencers). barrel shrouds folding stocks. But only if two or more are present. Apparently a pistol grip is safe, unless it includes a thumb hole. Bayonet mounts kill people. Bayonets don't.
 
jimbo said:
Or as one knowledgeable California legislator stated. 30 caliber clip magazines. They go in ghost guns that fire 6000 rounds a second.
Click to expand...

Like a Hollywood gun: load 'em on Sunday and they fore all week...
 
apdst said:
You don't need one to bump-fire a semi-automatic rifle.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly was the banners don't get. Hell I can bump fire from the shoulder(can't hit close to sh*t). The whack job in Vegas only had to be kinda in the ballpark.
 
=uptower;1069735518]So the Orlando guy loaded his gun once and kept shooting for three hours, and supposedly everyone who might have escaped in those 3 hours, during potential reloads, never had the chance?
Click to expand...
WTF? You didn't see the "Reload time was irrelevant".
At Annapolis he shot up the whole staff and got everyone who might have escaped and none escaped?
Click to expand...
As I understand it 5 were killed 2 wounded escaped.
Or in Ukraine the shooter killed twenty people with only 3-5 shots?
Click to expand...
You don't get the reload concept do you? Also if the capacity is unknown that means it is not definitively 3-5. Even were that the case with a shotgun you keep it topped of 1-2 seconds.
Look It's fair to say many of those who escaped had a few seconds' help when the shooter was reloading isn't it.
Click to expand...
It's more fair to say when the shooters weapon jams. Chances are they have multiple magazines and can change them quickly.
Or are mass shooters [and their guns] just so damn awesome that they get everyone they aimed for?
Click to expand...
No I doubt they get everyone they aim at. Point is they have multiple magazines be they 10-15-17 it makes no difference. V-TECH 10 Parkland 10 and it goes on.
There has to be a point where they can do less damage with fewer rounds in the clip, law of averages. Here's a list of times when malfunctions and reloads gave people a chance to escape or stop the shooter:
Click to expand...
You hear 10 rounds all the time like it's some kind of magic number. Will any magazine holding over 10 (though OR. dreamed up 5) automatically not be used in a shooting since it would be illegal to own? OH wait I guess there would already be a number of laws being broken.
Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range
Another shooter stopped by unarmed citizens - Field of View
Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount Of Ammunition – ThinkProgress


It is no stretch to say that if any of us were in a mass shooting tomorrow, we'd have a better chance to get out of it the more often the shooter was forced to reload.
Click to expand...
Well while he's reloading you go ahead and throw your fingernail clippers at him. Personally I won't wait for him to reload, if I got a clear shot it ends.
 
uptower said:
I don't insist on anything and I have already said twice in this thread I do not advocate magazine limits. However pure practicality dictates that people have a better chance of escape while the shooter is reloading. Doesn't matter whether we call it strategy or luck.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you know when a person is out? Especially some anti gun school kid(a lot of adults for that matter)terrified. By the time it might even register the shooter has reloaded.
 
zsu2357 said:
How exactly do you know when a person is out? Especially some anti gun school kid(a lot of adults for that matter)terrified. By the time it might even register the shooter has reloaded.
Click to expand...

magazine limits are the ultimate proof of the incrementalist scheme to ban guns.
 
zsu2357 said:
How exactly do you know when a person is out? Especially some anti gun school kid(a lot of adults for that matter)terrified. By the time it might even register the shooter has reloaded.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing about whether it is possible for things that have already happened to happen.

Those who know a little about guns may have noticed the sounds or the actions of a reload; most people probably just took a lull in the shooting and made a run for it and were lucky that's when the reload was taking place. A lot were probably already running when he ran dry. The scenarios are endless as to whether or how they 'knew' the shooter was reloading, but regardless, the fact is that's when they had their chance of escape and did so, probably without much thinking about anything getting other than the hell out.
 
uptower said:
However pure practicality dictates that people have a better chance of escape while the shooter is reloading.
Click to expand...
Pure practicality dictates that the shooter has a better chance of escape while the people are reloading.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Pure practicality dictates that the shooter has a better chance of escape while the people are reloading.
Click to expand...

what magazine limit advocates will never answer is this

who is more likely to obey a magazine ban

someone willing to commit armed robbery or murder

or the law abiding citizens such a criminal attacks?
 
TurtleDude said:
what magazine limit advocates will never answer is this

who is more likely to obey a magazine ban

someone willing to commit armed robbery or murder

or the law-abiding citizen's such criminal attacks?
Click to expand...
It's like limiting fuel tank size in an effort to curb DUI.
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's like limiting fuel tank size in an effort to curb DUI.
Click to expand...

it's worse than that. It is clearly designed to give criminals an edge over honest folks
 
TurtleDude said:
what magazine limit advocates will never answer is this

who is more likely to obey a magazine ban

someone willing to commit armed robbery or murder

or the law abiding citizens such a criminal attacks?
Click to expand...

Criminals such as gangsters and, I dunno bank robbers, are a separate problem. Mass shooters often seem to have acquired their firearms legally. The average snotty incel in a trenchcoat with a chip on his shoulder and a COD addiction doesn't have access to an underground network; a self-entitled fat-ass airso...sorry, 'militiaman' in a red hat and a pickup is proud to buy his guns legally as is his right. Another poster on here even argued that some people managed to pull off mass shootings with pump shotguns.

The science of it remains the same: smaller clips - yeah I said it - means more reloads and a potentially lower body count.
 
uptower said:
Criminals such as gangsters and, I dunno bank robbers, are a separate problem. Mass shooters often seem to have acquired their firearms legally. The average snotty incel in a trenchcoat with a chip on his shoulder and a COD addiction doesn't have access to an underground network; a self-entitled fat-ass airso...sorry, 'militiaman' in a red hat and a pickup is proud to buy his guns legally as is his right. Another poster on here even argued that some people managed to pull off mass shootings with pump shotguns.

The science of it remains the same: smaller clips - yeah I said it - means more reloads and a potentially lower body count.
Click to expand...
The Columbine High school massacre was carried out using assault-weapon-ban compliant 10rnd mags, and they had full mags left over when they were don and killed themselves. Police engaged the shooters and at no point did reloading provide an advantage or lower the body count. Also, they did not get their guns or bombs legaly.

We tried capacity limits, they don't work, so we're not trying them again.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The Columbine High school massacre was carried out using assault-weapon-ban compliant 10rnd mags, and they had full mags left over when they were don and killed themselves. Police engaged the shooters and at no point did reloading provide an advantage or lower the body count. Also, they did not get their guns or bombs legaly.
Click to expand...

That's a difficult one to prove when many other shootings have demonstrated that reloads provide windows of escape, and that common sense backs up the basic idea that when the shooter is distracted, people have a chance to run away. It simply defies credulity that the shooters wouldn't have shot more people if they'd had more rounds in their weapons between reloads, that they got absolutely everyone they could have regardless of ammo count, or that some of those who got away didn't have their chance while the shooters were reloading.

I'm not advocating smaller magazines sizes because there's a lot more can be done to stop mass shootings and as you've pointed out, like in Columbine it doesn't stop people trying. But there should be no question that less damage can be done with less ammo at a time. It's a band-aid and won't solve the problem, but arguing against basic common sense that any real shooter can attest to (see the website I posted earlier) doesn't make a great case for so-called high-capacity magazines either.
 
uptower said:
That's a difficult one to prove when many other shootings have demonstrated that reloads provide windows of escape, and that common sense backs up the basic idea that when the shooter is distracted, people have a chance to run away. It simply defies credulity that the shooters wouldn't have shot more people if they'd had more rounds in their weapons between reloads, that they got absolutely everyone they could have regardless of ammo count, or that some of those who got away didn't have their chance while the shooters were reloading.
Click to expand...
In Columbine and Sandy Hook, the shooter got 100% of the people they went there to get. They weren't trying to just kill as many as possible, they had targets. The Columbine shooters let kids who weren't on their list live. The Sandy Hook shooter went to a specific class with a specific grievance and killed himself when he was don with that one class eventhough he had 30rnd magaziens and ammo left over. Capacity limits don't affect that. Common sense says this is a socio-economic and healthcare problem, not a gun problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom