Thoughts and Prayers

[Gameface]

Just curious. Why would you be against limited mag capacity?
How would that change negatively affect your life?

I don't believe it would accomplish very much at all as far as criminal gun acts are concerned. By far most gun murders are committed with handguns and only a few shots are fired. That's the biggest gun issue there is and almost none of the "sensible regulations" address it at all.

I believe that individuals have a right to defend themselves. There are situations where magazine capacity could be advantageous. If you look at the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict, I believe it would be advantageous in holding off a mob.

The 2nd amendment is fundamentally about the people's right to resist the government. As laughable as many find that idea, I believe an armed populace is a deterrent to an abusive government. Limiting magazine size limits that deterrent.

 

[The Midnight]

Anyone wanna take a stab (no punn) at this?

 

[MVP]

 

[Gameface]

Excellent article about the "assault weapon myth"

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

 

[Gameface]

In 60% of mass shootings the weapon is a handgun.

 

[MVP]

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't believe it would accomplish very much at all as far as criminal gun acts are concerned. By far most gun murders are committed with handguns and only a few shots are fired. That's the biggest gun issue there is and almost none of the "sensible regulations" address it at all.

I believe that individuals have a right to defend themselves. There are situations where magazine capacity could be advantageous. If you look at the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict, I believe it would be advantageous in holding off a mob.

The 2nd amendment is fundamentally about the people's right to resist the government. As laughable as many find that idea, I believe an armed populace is a deterrent to an abusive government. Limiting magazine size limits that deterrent.

Great response.
Do you think that a mag capacity law would negatively impact your life in any way?

 

[Gameface]

Great response.
Do you think that a mag capacity law would negatively impact your life in any way?

No. Not mine. I don't currently own any firearms.

But when I did, and I went out shooting regularly, at least a few times a month, bigger magazine capacity was nice because instead of interrupting your target practice and losing focus you could just keep shooting. Loading magazines is tedious, not fun and doesn't help you get better at hitting what you're shooting at.

When I did own guns I was into it. I firmly believed that a person shouldn't own any gun that they were not essentially en expert with, or at least working to become an expert with. I was extremely disciplined when it came to handling and storing firearms. When my personal life started to change, rocky patch in my marriage, and a child that seemed upset/depressed, I was out of work and that's depressing, too, I decided I didn't need guns in the house and I got rid of them. Haven't felt the need to bring them back in even though my situation has improved. But my bad eyesight made shooting a lot less enjoyable for me. I can choose between seeing two front sights or two targets and try to split the difference in my aim.

 

[One Brow]

I don't believe it would accomplish very much at all as far as criminal gun acts are concerned. By far most gun murders are committed with handguns and only a few shots are fired. That's the biggest gun issue there is and almost none of the "sensible regulations" address it at all.

Is it addressable, in your opinion?

I believe that individuals have a right to defend themselves. There are situations where magazine capacity could be advantageous. If you look at the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict, I believe it would be advantageous in holding off a mob.

You want to hold off a mob by spaying with 30ish bullets as opposed to 10ish? The mob is still charging you after you discharge 7 bullets, but stops after 27?

The 2nd amendment is fundamentally about the people's right to resist the government. As laughable as many find that idea, I believe an armed populace is a deterrent to an abusive government. Limiting magazine size limits that deterrent.

IF we do have a military coup, I don't think it will be citizens with rifles defending us. If anything, more of them would join the coup than fight it.

At any rate, the government we currently have is already highly abusive. They just don't use martial law to accomplish it.

 

[Gameface]

Is it addressable, in your opinion?



You want to hold off a mob by spaying with 30ish bullets as opposed to 10ish? The mob is still charging you after you discharge 7 bullets, but stops after 27?



IF we do have a military coup, I don't think it will be citizens with rifles defending us. If anything, more of them would join the coup than fight it.

At any rate, the government we currently have is already highly abusive. They just don't use martial law to accomplish it.

Welcome back!

 

[One Brow]

Welcome back!

Thank you. I've missed it here.

 

[Gameface]

To answer some of your questions...

I find the gun situation depressing. I'm not as much a gun rights advocate as I was, and that is largely because I don't like the character of current gun rights advocacy. The NRA wants the wild-wild west where everyone gets a gun and we shoot first, shoot second and we don't ever get around to asking any questions or wondering why were shooting in the first place.

Is the handgun crime and murder problem addressable? I don't really know. But if we're gonna talk about gun control shouldn't we attempt to address the far and away biggest gun problem instead of the smallest?

Large magazines provide a tactical advantage. Tactical advantages are tactically advantageous. You want to argue otherwise? And if you don't acknowledge the tactical advantage then what's the argument for regulating something that doesn't matter, has no advantage?

There will never be a military coup in the U.S.. As a former service member I will say there is nothing in the culture of the U.S. military that could ever bring our military members to act against the people in a unified way. Now we can discuss the several hundred different possible scenarios and which ones an armed populace would play a factor in (greater than zero) but that would get pretty time consuming.