NRA

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

You mean like the boob who asked the DC police if it was alright to use a hi cap magazine on his show and was denied since they are against the law and did it anyway. BTW notice Lapierre's response at the end, spot on since they are banned in DC and the asshat had one.

Police probe gun magazine incident on TV show - Arts & Entertainment - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -



TELL ME HOW THOSE GUN LAWS ARE WORKING SPENCE?

Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:

"Here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these, if we replaced them and said, 'Well, you can only have a magazine that carries five bullets or ten bullets,' isn't it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?'"

Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:


Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"

Now we would be logical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:


Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"

Johnny D, why is it unreasonable to assume that if you eliminate high capacity magazines, you can lower the body count?

Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.

To me, the flaw in the argument for banning those magazines is, you can't confiscate the ones that are out there. So maybe it's 15 years from now before that has any effect, because a then-18 year-old can't get a high-capacity magazine.

I lso feel that any discussion around gun control is, at best, going to lower the body count after these attacks happen. Better to discuss what causes them in the first place, but liberals won't want to talk about looking at movie violence, video game violence, committing folks who appear to be insane, and family values.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.

I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.

You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.

You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.

I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines.

So what is the acceptable number of people that are allowed to be killed before it is necessary to "control" guns? Is it ten? If one ten round clip should be the max as many state, and assuming that every shot is a kill, would ten be the acceptable number? That might even be reduced to nine since the killer would likely save the last bullet for himself, and his death would not matter. I just find it peculiar to envision a round table of policy makers discussing the right number. Sort of like a ghoulish "kill control," or "number control," then passing the right "gun control" which would limit capacity to the decided number, and the citizens then being pleased that they finally "did something about it."

Traditionally, "gun control" has not been about such numbers. The VAST MAJORITY of death by gun crime in our country has been done by other than "assault type" guns. That larger number, mostly by handguns, has been the constant impetus to "control" guns. The occasional mass murders have just become the "crises" that must not be allowed to go to waste in order to push the issue. Way back in 1994 when "certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons" were banned, a Washington Post editorial said this:

"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. the provision is MAINLY SYMBOLIC; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, AS HOPED, A STEPPING STONE to broader gun control."

The ultimate goal has always been very broad "gun control," not just so-called assault or semi-automatic, or large clip weapons.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

I agree about larger issues and deeper reasons, but when we go about "controlling" all those issues there is really no end to what will be "controlled."

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.

The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.

The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

If the Constitution is silent on something that does not fall under the purview of the Federal Government's enumerated powers, it means that the Federal Government has no power to regulate or legislate re that thing.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

I don't think that anyone denies that "assault-type" or automatic weapons allow you to kill mass numbers more quickly than non-automatic hand guns. If we can get the conversation beyond that point it might be meaningful. If that IS the point the discussion is not only creepy, but rather indeterminate.

[JohnnyD]

I apologize for not being able to really commit to discussion and hate having to do these drive-by posts...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

It's easy to support your argument with "Ifs", but the fact of the matter is that your scenario just isn't accurate. The shooter had multiple weapons on him (has there been clarity yet on exactly which?). Let's go with the last report I remember and say he had a rifle and two pistols on him. Pistols provide a level of protection for exactly the situation you bring up. When the piece of trash had to stop and reload, his pistol could be used as protection until he was able to do so.

There is little benefit to the mentality of "long enough for the cavalry to arrive." As I have stated before, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

(quick side story)I think it was General Pershing that said "The deadliest weapon in battle is a Marine and his rifle." I type this quote because, well for one I like it and for two, it demonstrates that a rifle is useless without a Marine behind it, just as a gun does not go bang without someone pulling the trigger. (end side story)

The Marines are issued rifles because that is the tool best suited for the job - shooting at distance.

For situations like close-quarters clearing of building, the weapon of choice is a severely modified rifle, known as a short-barreled rifle. A short-barreled rifle is illegal for a typical citizen to own without submitting an application to the ATF, paying a $200 tax and fulfilling all other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

While I'm not nearly smart enough or pretentious enough to be a lawyer it is my understanding that in law, it is taught that there is a requirement to look at "intent" when there is not 100% clarity.

Yes, the Constitution states that I have a Right to bear arms. If we interpret that literally, that could mean the government would be within the Constitution to limit people to black powder rifles and no more. However, there is a need to look at context and intent.

The Revolutionaries had just rebelled against an oppressive regime. The British were exploitative of the Colonists, over-taxed them without representation, under-supported them and had an overall disregard for a colony that was increasing the riches of the Crown (sounds familiar to being a small business owner today), not to mention the constant involuntary quartering of British troops. Publications were mostly limited to those that were sponsored by the throne. People were sentenced to imprisonment or death by a Throne-appointed magistrate.

In order to fight the oppressive regime, the colonists needed to "take arms" and fight in the face of tyranny.

Now, let's look at our Bill of Rights. Trial by jury of peers, Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press, prohibition of peacetime quartering of troops, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, a well regulated Militia, right to keep and bear arms.

All of these items are to prevent the wrongs which were committed by the British. The Revolutionaries feared a central government with too much power(hence why their first attempt to create one failed) and tried to do whatever possible to keep that central government in check when drafting the Constitution.

With the above long-winded preface in mind, the intent of the law becomes clear. The intent of the Second Amendment isn't "everyone gets to have a gun", it's that the citizens be allowed to own weapons to fight against another tyrannical government or any other regime that would get out of control. I have read speculation that the reason the right to bear arms immediately follows the First Amendment is because the Second Amendment provides a means of protection for the First Amendment.

I tend to be offended when people claim "well the Second Amendment doesn't state the type of gun", somewhat because it's the irrational response of many liberals I talk to, but mostly because it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles for which this country was founded on. The claim would be no different than saying "the First Amendment states you have freedom of speech, but it doesn't state where you can speak freely," a ludicrous claim if it were ever to be made.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.

I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.

BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.

BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...

I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.

You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.

You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.

"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.

You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.



You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.

"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

I am not denying that Machine guns are more dangerous than handguns, but there in lies the problem. We are not talking about machine guns, machine guns are fully automatic, hold the trigger and fire as many rounds as you have. We are talking semi automatic look a likes, big difference.

Let me give you this scenario, we were duck hunting one time, I was using a pump shotgun, Remington 870, my buddy was using his Remington 100, semi automatic. When you are duck hunting you are limited to 3 shells in the gun. A group of ducks came in and my buddy spotted them before me, yet I got up and got three shots off at ducks moving very fast and killed 2, before my buddy got off 2 shots not hitting one. He was pissed that a pump shotgun got 3 shots off faster than his semi auto shot gun.


Where did you hear that the unarmed principal "rushed " the shooter, I am thinking she rushed to the commotion, but we will never ever know the true story about that one. There is no denying the average person will try to hide or flee and very few if any will try to do anything. Now lets say she did rush the guy, don't you think if she had been armed we would not be burying all of those little kids ?

The larger problem is how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How we treat each other. How parents raise their kids. The lack of respect most kids have for each other, adults, and life in general...

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?

When I was instructing in the USAF our armory had a wide variety of rifle caliber weapons with high cap mags for dog and pony shows etc.

I don't even think I can recall a malfunction due to a magazine unless the mag itself was somehow physically damaged.Just the opposite with .22LR,the high cap mags always jammed especially the mag for the .22LR conversion kit for the M16.

In any case one of the biggest things to be considered in any magazine malfunction is the condition and quality of the ammo itself.

Sorry about going off topic.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by basswipe

This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?

I may be speaking a bit out of turn, and should have mentioned circumstantial evidence - since living in the socialist commonwealth of Massachusetts, such world-ending destructive devices are not widely available here. The Aurora movie theater shooting is a recent example of a 100-rd drum magazine in .223 malfunctioning.

When I say "high-capacity" I'm talking magazines greater than 30 rounds. Frankly, a 30 round magazine is "standard capacity" for rifles. Politicians have re-defined "high capacity" to mean anything above 10 rounds, just as "assault weapon" is not an actual description of a firearm but a politically created term. Just as you experienced with the USAF, 30 rounds is a standard magazine size.

I apologize for the confusion by not clarifying that ahead of time. When I speak of high capacity, it's more in reference to 50 round magazines and drums. The issue arises due to politicians redefining terminology to fit their agendas. Since my experience is certainly limited to only a few opportunities shooting with 50-rd magazines, I'd definitely welcome experiences to confirm and deny what I've seen and heard.

[basswipe]

Thankyou for the clarification.

And I would concur 100% that those large cap drum mags jam-up big time.Almost any high cap mags including the 40rd AK mags jam.30rd mags would appear to be the threshold for true functionality in a magazine from my experience.

[Backbeach Jake]

Magazine capacity is irrelevent. Lee Harvey Oswald changed history with a bolt action Italian Army surplus rifle. We need to allow those who are LEGALLY allowed to, to arm themselves and deny those who are not. Every single thing that I can think of that is regulated in this country has a larger black market that legal one. Drugs, Guns? Maybe they all should be deregulated, when the dust clears, the problem would have taken care of itself through ODs , killings and general mayhem. Being facitious here, so keep yer panties on. We need to keep the criminal and the weapon separated. And to not deny the law abiding citizen means to his own protection. It is plain that the government cannot protect us always. Crazies and criminal are a problem that require some deep thinking..