Gun Mag Ruling Spoiler Alert: Gun rights upheld...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,622
1,917
1,743
46
DFW
#3
I’m not a gun guy, so help me understand. Why does someone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? It seems like the ban was an attempt to curb gun violence and mitigate mass shootings. What is the downside? I’m sincerely curious.
 
Feb 6, 2007
4,314
4,543
1,743
Ardmore, Ok.
#7
I’m not a gun guy, so help me understand. Why does someone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? It seems like the ban was an attempt to curb gun violence and mitigate mass shootings. What is the downside? I’m sincerely curious.
It's not like the movies. Try putting just one round inside the critical mass area under duress, with an adrenaline rush, nervous as hell, and in the dark when someone is inside your house and intent on inflicting harm to you and/or your loved ones. For most people, it's hard enough at the gun range under no duress.
It two tires (motorcycle) will get you anywhere you want to go, why do you have four? If one match will start a fire, why do you need a box?
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,171
3,556
1,743
#8
I’m not a gun guy, so help me understand. Why does someone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? It seems like the ban was an attempt to curb gun violence and mitigate mass shootings. What is the downside? I’m sincerely curious.
There are two reasons. First, it's estimated that 70% of shots fired by the police miss their mark. Accuracy during a high stress situation is a problem for the even the highly trained. Second, it typically takes more than one round to bring someone down. Do the math. You're in trouble if you're attacked by a group of people unless you can shoot like John Wick.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,622
1,917
1,743
46
DFW
#9
There are two reasons. First, it's estimated that 70% of shots fired by the police miss their mark. Accuracy during a high stress situation is a problem for the even the highly trained. Second, it typically takes more than one round to bring someone down. Do the math. You're in trouble if you're attacked by a group of people unless you can shoot like John Wick.
Do we have any reliable data on this in the context of civilians, or is it simply anecdotal? Personally, I don’t know a single person, outside of law enforcement and military, who has had to pull a gun on an individual, let alone fire off a round... let alone 10+ rounds.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,171
3,556
1,743
#10
Do we have any reliable data on this in the context of civilians, or is it simply anecdotal? Personally, I don’t know a single person, outside of law enforcement and military, who has had to pull a gun on an individual, let alone fire off a round... let alone 10+ rounds.
I don't think that civilian hit rate statistics have ever been compiled. If they were, they would probably be skewed significantly by suicides. Rifles only account for 3.4% of gun homicides though. The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with simple handguns. We need to focus more on mental health and finding a way to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them than things like magazine capacity.
 

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,820
4,589
1,743
41
Lily Lake, IL
#11
I’m not a gun guy, so help me understand. Why does someone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? It seems like the ban was an attempt to curb gun violence and mitigate mass shootings. What is the downside? I’m sincerely curious.
Good thing we have a bill of rights and not a bill of needs.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,622
1,917
1,743
46
DFW
#12
Good thing we have a bill of rights and not a bill of needs.
OK, I’ll play the semantics game. What is the point of having a right to more than 10 round clips?

I would like to see the data (though it may bore Rack) because my assumption is most self defense only requires 2 rounds maximum. You’re threatened, fire a couple of rounds, the threat is eliminated or flees. How often is more than 10 rounds required for self defense?

I grew up in the country. We had guns. The 12 gauge was enough. Once to scare off some pit bulldogs with birdshot. Once my mom had someone follow her car home for several miles. She went in and grabbed the 12 gauge. He was walking up to the porch and my nephew said “That’s a BIG GUN Nana!” And the guy took off.

I don’t disparage the right to bear arms. I just don’t understand the need for automatic weapons, bump stocks, extended magazines, silencers, etc.

Where do we draw the line, and why there? Once again, I’m sincere and willing to change my mind.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,562
3,305
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#13
OK, I’ll play the semantics game. What is the point of having a right to more than 10 round clips?

I would like to see the data (though it may bore Rack) because my assumption is most self defense only requires 2 rounds maximum. You’re threatened, fire a couple of rounds, the threat is eliminated or flees. How often is more than 10 rounds required for self defense?

I grew up in the country. We had guns. The 12 gauge was enough. Once to scare off some pit bulldogs with birdshot. Once my mom had someone follow her car home for several miles. She went in and grabbed the 12 gauge. He was walking up to the porch and my nephew said “That’s a BIG GUN Nana!” And the guy took off.

I don’t disparage the right to bear arms. I just don’t understand the need for automatic weapons, bump stocks, extended magazines, silencers, etc.

Where do we draw the line, and why there? Once again, I’m sincere and willing to change my mind.
This has been a mental debate for me since I started to carry. I don’t personally know anyone with automatic weapons although I’ve enjoyed shooting them immensely in Vegas at gun clubs. Bump stocks I never even heard of until they were used in a mass shooting. The law on silencers is absurd. You can buy and own them but can’t use them. At least in Washington. These things I don’t see as part of our rights. The last one however, extended magazines, I could see a use for one in your example. Standard 12 gauge holds 5 shots. What if instead of one man walking up on the porch, there were 6? Or what if it was only the one man and he too has a 12 gauge. Who wins? The one with 5 shots or the one with a 25 round drum?
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,562
3,305
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#14
Do we have any reliable data on this in the context of civilians, or is it simply anecdotal? Personally, I don’t know a single person, outside of law enforcement and military, who has had to pull a gun on an individual, let alone fire off a round... let alone 10+ rounds.
Btw, we have several forum members who have shared stories of having to pull concealed weapons but I don’t think any pulled the trigger. I know of one poster who has (not a conceal situation I believe ) pulled the trigger and has shared with the board what a horrible thing it is to do. I’m not completely sure but it may have been a war story. I’ll let him speak for himself if he sees this.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,622
1,917
1,743
46
DFW
#16
In case you're attacked by 11 people.
I don’t even think it’s useful then. By the time you’ve killed or heavily wounded two or three, either the other 8-9 have already rushed you , shot you, or run off. My guess is most would run off out of survival instinct and a preference for easier prey.

My guess is it’s only useful in a few scenarios.
  1. Military scenarios
  2. Law enforcement encounters
  3. Gang wars
  4. Mass shootings
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,771
14,688
1,743
#17
I don’t even think it’s useful then. By the time you’ve killed or heavily wounded two or three, either the other 8-9 have already rushed you , shot you, or run off. My guess is most would run off out of survival instinct and a preference for easier prey.

My guess is it’s only useful in a few scenarios.
  1. Military scenarios
  2. Law enforcement encounters
  3. Gang wars
  4. Mass shootings
You'll get plenty of answers because it's an emotional topic for many. But the real arguments in favor of guns capable of killing many people quickly and efficiently boil down to 2 answers.

1- Because the 2nd amendment so shut up.
2- To keep the gubmint in line.

I don't know that the right to bear arms means all arms under all circumstances, and politicians fear your vote, not your gun, but I've learned to mostly be a spectator in these debates others feel more strongly about than I do.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,866
654
1,743
#18
I think the answer to any of these type debates is not about banning or allowing, but rather another classification of ownership like with fully automatic weapons. If you really want to own an AR-15 with a 30 round clip, so be it, but you should have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't know what those hoops should be, I just know the laws around fully automatic weapons have been extremely successful in removing them from criminal activity. I seem to remember reading somewhere that since those laws went into effect, there had only been one homicide in the US from a fully automatic weapon, but I could be wrong.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,503
16,442
1,743
In Pokey's head
#19
I think the answer to any of these type debates is not about banning or allowing, but rather another classification of ownership like with fully automatic weapons. If you really want to own an AR-15 with a 30 round clip, so be it, but you should have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't know what those hoops should be, I just know the laws around fully automatic weapons have been extremely successful in removing them from criminal activity. I seem to remember reading somewhere that since those laws went into effect, there had only been one homicide in the US from a fully automatic weapon, but I could be wrong.
And we all should be forced to live with edicts from people with your sentiments contrary to our second amendment rights? AR's are virtually never used in a crime. 99% of all armed crimes are with handguns. If safety is you angle, your argument fails. Also If safety is your angle, you might shift your concern to the amendment responsible for death of 44 million by abortion since 1973. Your concern for life would be better served.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,503
16,442
1,743
In Pokey's head
#20
Do we have any reliable data on this in the context of civilians, or is it simply anecdotal? Personally, I don’t know a single person, outside of law enforcement and military, who has had to pull a gun on an individual, let alone fire off a round... let alone 10+ rounds.
Then maybe you should find more serious threats to be concerned with.