The Gun Control Debate Thread

[twa]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

most crazy people and school shooters aren’t making extended clips. Niether are gangbangers.

 

they don't need to, they just hit soft targets....or die early

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

why does anyone need a gun that has more than ten bullets?

I'm not going to start down the road of what a person "needs" again.  That has been thoroughly discussed over that last 247 pages.  I will speak to the design of most handguns.  If you don't know (no insult, just not sure your gun knowledge level), most handguns are designed so the bullets are kept in the handgrip.  Because the physical size of most handgun designs so they fit correctly in normal sized hands, they hold 10-17 rounds on average.  You can get smaller handguns like the Glock 42/43 that hold 6 rounds.  But that is small even in my child-sized hands.  Also, smaller hand guns are usually far less accurate due to shorter barrel lenght and less weight (both affect accuracy).  Now a few options:

 

Manufacturers could make a normal sized handgun that holds less rounds by changing the size/design of the magazine you could fit in there.  But will they?  Hard to say if it is only going to be a small percentage of their market base.  And aftermarket companies could still design extended magazines.  That would be legal as long as they weren't sold in VA.  But still wouldn't be hard to get.  Just look at how people in Chicago get their guns.  

 

You could make a magazine with a spacer or just not put more than 10 rounds in the gun.  Will anyone make a spacer for a small marketplace?  Who knows.  Will just putting less rounds in the gun be legal?  I don't think so because my understanding of the proposed law affects guns capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  But assume it did.  How would you enforce it?  Random checks of gun owners?

 

You could just tell citizens too bad, this is the law and figure it out.  But that raises the same questions I already put up.

 

And this is just in regards to handguns.  What about long guns?  Pretty much every magazine-fed long gun is capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  So would they all be banned?  If you just ban the size of the magazine itself, look at NJ for how effective that has been.

 

I think I am more pro gun control than most "conservatives" and this 10 round limit automatically loses my vote.  The other proposals I could be talked into.  They at least wouldn't be instant vote-losers for me.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 hours ago, twa said:

 

they don't need to, they just hit soft targets....or die early

 

a 10 round limit would mean that the parkland shooter, sandy hook shooter, ect,  would of had to reload constantly, that would have made a large impact on the amount of lives lost. Those guys aren’t manufacturing a special weapon clip....

[TheGreatBuzz]

@CousinsCowgirl84 Since you seem to be so for this 10 round limit, what do you propose be done with all the weapons that would now be illegal?  And are okay with making over 50% of guns in circulation in the state illegal?  And do you propose this 10 round limit be made nationwide?  

 

8 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Those guys aren’t manufacturing a special weapon clip....

They didn't need to because they are availabe on the open market.  Impossible to say what they would have done if they weren't.

Edited January 16, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

@CousinsCowgirl84 Since you seem to be so for this 10 round limit, what do you propose be done with all the weapons that would now be illegal?  And are okay with making over 50% of guns in circulation in the state illegal?  And do you propose this 10 round limit be made nationwide?  

 

Ask people to turn them in. Yes, i’m fine with it. I’m fine with it being nation wide, but i’m also fine with local governments deciding.

 

The argument that we can’t place restrictions on new gun sales because there are too many guns is a dumb argument.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Ask people to turn them in.

Would you offer any compensation?  Just more personal guns alone that would fall under the 10 round ban are worth over $2k.  Now imagine that cost on a larger scale.

 

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The argument that we can’t place restrictions on new gun sales because there are too many guns is a dumb argument.

I don't think I said it was.  But just so we are clear, are you wanting this limit to only apply to new gun sales or to all guns currently in circulation?  

[twa]

33 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

a 10 round limit would mean that the parkland shooter, sandy hook shooter, ect,  would of had to reload constantly, that would have made a large impact on the amount of lives lost. Those guys aren’t manufacturing a special weapon clip....

 

Realistically speaking how many lives would that have saved?....assuming of course they didn't work around limited magazines

 

I would guess none in those two cases and the same in most unless you change the killing fields by adding defense/security.

 

It might help in some like the Vegas shooter....if you assume they can't work around it (which is foolish)

 

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

34 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I don't think I said it was.  But just so we are clear, are you wanting this limit to only apply to new gun sales or to all guns currently in circulation?  

 

 

If your not saying it is, then why does it matter?

 

 

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Realistically speaking how many lives would that have saved?....assuming of course they didn't work around limited magazines

 

I would guess none in those two cases and the same in most unless you change the killing fields by adding defense/security.

 

 

 

 

 

Theres a huge performance difference between an ar15 with a 50 round magazine and a hand gun with a 10 round clip or a two shot shotgun. Reloading times would be significantly higher giving people more time to run...

Edited January 16, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[twa]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Theres a huge performance difference between an ar15 with a 50 round magazine and a hand gun with a 10 round clip or a two shot shotgun. Reloading times would be significantly higher giving people more time to run...

 

I agree on the two shot shotgun, on the others there is little difference with a unarmed captive audience...in fact the 50 round(or any extended) magazine is more likely to jam

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If your not saying it is, then why does it matter?

One, that is why I asked if your proposed law would apply only to new gun purchases going forward or all guns currently in circulation.  Two, I am saying I disagree with your proposal.  I'm just not using the reasoning of "it's dumb" as you stated.  Third, you didn't answer my question about compensation.

[China]

Texas woman fatally shoots boyfriend while posing for Snapchat photo, police say

 

A Texas woman was arrested this week after police say she shot and killed her boyfriend last month while posing for a Snapchat.

 

Autumn King, 20, was arrested Monday. Police say she killed 26-year-old Eric Charles Allen on Dec. 23 while he took a picture of her posing with his loaded rifle.

 

According to the Austin Police Department, the couple were inside their Rampart home with two children when the shooting took place.

 

King told detectives she was posing with a rifle and aiming it directly at the victim, who was holding King’s phone for a Snapchat photo. She said that’s when she accidentally pulled the trigger, shooting Allen.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

13 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

why does anyone need a gun that has more than ten bullets?

 

Cause reloading at the range sucks?  In all seriousness, I wouldn't say anyone "needs" guns that hold more than 10 rounds.  Most likely "wants" fits that answer.  As Buzz stated though, depending on the type of gun you want, some are made to hold more rounds than others.  If you want a .45 caliber, a Colt .45 typically holds 8+1 (which is under 10 rounds).  

 

But if you want a 9mm, the Glock 19 holds anywhere from 15 to 33 rounds.  I'd imagine that it probably comes standard with a 15 or 17 round clip, but you can upgrade to clips that hold 33 rounds.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

a 10 round limit would mean that the parkland shooter, sandy hook shooter, ect,  would of had to reload constantly, that would have made a large impact on the amount of lives lost. Those guys aren’t manufacturing a special weapon clip....

 

I'm in favor of of stricter measures that allow one access to all guns along with common sense gun laws and stiffer penalties for parents/people that do not keep their **** locked up to prevent their firearms from being used in these horrible tragic events.  

 

I can honestly say that I am fine with limiting magazine capacity, not sure what that right number is though.  Because when you put some thought into it, the people that are committing these mass shootings are crazy, mentally ill, etc.  Troubled people that can murder or mass murder are going to find ways to do so.  Limit the magazines to 10 rounds, instead of using one 30 round clip, they pack three 10 round clips.  Or six 10 round clips instead of two 30 round ones.  

 

I'm not sure if you have ever fired a semi-automatic riffle or not, but changing out clips is extremely easy and fast, even for beginners/amateurs.  It really is as fast as pressing the button to release the empty magazine and popping a new one in place, talking 15-20 seconds tops, probably even faster if one wanted to.  Now will that extra 20 seconds save lives?  Just one life?  If yes, then it's definitely something to consider or implement.  

 

I think the where the shootings are taking place (schools, clubs, festivals, etc.) and the security measures in place to prevent them along with how this person got access to the firearm in the first place is a bigger problem than limiting magazine capacity (not dismissing this by any means).  It's a huge crowd of people in tight areas, in some cases, with no where to hide or get out of sight of these psychos.  

 

Something needs to be done though.  I worry about my daughter every day, at school, at the Dave and Busters with my wife, movies, etc.  Cause it could happen anywhere and anytime.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

It really is as fast as pressing the button to release the empty magazine and popping a new one in place, talking 15-20 seconds tops, probably even faster if one wanted to.

I'll try to remember test this when I get home.  I think estimate is way too long though.  I've never tried to purposly, quickly change out a magazine.  But I think even if I am just doing it at a normal pace, I don't think it takes that long.  I'd imagine that anyone, even an amateur, could do it in less than 5 seconds with maybe 30 minutes of practice.  If I remember, I'll let you know my results.

 

Edit:  Just to be clear, we are talking about changing out an already loaded magazine in an AR-15 style rifle, correct?

Edited January 16, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'll try to remember test this when I get home.  I think estimate is way too long though.  I've never tried to purposly, quickly change out a magazine.  But I think even if I am just doing it at a normal pace, I don't think it takes that long.  I'd imagine that anyone, even an amateur, could do it in less than 5 seconds with maybe 30 minutes of practice.  If I remember, I'll let you know my results.

 

Edit:  Just to be clear, we are talking about changing out an already loaded magazine in an AR-15 style rifle, correct?

 

I just target shoot for fun, so I've never paid any attention to that either, cause there is no need to rush.  But I know changing out clips on my handgun at the range couldn't take more than 10 seconds, since the next clip is already loaded and ready to go.  

 

And yes, it would be changing out a clip on any semi-automatic rifle with another loaded clip.  I couldn't imagine it taking longer than 20 seconds, especially if the person changing it wanted to go as fast as they could.  As you and anyone on here that owns guns and shoots guns knows, it's pretty much as easy as taking apart two Lego blocks and snapping another one on.  

[Chew]

Takes me about 3 seconds to swap mags in my pistols, 5 seconds with ARs.  Obviously I don't do tactical reloads very often when casually shooting at the range, but done enough to know it's that quick. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Chew

[twa]

a handgun is 2 or three seconds

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

And yes, it would be changing out a clip on any semi-automatic rifle with another loaded clip.  I couldn't imagine it taking longer than 20 seconds, especially if the person changing it wanted to go as fast as they could.  As you and anyone on here that owns guns and shoots guns knows, it's pretty much as easy as taking apart two Lego blocks and snapping another one on.  

I'll try it at home tonight.  Obviously with unloaded magazines for safety reasons.  But that shouldn't affect the time at all.  I'll let you know how it goes.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

5 minutes ago, Chew said:

Takes me about 3 seconds to swap mags in my pistols, 5 seconds with ARs.  Obviously I don't do tactical reloads very often when casually shooting at the range, but done enough to know it's that quick. 

 

I figured as much.  Like I said, I've never had a reason to time my reloads, so I went with a higher time estimate based on not rushing.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 to three seconds every 10 seconds is enough time to get away. Plus, your not counting the time it takes to grab it, and the fact that a mass shooter would have to carry around a lot of magazines that would weigh and slow him down 

 

[nonniey]

13 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

why does anyone need a gun that has more than ten bullets?

Well if you have more than 10 bullets don't you need a gun if you want to use them? What is the point to have bullets in the first place if you don't have a gun?☺️

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2 to three seconds every 10 seconds is enough time to get away. Plus, your not counting the time it takes to grab it, and the fact that a mass shooter would have to carry around a lot of magazines that would weigh and slow him down 

 

Well you are welcome to lobby for a 10 round limit but just remember how much something like that would motivate even more of the GOP base.  Better hope the Left's base gets just as motivated.  You are welcome to roll the dice, just don't cry when it comes up snake eyes.

 

EDIT:  Also, you are aware that carrying around six 10 round magazines would weigh virtually the same as two 30 round magazines, right?

Edited January 16, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2 to three seconds every 10 seconds is enough time to get away. Plus, your not counting the time it takes to grab it, and the fact that a mass shooter would have to carry around a lot of magazines that would weigh and slow him down 

 

 

Like I said, I'm fine with with limiting magazine capacity if it means saving lives.  The only inconvenience to me would be when I went to the range and wanted to shoot a gun that normally had more than 10 rounds.  And that can be solved by pre-loading more magazines ahead of time.  

 

But don't look past the point I made on the location of these shootings.  These mentally ill people are walking into schools and mass murdering.  A lot of those poor kids are trapped in classrooms, with no where to hide or run to.  Or at a church, just walking right in.  Or a club.  Some of these places are open and allow for an easier means of escaping or getting to a safe hiding spot.  A lot don't.  

 

I get the point you are making, on 2-3 seconds allowing possibly needed time to escape, so again, I'm not dismissing the plea to reduce magazine capacity.  Since it seems nothing is being done about it at all, we aren't likely going to get multiple courses of action at once.  Which is why I think if you had to pick one thing to focus on in the now, it would be protecting schools before reducing magazine capacity.  

 

As far as grabbing the clip and weighing one down, the weight of one loaded 10 round clip is not that much.  Even if they put six 10 round clips in their pockets, it's not going to slow them down.  

[tshile]

4 hours ago, twa said:

 

I agree on the two shot shotgun, on the others there is little difference with a unarmed captive audience...in fact the 50 round(or any extended) magazine is more likely to jam

 

Shhhh with your rational thoughts

 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I've never tried to purposly, quickly change out a magazine.  But I think even if I am just doing it at a normal pace, I don't think it takes that long.  I'd imagine that anyone, even an amateur, could do it in less than 5 seconds 

5 seconds sounds about right

 

i imagine failure rate inceasing is a legitimate thing to point to. 

 

“Time” is absolutely not. Hard to fathom anyone thinking it is has any real experience with handguns. 

 

neither is weight 

Edited January 16, 2019 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

neither is weight 

What makes the weight point even funnier to me is that more small magazines weigh the same as less large magazines.  Either way, 100 rounds (or whatever quantity) is 100 rounds.  The minimal amount of weight added by the slightly more plastic casing of the magazine is probably a few grams.