Would you be in favor of a ban on a certain capacity magazine?

[Darrell KSR]

Have a friend (he does not live in my state) who retired from his state's Bureau of Investigation. Very well connected. He told me yesterday that he anticipates a ban on magazines over a certain capacity. The capacity was lower than I expected. He may not be correct, but I was wondering what this group believes.

Would you support such a ban?

[dan_bgblue]

Darrell, was he only talking long guns or were hand guns in the discussion?

[Darrell KSR]

He was talking both. In fact, he recommended a Glock for me some time ago (as did some good people here), and several of them would fall under what he thinks might occur.

My poll question is ambiguous as I look at it. I guess it's just to spur conversation anyway, but I would view the poll question as related to both handguns and long rifle.

[badrose]

I just simply said no. Guns are not the problem.

[CattyWampus]

I voted no. Until someone can explain to me how banning high-capacity magazines solves any problems or will stop psychopaths from murdering innocent victims, my answer will always be no. Will I ever buy one? No, I never will. BTW, the Assault Weapons Ban, which included high-capacity mags, was in place when the Columbine shooting took place.

[dan_bgblue]

If I need the firepower a large clip will offer, I will try to plan ahead and hire a felon to do the work for me. They will have no trouble getting their hands on any weapon and clip size they need to do the job regardless of any government ban on magazine size.

[Darrell KSR]

If I need the firepower a large clip will offer, I will try to plan ahead and hire a felon to do the work for me. They will have no trouble getting their hands on any weapon and clip size they need to do the job regardless of any government ban on magazine size.

There are a lot of high capacity magazines out there, aren't there? Not like saying, "it is illegal to grow oranges," where an existing orange supply would be eradicated very quickly, and then only illegal growers would have to be policed.

[suncat05]

I voted no. I would rather that law abiding citizens be legally armed as opposed to being basically defenseless, which is the ultimate goal of this current administration. The quantity of rounds in the magazine is a moot point.

The intent of the person holding the loaded weapon is what concerns me, and not even the fact that he has a weapon. What is his intention?

I will always vote no on nonsense like this. Especially when they're talking about subverting my Constitutional rights as a U. S. citizen.

[Darrell KSR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnN0s1G2ZzA

[CitizenBBN]

There are 10s of millions of them.

Does he think it's a ban on new ones or something more? If it's just on new ones good luck with that meaning anything. You're locking the barn door after the horse got out, lived a long and happy life and died of old age.

[ukblue]

No, the problem is that when you ban high capacity mags will it stop there? There is no doubt in my mind that if they get this ban then they have their foot in the door and they will go after everything.

[CitizenBBN]

No, the problem is that when you ban high capacity mags will it stop there? There is no doubt in my mind that if they get this ban then they have their foot in the door and they will go after everything.

My biggest issue isn't the mags being unavailable. It's what happens when this law is passed and it fails miserably to stop the next tragedy.

FWIW to folks that aren't gun people: WE TRIED THIS FOR 10 YEARS.

For 10 years the "Clinton Assault Weapons Ban" restricted certain guns and banned new mags more than 10 rounds.

In the middle of that ban we had Columbine.

So when we re-implement the ban and it fails, what's the next "common sense" measure? I just don't like passing laws I know have absolutely no chance of working. It means we are diverting attention from things that might actually help.

[CitizenBBN]

Slight aside but proving the point, the outrage over Columbine was gun shows, and how private individuals sell guns there and no background checks are done b/c they're private transactions between people and not from dealers.

There was a call to ban them completely, the "common sense" solution was to require checks on all sales (which meant no non-dealers could sell there, so they'd just sell as they found each other).

Had we had the outright ban, it wouldn't have influenced Aurora or this shooting in any way. In fact I don't know of another such shooting where gun shows were an issue. That law would have been meaningless just as this proposal is meaningless.

There's no way around these two basic points:

1) there are 10s of millions of these magazines, of these guns in circulation. No law you pass will limit their ability to get the weapons they think they require,

2) they don't choose these weapons b/c they're the only ones capable of this kind of mass killing. They look cool, but they aren't the problem and their complete elimination would just lead to other options being used. See #1 above.


Folks, the barn door has been open a LONG time. 400+ years in fact. None of these proposals will have any impact on the prevention of any of these tragedies for decades if not centuries.

So why aren't we arguing over how to do something that has at least some chance?

I'm up for safe storage to keep guns from kids within reason. I'm open to tougher background checks. I'm REALLY open to trying to identify people who are a threat to themselves by expanding our mental health system.

I just don't get the thinking of "we have to try something, it may help somewhere." Not saying they're even wrong, maybe I am, but I simply don't think in those terms. There doesn't have to be a guarantee but you don't go spitting into the wind either.

[elicat]

I don't support any new controls, but I am not going to make a public point of being against something like this, partly for the reason CBBN mentions: it is meaningless, but would make the left feel like they've done something. It may be a pointless box that has to get checked so we can move on.

[Doc]

For me, this is one I could go either way. I mean 10 rounds vs 20 rounds??? Again, where there is a will there is a way. I've stated before I'm in favor of allowing any responsible American to possess any weapon they desire (automatic, semi, assault, etc) so long as its registered and the owner and user are licensed appropriately. Guess I would extend that to ammunition as well.

[Doc]

I just simply said no. Guns are not the problem.


I disagree. Guns are part of the problem. The part is when they get in the wrong hands. To deny that the gun is a factor is turning a blind eye or denial.

[Doc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnN0s1G2ZzA

My single answer reply to this is "WHY?" I dont' mean that from a legal end but only from a standpoint of my personal opinion. Granted I do many things my wife and other say "why?" but to me shooting off 100 rounds of ammo in a span of 30 seconds seems pointless.

But then when you package the gun and the man together, doesn't get much cooler (LOL)

[CitizenBBN]

Doc, part of the irony of this that as a general rule as the magazine gets larger it gets less reliable. Those 100 drum things like what Darrell linked are notoriously unreliable. The one the guy in Aurora used jammed on him.

elicat -- if we could do this and just move on I'd actually support it. I just worry what they'll want next when this one is a complete failure. If they'd say "we tried gun control and that didn't work so let's focus on the video games or mental health system" then great but IMO we all know they'll say "that wasn't far enough, we need more gun control." That's what makes the NRA and the gun community fight so hard on what many see as "common sense gun control". They know it won't work, and then they'll be back for more.

IMO they've lost sight of their goals. It's no longer to protect as many kids as possible, nor to reduce the number of innocent people killed, it's to get rid of guns whether that means an increase in crime or not or is the best way to protect the innocent or not. They're so myopically convinced guns are the problem they forgot the problem and any non-gun approaches that may help.

[CitizenBBN]

My single answer reply to this is "WHY?" I dont' mean that from a legal end but only from a standpoint of my personal opinion. Granted I do many things my wife and other say "why?" but to me shooting off 100 rounds of ammo in a span of 30 seconds seems pointless.

But then when you package the gun and the man together, doesn't get much cooler (LOL)

Same reason people bungee jump IMO. That is to say, there isn't a reason past them just enjoying it for it's own sake.

FWIW those things are silly to me too. But when I was younger and we'd go plinking a friend had a 50 round mag for the Ruger 10/22 and we'd shoot it and I guess the only reason was some impossible to explain feeling it was cool somehow.

There is something to having enough mags/rounds loaded up you can shoot a while without stopping to reload. You load all the mags you have then shoot them then stop and reload. It's a little like a sporting event where you have this intense action then a timeout. Big mags equal longer game action I guess.

Personally I don't have anything that big nor do I want it. Shooting that glock in that configuration means almost no accuracy. The gun is very heavy, completely out of balance, it will jam a lot, it's just an oddity.

I'd be fine with a ban at 30 rounds fwiw. I could even handle 20. Most military weapons are 30 rounds now, the US had 20 rounds for a very long time. 10 is small for purposes of having a well armed resistance to the tyranny of the State. Since the difference between 10 and 20 is almost nil for purposes of shooting defenseless people in a mass murder but could be relevant in having a well armed citizenry I'd like to stop at 20.

Anything less than 10 is a positive threat to people's ability to defend themselves. A lunatic will practice magazine changes and bring multiple guns to murder, but someone defending their home in the middle of the night will only have one gun and one magazine. It will impact self defense far more than the lunatic bent on killing.

[CitizenBBN]

Last quick note -- 15 would be a far easier number for the industry. most full size semi-autos have a capacity of 12-14 rounds. Cap it at 15 and those guns wouldn't have to be retooled or the mags modified, and that's not a big difference. Rifle mags can be as big or as little as one chooses b/c they're external. Handgun mags are internal and that creates some issues with resizing them beyond crimping and such that can be converted to full size again.

[suncat05]

CBBN-just a quick question off the top of my head, because I do not remember: wasn't the Clinton era mag ban for civilians only? IIRC, I remember buying some 30 round magazines due to my need for the job, but they were really expensive. Also, were the parts to refurbish old 30 round magazines available then, or were those outlawed too?

[CitizenBBN]

CBBN-just a quick question off the top of my head, because I do not remember: wasn't the Clinton era mag ban for civilians only? IIRC, I remember buying some 30 round magazines due to my need for the job, but they were really expensive. Also, were the parts to refurbish old 30 round magazines available then, or were those outlawed too?

the ban was on manufacture or import of them, not on those in existence. See that's something Feinstein wants that she doesn't mention when she says she wants the ban reinstated - she wants a ban on the sale of existing ones so if you've got them they can't take them but you can't acquire them. Of course we know how well that will work. How's our war against meth going again?

Pretty sure refurb parts were available but at the time I wasn't involved with guns at all other than the few rifles I own so I can't say for sure on that one. I know the broad law b/c I found it interesting b/c of my strong interest in the expansion of government and the Constitution.

It just drove up the price, and most of that was just hoarding and not a lack of them being in existence. It just cost more for someone to part with theirs.

Feinstein is a decades long champion of this cause, to the point of having worked up her last proposal based on the ATF data that was being fed by the Fast and Furious guns. She's sent her staff to gun shows undercover many times to try to gather video "evidence" of their evils, has been obsessed with the gun issue for a very long time. It's almost pathological when you consider the deep economic crisis her home state is in and how many other issues face the Senate and how much time she has spent on this issue even in years when there was no hope of such laws making it out of committee.

I have seen her ban list and it's kinda funny in what it bans and what it doesn't. Clearly drawn up by a staff that knows nothing about guns. They have an obsession with pistol grips among other things. Have no idea how that impacts your ability to commit a murder.

[suncat05]

Darrell-nothing at all wrong with a Glock. I am not fond of them because of the grip ergonomics, but they are very reliable and very reasonably priced. Don't wait too long. And even though you may not need them buy an extra magazine or two. Just in case.
One other thing I might point out to everyone here: there are thousands of M1 Garands & M-1 Carbines sitting in South Korean armories right now that our current POTUS will not allow back into our country for sale. The guy is an anti-gunner from way back and this is all part of his master plan to deny every American their 2nd Amendment rights. That is the ultimate goal.

[CitizenBBN]

suncat -- the M1 Carbine is the very first gun on Feinstein's ban list:

http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-gun-ban-list-leaked

One of them is the Tec-22. It's a freaking 22 pistol, are you serious?

Also ban all pistol grips on any rifle and barrel shrouds (what does that have to do with anything?)

It's all based on the look of the gun, not its capabilities. Ban the M1, the Mini-14? Those are standard issue farmer/rancher guns that to my knowledge have never been used in such a shooting. You want us to just throw rocks at coyotes?

That's not a ban on high cap magazines for them -- that's a ban on those guns period without regards to the magazine capacity.

Basically it tries to ban any rifle that can accept those magazines as well as the magazines.

I just hope by the time this legislation is submitted in late January people have realized our financial situation is far more pressing and the gun industry and gun owners can do what the Leftist special interest groups do so well and work to target this legislation and make sure it doesn't pass.

The NRA got Dick Lugar out of office in Indiana. They will be able to target out of line members from the red states.

[suncat05]

You're preaching to the choir here CBBN. I am in 100% agreement with you on this. All of it.
I do not see any of this getting through the House as the Left wants it. And the Senate will not agree to whatever the House sends them because 'ol Harry is just that contrary, so in the end if anything is passed it will be just like the legislation during the Clinton years.........devoid of any real substance.

[CitizenBBN]

Here's her "catch all" list for rifles, and just how dumb it is:

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),

(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than

10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).

-- Folding or telescoping stocks. That hasn't come in to play in any way in any of these shootings. Totally irrelevant.

-- threaded barrel. They mean on the outside of the end of the barrel. it's for attaching silencers. Again none have been involved in these shootings, and silencers are class III devices that require special multi-month direct ATF approval to purchase and you end up with your fingerprints on file with ATF.

-- Pistol grip. People like them b/c it helps accuracy and control but it's hardly necessary for running around killing people. More comfortable but hardly a hurdle.

-- forward grip or barrel shroud. Uh, all guns have forward grips. I think she means a handle grip. Again to my knowledge none of these guns even had one. Barrel shrouds are to keep you from touching the hot barrel.

Every one of these things is based on APPEARANCE of the weapon, not its actual ability to inflict damage.

You'll notice no limits on caliber (other than 22 tube fed) for things like pistol grips. 22s are a "weapon of war" to get off our streets? Are you kidding me? A plinking rifle needs the same restrictions as an AR-15?

It's all about the looks of the gun, a list made by people who know nothing about them and obviously don't care to learn.

Even if you want to ban "assault" weapons, this is a bad law with significant very dumb mandates. In fact they're so dumb the #1 gun on their ban list has no pistol grip, no folding stock, no forward grip and the "barrel shroud" is on the part still part of the stock so I'm not sure it would be an issue. Same for the Ruger Mini-14.

This is about way more than the magazine capacity. This is about people who don't like guns and they look all scary.

[CitizenBBN]

You're preaching to the choir here CBBN. I am in 100% agreement with you on this. All of it.
I do not see any of this getting through the House as the Left wants it. And the Senate will not agree to whatever the House sends them because 'ol Harry is just that contrary, so in the end if anything is passed it will be just like the legislation during the Clinton years.........devoid of any real substance.

I sure hope so.

None of the things I and others have suggested that may help are anywhere on her planned legislation. Why not work WITH the industry and gun owners? You know, the people who more than any group in this country want to stop these shootings.

They forget that part -- that everyone cringes when these things happen, but gun owners cringe again b/c they know what a threat it poses to their rights. You'll find no group more strongly supporting stopping these attacks, but we won't take away the rights of all law abiding Americans just to feel like we did something and end up nowhere.

Put something on the table that really targets these criminals and lunatics and you'll get the support of every gun owner. I've made numerous such suggestions, no doubt those and many more have been presented to Feinstein over the years, and NONE of them are incorporated into her plan.

B/c her plan isn't to insure public safety, it's to ban guns. It's become an ideological obsession.

I just pray focus will come back to some very serious issues that will impact the lives of far more people and the House will find a way to bury this nonsense. Maybe in an ideal world we'd manage to actually try something useful for a change to address these horrors.

[bubbleup]

I disagree. Guns are part of the problem. The part is when they get in the wrong hands. To deny that the gun is a factor is turning a blind eye or denial.

And my point on an earlier thread was that if the gun enthusiasts don't take a pro-active stance on something to deal with that part of the issue, the other side won't care if the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Many of them will love it.

To expound on the old standby...Guns don't kill people, people kill people...and mentally deranged people with guns kill a lot of people.

[CitizenBBN]

And my point on an earlier thread was that if the gun enthusiasts don't take a pro-active stance on something to deal with that part of the issue, the other side won't care if the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Many of them will love it.

To expound on the old standby...Guns don't kill people, people kill people...and mentally deranged people with guns kill a lot of people.

Absolutely right. I'm hoping the NRA statement Friday has something in it to that effect but given they are burying it the Friday before Xmas week it's clear they want it to get very little media attention.

They may figure nothing can even be submitted till late January, another month, and by then the financial cliff and other things will push it off the front page. We are a nation with a very short attention span.

I hope letting it die down also has a section of proposals for things we can do that will be seen as steps forward but without reducing the rights of everyone for the insanity of a few.

[Darrell KSR]

Darrell-nothing at all wrong with a Glock. I am not fond of them because of the grip ergonomics, but they are very reliable and very reasonably priced. Don't wait too long. And even though you may not need them buy an extra magazine or two. Just in case.
One other thing I might point out to everyone here: there are thousands of M1 Garands & M-1 Carbines sitting in South Korean armories right now that our current POTUS will not allow back into our country for sale. The guy is an anti-gunner from way back and this is all part of his master plan to deny every American their 2nd Amendment rights. That is the ultimate goal.

I think my G36 will be fine, suncat. I have small hands. I tried numerous ones and that fit perfectly, with no magazine extension. Single stack is an issue, but worth the tradeoff to me.

I would like another at home defense weapon beside the S&W 9mm and the G36 and the S&W .38, preferably a Glock with a double stack magazine, but I can't do it now. When I can, they may be outlawed.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[Darrell KSR]

My single answer reply to this is "WHY?" I dont' mean that from a legal end but only from a standpoint of my personal opinion. Granted I do many things my wife and other say "why?" but to me shooting off 100 rounds of ammo in a span of 30 seconds seems pointless.

But then when you package the gun and the man together, doesn't get much cooler (LOL)

I think it's the baddest thing I've seen in a long time. ;)

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[Doc]

And my point on an earlier thread was that if the gun enthusiasts don't take a pro-active stance on something to deal with that part of the issue, the other side won't care if the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Many of them will love it.

To expound on the old standby...Guns don't kill people, people kill people...and mentally deranged people with guns kill a lot of people.

IMO Irresponsible people with guns can kill people. It takes two parts of the equation and to ignore one part is foolish. I'd have a hard time killing 30 people without some type of instrument and the most effective one is a gun of some type. Be honest, without a gun, would this psychopath have killed nearly 30 people? It took both the man and the gun. Noting that doesn't necessarily mean that guns are bad, only that they are a required tool, and the most effective tool. To me that is obvious. Instead it seems to me all the NRA and many gun advocates want to do is deny that guns are dangerous.

[Doc]

I think it's the baddest thing I've seen in a long time. ;)

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Only because you wish you were as stud-ly as that guy! It takes a cajones to smoke and shoot off 100 rounds at the same time.

[Darrell KSR]

Only because you wish you were as stud-ly as that guy! It takes a cajones to smoke and shoot off 100 rounds at the same time.

It was cool, wasn't it?

I stopped in this afternoon and picked up a spare magazine for the G36 I own, which will not be an issue (only holds six). I just wanted to kinda see what was going on in our largest gun shop and indoor shooting range.

It was busy, but not overflowing busy as I anticipated. The guy helping me told me they were running out of higher capacity magazines, but had plenty of the lower capacity mags. I asked if they had been busy, and he said they were just now slowing down a bit.

Interesting to see. Saw a man going in with a nice suit followed by a man wearing a t-shirt and jeans, with a woman right behind. I did not get the sense that anyone was in panic mode, but it could be stocking up, I dunno.

[KeithKSR]

There won't be enough Congressional support to get any of this passed. Firearms are far more prevalent among lots of demographic groups that they weren't when the Clinton ban was passed. The fastest growing demographic among gun owners are women, this bill will only be popular among the very far left.

Look at the states that have CCW laws now compared to two decades ago when the Clinton ban passed, same goes for Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, etc. The prognostications of the ant-gun squawkers that CCW laws would result in Wild West shoot outs in the streets not only failed to materialize, but the violent and gun crime rates in states with the most liberal laws has decreased at a much higher rate than other states. Violent crime rates in many countries that have disarmed their citizens have risen dramatically.

The quickest way for a ban to come about would be executive order, and the NRA and NAGR are ready and waiting to go to court over any executive order attempting to bypass the Bill of Rights.

While the NRA is somewhat quiet right now, realizing that Americans aren't stupid and see the Sandy Hook Elementary incident being turned in to a political football for the gun haters, they are not idle. They are working phones, building a war chest and waiting for their time to come. I got a call early in the evening, made my donation and bought a gift membership for a member of the military.

What people on the far left forgot when Obama won the election is that the Dems don't follow the liberals lock step on the issue of gun control.

[KeithKSR]

It was cool, wasn't it?

I stopped in this afternoon and picked up a spare magazine for the G36 I own, which will not be an issue (only holds six). I just wanted to kinda see what was going on in our largest gun shop and indoor shooting range.

It was busy, but not overflowing busy as I anticipated. The guy helping me told me they were running out of higher capacity magazines, but had plenty of the lower capacity mags. I asked if they had been busy, and he said they were just now slowing down a bit.

Interesting to see. Saw a man going in with a nice suit followed by a man wearing a t-shirt and jeans, with a woman right behind. I did not get the sense that anyone was in panic mode, but it could be stocking up, I dunno.

There were a record number of NICS checks done on Black Friday, Obama has been the best walking talking advertisement for the firearms industry than any paid endorser could be. People I know that know nothing about firearms are buying, and planning to get CCW's; these numbers increased after last Friday.

[Darrell KSR]

It's an aside, but with Forum Runner you see a very cool, multi-color pie chart with the voting results displayed. Very sharp looking.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[CitizenBBN]

No kidding. the poll on forum runner is slick.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[bigsky]

I'd get locked up for saying what I'm in favor of. He!! no I'm not in favor of the Fainting spell left going off on guns in any way. They've been determined not to let this crisis go to waste and to seize the opportunities to take away a few more liberties. I already got a call from Mayor Bloomberg asking me to join him in calling for legislation to ban "illegal guns ". I want a ban on exploiting dead children for political purposes.

[dan_bgblue]

I'd get locked up for saying what I'm in favor of. He!! no I'm not in favor of the Fainting spell left going off on guns in any way. They've been determined not to let this crisis go to waste and to seize the opportunities to take away a few more liberties. I already got a call from Mayor Bloomberg asking me to join him in calling for legislation to ban "illegal guns ". I want a ban on exploiting dead children for political purposes.

I could not agree more with that.

[badrose]

I disagree. Guns are part of the problem. The part is when they get in the wrong hands. To deny that the gun is a factor is turning a blind eye or denial.

Guns are just one of many means by which people can harm or kill others. The common denominator is the "wrong hands." Increasing guns in the right hands in the right places becomes a solution. I use a box cutter frequently and carry a couple of replacement blades in my wallet. I could kill 20 people easily before anyone would even react if I wanted. How far do we need to take this?

I live in a town where 90% of the people have gun permits. Violent crime is almost non-existent here. There's street in a neighborhood here called Gun club Drive. Heck, even our former governor, Bev Perdue, a Democrat, had put in the state constitution that all NC citizens were part of a militia. Will that prevent all gun-related violence? No, but it's a heckuva start.

[cattails]

I guess I am like Doc, there is no need for automatic or multi round mags. I carried an m-16 fully automatic and a 45 in Vietnam. I could empty a clip with my 16 quicker than I could get off 2 rounds with my 45. I don't have any weapons, my choice, each to their own. A person wanting to walk into a school and drop as many people as possible will do more damage with a large number clip than a single shot 45 and clips change out quick. Why not have places where you can go and use these type weapons in a controlled environment than to own one? Or at least make it a law that all weapons must be locked in a gun safe other than hand guns for protection. Of course you can do a lot of damage with a hand gun, but an automatic or semi automatic is a much quicker killing machine, gives a person with hand gun more time to respond if on equal ground. I have shot 60 cal machine gun and it is a toy compared to an m-16, 16 one quick burst and the clip is empty. There should be a place to enjoy these assault weapons under a controlled environment but not own one. Hand guns will do what you need to do to protect yourself. Either make it a law to have them locked in a gun safe or not own them at all. People like to talk, but when it comes time to point a weapon at another human being and pull the trigger it is a whole different story. Getting these guns off the streets would not be easy, but it would be a start. The vast, vast majority is not the problem, but the small exception % is what we read in the paper. This is just my take.

[CatinIL]

I'm torn on this issue. I have two pistols, a .22 and a .45. Both have 12 round clips. Like the gun dealer told me, if you need more than that you're in over your head (he was talking about self defense). And I agree with that.

I don't need a gun that shoots a hundred rounds, but, if we let the Government start restricting citizens on clips, where do the restrictions stop? It's the same for assault rifles. I don't need one and have no desire to have one, but there are people in Washington that think my two 12 round pistols should be considered assault weapons. They're not assault weapons if you're using them for traget practice, hunting, self-defense. It's nut jobs like the one in CT that make them "assault weapons".

[Darrell KSR]

Friend of mine is a gun collector; he also has a charter fishing boat business off the Gulf. Although they have not had any "pirate" activity, it is a real threat. To him, an "assault rifle," as those in the media sometimes portray them, is a necessary piece of his business equipment.

[CitizenBBN]

I guess I am like Doc, there is no need for automatic or multi round mags. I carried an m-16 fully automatic and a 45 in Vietnam. I could empty a clip with my 16 quicker than I could get off 2 rounds with my 45. I don't have any weapons, my choice, each to their own. A person wanting to walk into a school and drop as many people as possible will do more damage with a large number clip than a single shot 45 and clips change out quick. Why not have places where you can go and use these type weapons in a controlled environment than to own one? Or at least make it a law that all weapons must be locked in a gun safe other than hand guns for protection. Of course you can do a lot of damage with a hand gun, but an automatic or semi automatic is a much quicker killing machine, gives a person with hand gun more time to respond if on equal ground. I have shot 60 cal machine gun and it is a toy compared to an m-16, 16 one quick burst and the clip is empty. There should be a place to enjoy these assault weapons under a controlled environment but not own one. Hand guns will do what you need to do to protect yourself. Either make it a law to have them locked in a gun safe or not own them at all. People like to talk, but when it comes time to point a weapon at another human being and pull the trigger it is a whole different story. Getting these guns off the streets would not be easy, but it would be a start. The vast, vast majority is not the problem, but the small exception % is what we read in the paper. This is just my take.

None of these guns are full auto or selective fire. I know what your'e saying about rounds per minute but you can't empty one of these things like a M-16. Strictly semiauto so the same rate of fire as a handgun. Class III weapons, full auto, are controlled and restricted just as you describe.

My issue is it's a fairly meaningless target in the big picture. They have been used in 2 high profile mass murders, but constitute less than 1/2 of 1% of gun deaths in the US annually. They really aren't a factor in overall gun deaths inthe country. No doubt these tragedies are horrible, but banning millions of guns over this high profile death seems hypocritical when far more innocent kids are killed every year with small handguns well below the 10 round limit.

Heck, they aren't even the gun used in the majority of mass murder deaths. THey look nasty and that's about it for most people. Feinstein wants to ban barrel shrouds. They're for appearance more than anything. People are focusing on the look. I know you aren't but I think that's where most people are at.

So we put huge political and other resources into banning guns that hardly kill anyone, kids or otherwise, and let the rest go. Even then we have so many of these guns out there and so many others that are effective, we won't stop anything. I just dont' get why we don't focus on things that can make a real difference in gun violence. I don't know that this solves a thing.

Columbine happened in the flat middle of the last ban on assault rifles. It did no good and all the data I've seen said it did no good, so the solution IMO isn't to just do it again and hope for better results.

For handguns it needs to be 15 instead of 10 just b/c 10 is a pain in the butt as the guns are all designed for 14 or less.

CatinIl-- I'll disagree with your guy just a bit. No doubt in a firefight you're in trouble if you need more than that, but where I do see the need for as many rounds as you can reasonably hold is in home defense situations. That is likely to be a spray and pray situation where you are shooting down the stairs in the dark with your ears ringing so you can't hear. It won't be precision shooting, it'll be blasting away to either hit something or scare it away.

Mostly I don't see the point of messing up millions of guns over 4 rounds. Just make it 15 and then handguns are all good. 14 versus 10 is silly and at 14 you don't have to remake all the mags and such.

Again, like the rest let's try to focus on the things that could really make a difference and not battle over arbitrary numbers. 14 is the easy path, take it and move on.

[cattails]

None of these guns are full auto or selective fire. I know what your'e saying about rounds per minute but you can't empty one of these things like a M-16. Strictly semiauto so the same rate of fire as a handgun. Class III weapons, full auto, are controlled and restricted just as you describe.

My issue is it's a fairly meaningless target in the big picture. They have been used in 2 high profile mass murders, but constitute less than 1/2 of 1% of gun deaths in the US annually. They really aren't a factor in overall gun deaths inthe country. No doubt these tragedies are horrible, but banning millions of guns over this high profile death seems hypocritical when far more innocent kids are killed every year with small handguns well below the 10 round limit.

Heck, they aren't even the gun used in the majority of mass murder deaths. THey look nasty and that's about it for most people. Feinstein wants to ban barrel shrouds. They're for appearance more than anything. People are focusing on the look. I know you aren't but I think that's where most people are at.

So we put huge political and other resources into banning guns that hardly kill anyone, kids or otherwise, and let the rest go. Even then we have so many of these guns out there and so many others that are effective, we won't stop anything. I just dont' get why we don't focus on things that can make a real difference in gun violence. I don't know that this solves a thing.

Columbine happened in the flat middle of the last ban on assault rifles. It did no good and all the data I've seen said it did no good, so the solution IMO isn't to just do it again and hope for better results.

For handguns it needs to be 15 instead of 10 just b/c 10 is a pain in the butt as the guns are all designed for 14 or less.

CatinIl-- I'll disagree with your guy just a bit. No doubt in a firefight you're in trouble if you need more than that, but where I do see the need for as many rounds as you can reasonably hold is in home defense situations. That is likely to be a spray and pray situation where you are shooting down the stairs in the dark with your ears ringing so you can't hear. It won't be precision shooting, it'll be blasting away to either hit something or scare it away.

Mostly I don't see the point of messing up millions of guns over 4 rounds. Just make it 15 and then handguns are all good. 14 versus 10 is silly and at 14 you don't have to remake all the mags and such.

Again, like the rest let's try to focus on the things that could really make a difference and not battle over arbitrary numbers. 14 is the easy path, take it and move on.



Let me try to break it down, yes the weapons today are not automatice, they are semi, the 16 of today IIRC on automatic is a 4 round burst, a good machine shop can turn the 16 into automatic with a few adjustments. The 45 I had to shoot with 2 hands or it might be in your face, a lot of kick, the M-16 I could shoot with one hand if I wanted to, no kick at all. A weapon like this not on automatic you can shoot one round after another, bam, bam, bam very quickly. A 16 on auto I would guess max 3 seconds to empty full clip, that's just a guess from experience. Fact of the matter is we don't need these weapons, get them off the streets (no easy task). On your fishing boat buddy Darrell, I think he should be able to get a special permit. We could go on and on about all this, but I at least think it should be a law that weapons other than normal hand guns should be locked in a gun safe. Out of a gun safe should be a federal offense unless moving to firing range. Moving this type of gun from one location to another should have a triger lock and not loaded, again a federal offense to not do that. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done.

[CitizenBBN]

Let me try to break it down, yes the weapons today are not automatice, they are semi, the 16 of today IIRC on automatic is a 4 round burst, a good machine shop can turn the 16 into automatic with a few adjustments. The 45 I had to shoot with 2 hands or it might be in your face, a lot of kick, the M-16 I could shoot with one hand if I wanted to, no kick at all. A weapon like this not on automatic you can shoot one round after another, bam, bam, bam very quickly. A 16 on auto I would guess max 3 seconds to empty full clip, that's just a guess from experience. Fact of the matter is we don't need these weapons, get them off the streets (no easy task). On your fishing boat buddy Darrell, I think he should be able to get a special permit. We could go on and on about all this, but I at least think it should be a law that weapons other than normal hand guns should be locked in a gun safe. Out of a gun safe should be a federal offense unless moving to firing range. Moving this type of gun from one location to another should have a triger lock and not loaded, again a federal offense to not do that. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done.

I guess I'm still confused b/c yes these today are semiauto but I don't get the part about converting selective fire to full auto and the reference to full auto speeds b/c no one has the selective fire versions either. In fact even though you can buy older machineguns you can't buy any made after 1986 so even with all the permits in the world no civilian has a selective fire M16 to even convert.

The AR has about the same rate of fire as a semiauto pistol. We can debate mag capacity etc. but they're about the same both in the real world of trigger pulls and in their mechanical upper limit. The internals of the AR are very different from the military M16, it cannot be converted to full auto any more easily than any gun, basically you'd have to rebuild the firing and bolt mechanisms.

The ATF long ago banned guns that could be converted easily, i.e. open bolt designs. It was a problem in the late 70s and early 80s b/c open bolt guns could be made full auto fairly easily. Those were banned and any of them found are confiscated.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just am not sure I get your comparison.

Re "needing them", if we go down that road IMO we're in huge trouble. We don't "need" to hunt these days (an argument made by PETA regularly to limit hunting and fishing), and in Illinois they long argued there was no "need" for concealed carry. Once we allow "need" to be defined by the majority and not by the individual, be it guns or anything else, we're no longer talking about a right but a privilege granted by others, and that's not what the nation is about.

I'm putting together an SKS as an "assault weapon". I'm rebuilding them from the ground up (all legal of course) with poly folding stocks, 20 round mags, tactical rails, cutting down the weight on the front end, the works. Why do I need such a thing? B/c I've seen one too many natural disasters with looters and criminals running amok. We just saw it with Sandy.

I love my 22 bolt action but it won't protect my family and friends if we have some kind of local disaster situation where the police are spread too thin. I find it safer than a handgun, easier to lock up and harder to steal. Unlikely scenario? Maybe, though I've lost power for 4 or more days twice in the last 8 years due to ice damage. Worth the $400-500 I have in one to make sure I'm prepared? Yep. I also have kerosine lamps, a wind up radio that can charge my cell phones, just stuff you need when the power goes out.

That's me determining my need, not the majority determining it. You don't have to justify your actions or choices to me nor I to you. The way the Constitution meant us to be. You pursue the course you think is best for your family, I'll pursue mine. You don't think you need such a weapon for protection or even just for fun, fine. When you start deciding none of us need them b/c you don't think we do, that's when I get nervous.

I will also mention most of the people I know who have one use it on their farms and such and they are used more and more for hunting. They're especially popular to have around to deal with coyotes and such, who are flat overrunning the country.

Feinstien's ban list includes the Ruger Mini-14, which is sold as a "Ranch rifle" and has been used as such since it was introduced in 1973. Even by the standard of "need" that gun has been needed and used for 40 years.

[cattails]

I guess I'm still confused b/c yes these today are semiauto but I don't get the part about converting selective fire to full auto and the reference to full auto speeds b/c no one has the selective fire versions either. In fact even though you can buy older machineguns you can't buy any made after 1986 so even with all the permits in the world no civilian has a selective fire M16 to even convert.

The AR has about the same rate of fire as a semiauto pistol. We can debate mag capacity etc. but they're about the same both in the real world of trigger pulls and in their mechanical upper limit. The internals of the AR are very different from the military M16, it cannot be converted to full auto any more easily than any gun, basically you'd have to rebuild the firing and bolt mechanisms.

The ATF long ago banned guns that could be converted easily, i.e. open bolt designs. It was a problem in the late 70s and early 80s b/c open bolt guns could be made full auto fairly easily. Those were banned and any of them found are confiscated.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just am not sure I get your comparison.

Re "needing them", if we go down that road IMO we're in huge trouble. We don't "need" to hunt these days (an argument made by PETA regularly to limit hunting and fishing), and in Illinois they long argued there was no "need" for concealed carry. Once we allow "need" to be defined by the majority and not by the individual, be it guns or anything else, we're no longer talking about a right but a privilege granted by others, and that's not what the nation is about.

I'm putting together an SKS as an "assault weapon". I'm rebuilding them from the ground up (all legal of course) with poly folding stocks, 20 round mags, tactical rails, cutting down the weight on the front end, the works. Why do I need such a thing? B/c I've seen one too many natural disasters with looters and criminals running amok. We just saw it with Sandy.

I love my 22 bolt action but it won't protect my family and friends if we have some kind of local disaster situation where the police are spread too thin. I find it safer than a handgun, easier to lock up and harder to steal. Unlikely scenario? Maybe, though I've lost power for 4 or more days twice in the last 8 years due to ice damage. Worth the $400-500 I have in one to make sure I'm prepared? Yep. I also have kerosine lamps, a wind up radio that can charge my cell phones, just stuff you need when the power goes out.

That's me determining my need, not the majority determining it. You don't have to justify your actions or choices to me nor I to you. The way the Constitution meant us to be. You pursue the course you think is best for your family, I'll pursue mine. You don't think you need such a weapon for protection or even just for fun, fine. When you start deciding none of us need them b/c you don't think we do, that's when I get nervous.

I will also mention most of the people I know who have one use it on their farms and such and they are used more and more for hunting. They're especially popular to have around to deal with coyotes and such, who are flat overrunning the country.

Feinstien's ban list includes the Ruger Mini-14, which is sold as a "Ranch rifle" and has been used as such since it was introduced in 1973. Even by the standard of "need" that gun has been needed and used for 40 years.



OK I have been out of the loop on guns for some time, so I was not aware of "The ATF long ago banned guns that could be converted easily, i.e. open bolt designs. It was a problem in the late 70s and early 80s b/c open bolt guns could be made full auto fairly easily. Those were banned and any of them found are confiscated. ". Thank you for bringing me up to date. Do you agree that these type of weapons I mentioned should be locked in a gun safe? Do you agree that they should not be out of that safe unless unloaded and a trigger locking devise? Until they are at a shooting range private or public? May be we are not so far apart?