Assault Gun Question

[LarryP]

Instead of banning assualt weapons, why don't they just ban large magazines? Then the mfgr's could sell the rifle with smaller magazines.

I never hear anyone bringing that up.

[photogpat]

Instead of banning assualt weapons, why don't they just ban large magazines? Then the mfgr's could sell the rifle with smaller magazines.

I never hear anyone bringing that up.

Are you serious?

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

[LarryFlew]

They have been trying to do that for years - was in effect years ago - some states already do like Komifornia's 10 round mag rules. Also considered 10 rounders and requiring a special tool to make the change so it takes longer to reload.

Funny how the anti's think that would even make a difference especially considering the children in the last go round. Probably could have killed that many with any mag count since reloads are seconds to do.

[LarryP]

Better that than making the rifle itself Illegal.

[mnmike59]

Ive asked this before... What the heck is an assault weapon? A bat? A knife? Certainly not my tools I use for protection and sport.

[Heffay]

Ive asked this before... What the heck is an assault weapon?

It's a marketing term used to get rednecks to pry open their wallets just a bit more.

"OMG it's BLACK TOO! It's tacticool!"

[Hmac]

Ive asked this before... What the heck is an assault weapon? A bat? A knife? Certainly not my tools I use for protection and sport.

The "defintiion" of an "assault weapon" has its roots in the AWB of 1994. You may see this material again in the next couple of months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[Sigfan220]

What good would this do? It's not like all of the gangs and organized crime is going to switch over to 10 round mags... All it would do is make high cap mags more expensive, not harder to get.

[Heffay]

All it would do is make high cap mags more expensive, not harder to get.

Well, technically it would make them harder to get. Just not hard to get.

[LarryP]

Could keep the mfgr in business & save people's jobs. I'd still buy one if it only had a 10 round magazine. I'm sure alot of other people would keep buying them.

What good would this do? It's not like all of the gangs and organized crime is going to switch over to 10 round mags... All it would do is make high cap mags more expensive, not harder to get.

[Heffay]

The magazine repair business would skyrocket too.

This is all about jobs. I'm glad Obama is taking the job issue seriously!

[Jgulbs]

Instead of banning assualt weapons, why don't they just ban large magazines? Then the mfgr's could sell the rifle with smaller magazines.

I never hear anyone bringing that up.

You can't be serious with this? Giving up little bits of ground like this is equivalent to "Death by a billion little cuts"...I can't believe I am reading this on a forum of fellow gun advocates.

Keep in mind, that type of legislation does nothing to stop crime, as criminals, by their very definition will break the law; it only serves to further disarm the people who abide by the law. We need to join together and oppose legislation that negatively impacts responsible/law-abiding citizens.

First of all, very few crimes committed in this country are committed by legally obtained firearms, especially those that fall into the category of "assault weapon". Even if that wasn't the case, how is legislating more firearm laws, going to have a positive affect? For example, if laws work, explain to me Chicago, New York, CA and even this event in CT; all these places have VERY restrictive firearm laws, but still experience record high gun violence. Additional restrictions and laws won't stop a criminal, that’s why they are criminals.

Second, using the logic you are displaying, where do we draw the line on restriction? You say that you don't want to do away with guns entirely; you just want to reduce their capacity to dispense several rounds from a single mag. So do we limit everyone to single shot firearms, which would effectively achieve your goal? My point is, this is not something that can be effectively addressed and fixed by stripping responsible/law-abiding citizens of their liberties through legislation; again, as criminals, by their very definition, don't abide by the laws.

Let's look at cars for example, they are a tool, just like firearms; both can be used responsibly and irresponsibly. Each year, more people are killed as a result of drunk driving alone, than those killed by firearms. However, no one calls for a ban on cars, or a specific kind of car that could be (or may look to be) more deadly than another or for the fuel capacity of cars to be reduced so that an incident of drunk driving could be brought to an end sooner; of course not, because we understand that the tool isn’t the problem, the operator is. Sure, laws have been created to keep repeat offenders (analogous to criminals, and the like, in the firearm debate) off the roads, but that doesn’t stop them from getting into a car, driving it down the road and killing someone! The same thing holds true with firearms.

My suggestion is that we, perhaps, take a page out of the drunken driving play book. We need to focus on the operators of these tools, better understand who they are and come up with ways to address those people, and those people only. We need to stop blaming the tool of evil, stop the creation of sweeping laws that negatively affect criminals and law-abiders equally and simply tighten up on those offenders and criminals who have used, or those that may use the tools in nefarious ways (those with violent tendencies, either a criminal background and/or mental illness), and leave the responsible/law-abiding citizens to their business.

[LarryP]

Of course I don't agree with banning mags, But IF it happens, I'd still like to see the guns saved from being banned.

It's just a discussion.

[Thunder71]

The only people this will effect are the ones that don't do this kind of ****.

[Ron Burgundy]

Instead of banning assualt weapons, why don't they just ban large magazines? Then the mfgr's could sell the rifle with smaller magazines.

I never hear anyone bringing that up.

You can't be serious with this? Giving up little bits of ground like this is equivalent to "Death by a billion little cuts"...I can't believe I am reading this on a forum of fellow gun advocates.

Keep in mind, that type of legislation does nothing to stop crime, as criminals, by their very definition will break the law; it only serves to further disarm the people who abide by the law. We need to join together and oppose legislation that negatively impacts responsible/law-abiding citizens.

First of all, very few crimes committed in this country are committed by legally obtained firearms, especially those that fall into the category of "assault weapon". Even if that wasn't the case, how is legislating more firearm laws, going to have a positive affect? For example, if laws work, explain to me Chicago, New York, CA and even this event in CT; all these places have VERY restrictive firearm laws, but still experience record high gun violence. Additional restrictions and laws won't stop a criminal, that’s why they are criminals.

Second, using the logic you are displaying, where do we draw the line on restriction? You say that you don't want to do away with guns entirely; you just want to reduce their capacity to dispense several rounds from a single mag. So do we limit everyone to single shot firearms, which would effectively achieve your goal? My point is, this is not something that can be effectively addressed and fixed by stripping responsible/law-abiding citizens of their liberties through legislation; again, as criminals, by their very definition, don't abide by the laws.

Let's look at cars for example, they are a tool, just like firearms; both can be used responsibly and irresponsibly. Each year, more people are killed as a result of drunk driving alone, than those killed by firearms. However, no one calls for a ban on cars, or a specific kind of car that could be (or may look to be) more deadly than another or for the fuel capacity of cars to be reduced so that an incident of drunk driving could be brought to an end sooner; of course not, because we understand that the tool isn’t the problem, the operator is. Sure, laws have been created to keep repeat offenders (analogous to criminals, and the like, in the firearm debate) off the roads, but that doesn’t stop them from getting into a car, driving it down the road and killing someone! The same thing holds true with firearms.

My suggestion is that we, perhaps, take a page out of the drunken driving play book. We need to focus on the operators of these tools, better understand who they are and come up with ways to address those people, and those people only. We need to stop blaming the tool of evil, stop the creation of sweeping laws that negatively affect criminals and law-abiders equally and simply tighten up on those offenders and criminals who have used, or those that may use the tools in nefarious ways (those with violent tendencies, either a criminal background and/or mental illness), and leave the responsible/law-abiding citizens to their business.

Word.