Ban high-capacity magazines?

[politicallefty]

I think this is a pretty good idea that should be passed. It's a lot less than the AWB and sets a very specific target. That's not to say it'll be a cure-all for gun violence at all, but I do believe it would help. This really has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense. I'm curious to see the arguments in opposition.

[dead0man]

I wouldn't like it, but it's certainly a compromise that can be achieved.  It certainly  makes more sense than another AWB.  The hard nuts on both sides aren't too keen on compromise though.

[politicallefty]

I wouldn't like it, but it's certainly a compromise that can be achieved.  It certainly  makes more sense than another AWB.  The hard nuts on both sides aren't too keen on compromise though.

I would easily give up the AWB for a ban on high-capacity magazines. In terms of actual results, I'd rather have that ban than an AWB. I think there's too many instances where a prohibition on high-capacity magazines would have actually saved lives. Overall, I don't think the AWB is worth fighting for, although it may have some worthy goals.

On a serious note, can I ask why you would not generally support such a ban?

[Franzl]

I wouldn't like it, but it's certainly a compromise that can be achieved.  It certainly  makes more sense than another AWB.  The hard nuts on both sides aren't too keen on compromise though.

I'm happy to compromise. I know nothing good will be passed, so I'll take whatever we can get.

[dead0man]

On a serious note, can I ask why you would not generally support such a ban?

I don't think it will help much.  Why limit the liberty of tens of thousands for the safety of 6?  Do we want to use that kind of math on other things that kills a handful of people a year?  It's part of the problem of the gun control crowd, they want to ban things that sound scary, things they often don't really understand.  Like when California banned new purchases of a specific .50cal rifle.  Never mind that over the counter they are $10,000 weapons.  No .50cal rifle has ever been used to commit a crime in California, but they were banned anyway.  Why?  Because they couldn't figure out why a person would need one and it sounds (and looks) scary.  Look at the first AWB or look at the AWB2, banning things like bayonet mounts.  As if people were getting bayonetted constantly.  Oh that collapsible stock looks kind of like something a commando would use, can't have that!  A pistol grip on a shotgun?  That's right out!

It's difficult to debate people full of emotion and fear as I'm sure you know if you ever debated a Fundie.  It's that much harder when those things are covered with a thick layer of ignorance and a strong feeling of superiority as I'm sure you know if you ever debated a Fundie.

[TNF]

I'd vote for it.

[politicallefty]

On a serious note, can I ask why you would not generally support such a ban?

I don't think it will help much.  Why limit the liberty of tens of thousands for the safety of 6?  Do we want to use that kind of math on other things that kills a handful of people a year?  It's part of the problem of the gun control crowd, they want to ban things that sound scary, things they often don't really understand.  Like when California banned new purchases of a specific .50cal rifle.  Never mind that over the counter they are $10,000 weapons.  No .50cal rifle has ever been used to commit a crime in California, but they were banned anyway.  Why?  Because they couldn't figure out why a person would need one and it sounds (and looks) scary.  Look at the first AWB or look at the AWB2, banning things like bayonet mounts.  As if people were getting bayonetted constantly.  Oh that collapsible stock looks kind of like something a commando would use, can't have that!  A pistol grip on a shotgun?  That's right out!

It's difficult to debate people full of emotion and fear as I'm sure you know if you ever debated a Fundie.  It's that much harder when those things are covered with a thick layer of ignorance and a strong feeling of superiority as I'm sure you know if you ever debated a Fundie.

To be honest, I'm not so big on the AWB insofar as an actual piece of adequate gun legislation. That doesn't mean I'm not for it in terms of a negotiating chip. It has far too many flaws to be fully effective in what it means to do. As far as emotion goes, that doesn't drive me with respect to gun laws. For the most part, it isn't an issue that really concerns me one way or the other until we get the lunatics spouting their absolutist views on the 2nd Amendment (views that I think are not consistent with said amendment).

In terms of liberties, what are we actually intent on protecting? Most Americans seem to believe that to be self-defense and hunting. (If we go the anti-government route, I don't see any realistic limitations. What is to say surface-to-missiles aren't prohibited by the Constitution?) If we're going to have realistic limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, I cannot see any opposition to banning high-capacity magazines. Capping magazine rounds at 10 may very well have reduced the death toll in the Tucson massacre. I'm not one to believe liberties are being infringed upon with such a ban.

[Donerail]

Citizens of the United States own about a billion magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and the majority of widely owned firearms come standard from the factory with more than 10 round magazines (the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, comes standard with 30-round magazines, as it has since 1963. One of the most popular handguns, the Glock-17, comes with a 17 round magazine). Also, if the larger magazines have no value for self-defense, why is law enforcement exempted from the proposed restrictions? Is it because they could face more than one attacker (and if so, why is that impossible for civilians)? I also don't see such a ban doing a lot of good (it takes around 3 seconds for someone unskilled to change a magazine).

[Lambsbread]

Undecided.

[muon2]

Shouldn't the decision be based on the effectiveness of the law? If I look at data from two years ago, six states (and DC) had bans. If one compares those states to the per capita rate of gun homicides from 2011, those states are spread throughout the rankings with 4 states above and 2 states below the national average. Without any correlation in the data it suggests that a high-capacity magazine ban is not a particularly effective law.

[TJ in Oregon]

What's the point? The shooter would just re-load.

[useful idiot]

SJoyce makes a good point. Why are we calling anything above 10 rounds "high-capacity," again? I'd be opposed to limiting it at anything under 20, because most full sized, and even compact, semi-auto handguns were designed for, and carry, between 10 and 20 rounds. These should be called normal-capacity or regular-capacity magazines if anything.

If you make the ban on magazines over 20, or even 18, then not only does it drop the opposition from most handgun owners, but it saves the government a helluva lot of headache in the realm of grandfathering in certain mags. It's also more effective, because since most pistols already carry over 10 rounds, there are millions upon millions of them floating around (many more than there are handguns themselves). The same isn't true of mags north of that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's the point? The shooter would just re-load.

Reloading gives the targets a chance to flee or subdue the attacker.  Rather than have capacity be defined in terms of the number of rounds, I'd prefer to see it expressed in terms of volume or the like. As others have pointed out, for 9mm pistols with grip magazines, having more than 10 rounds is fairly standard. Basing the limit on something other than simply the number of rounds makes it possible to grandfather in pistols with normal sized magazines that have more than 10 rounds while limiting the size of magazines for weapons that use 5.56mm or other rifle ammo.

[DemPGH]

I wouldn't like it, but it's certainly a compromise that can be achieved.  It certainly  makes more sense than another AWB.  The hard nuts on both sides aren't too keen on compromise though.

I'm happy to compromise. I know nothing good will be passed, so I'll take whatever we can get.

Voted yes, but I agree with this.

[Wyoming Conservative]

NO.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's the point? The shooter would just re-load.

Reloading gives the targets a chance to flee or subdue the attacker.  Rather than have capacity be defined in terms of the number of rounds, I'd prefer to see it expressed in terms of volume or the like. As others have pointed out, for 9mm pistols with grip magazines, having more than 10 rounds is fairly standard. Basing the limit on something other than simply the number of rounds makes it possible to grandfather in pistols with normal sized magazines that have more than 10 rounds while limiting the size of magazines for weapons that use 5.56mm or other rifle ammo.

Exactly.  Jared Lee Loughner got tackled by unarmed people as he was reloading.

[Gass3268]

Hell Yes!

[AkSaber]

I don't get why the police and military are always exempted from these restrictions.

They aren't the only ones who have to defend themselves from dangerous and unpredictable belligerents.

[politicallefty]

The only reason I chose 10 rounds for this poll was due to current Congressional proposals. I don't have enough knowledge as to what the limit should actually be in order to reduce deaths and injuries, but I do know that having 30+ rounds per magazine is absurd. But I do agree with this overall, especially what I emphasized:

Reloading gives the targets a chance to flee or subdue the attacker.  Rather than have capacity be defined in terms of the number of rounds, I'd prefer to see it expressed in terms of volume or the like. As others have pointed out, for 9mm pistols with grip magazines, having more than 10 rounds is fairly standard. Basing the limit on something other than simply the number of rounds makes it possible to grandfather in pistols with normal sized magazines that have more than 10 rounds while limiting the size of magazines for weapons that use 5.56mm or other rifle ammo.

I don't get why the police and military are always exempted from these restrictions.

They aren't the only ones who have to defend themselves from dangerous and unpredictable belligerents.

I see where you're coming from. I would agree that police weapons shouldn't necessarily be weapons designed for mass killing (though I would argue the military faces different circumstances in war zones). The primary goal of police should be to subdue and apprehend suspects, not kill them (although still retaining that option in extreme situations).

[dead0man]

Another problem is that's it's pretty freaking easy to make magazines if you have access to a machine shop.  Which are not uncommon.  Much easier than making a gun, meth or growing pot.

[Del Tachi]

No.  10 is too low.  That would mean that the vast majority of cartridges used in 9mm's would be outlawed, a 9mm is far from an "assault weapon".