Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer dead

Discuss political news items / current events.
Post Reply
User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer dead

Post by gclayjr »

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how many shots someone may need to kill an intruder if necessary. What seems to be lost in this discussion is the idea that many citizens, when encountering an attacker or intruder, will fire warning shots to scare the attacker away(often successfully) rather than kill the attacker or intruder.

If the government demands smaller magazines, will such citizens be as likely to "waste" precious shots firing warnng shots as before?

Unintended consequence?

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by marc »

I don't visualize assault weapons being used against a single intruder or even less than a handful of intruders. I visualize an assault weapon used against an invading tyrannical force.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by lundbaek »

I agree with coachmarc on this one. I suspect there are many forum members who can envision several different possible invasion forces, including other Americans.

Seek the Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by Seek the Truth »

The answer is all of the above.

"Long gun" deaths account for usually less than 5% of homicides in any given year, AR 15s being a fraction of that even. Mass killing is less than 1% of all homicides, and about 1/3 of those include long guns. So as far as the AR mag issue is concerned it is completely statistically insignificant one way or the other. You are more likely to be killed by lightning than someone using a 30 rd AR mag.

The point there is that most gun uses defensively and offensively are handguns. The current training people suggest NOT to use a long gun in the house because of getting around corners and so forth, the potential for a gun grab. If you go out of the house, bring that rifle.

The magazine issue is a complete red herring. Criminals will still obtain them while poor saps obeying the law won't. There are no statistically significant AR standoff shooting incidents to study from. All I know is the military and police use 30 rd mags, not 10, not 100, because that is the ideal configuration of steady fire and practicality. Having said that there are cases where you may want a 100 rd drum.

The bottom line is it's all stupid, and any free man should be able to choose for themselves what is the best way to defend their homes and families, just as the military and police do, includuing fully auto machine guns let alone "high capacity" magazines.

MsEva
captain of 100
Posts: 977

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by MsEva »

coachmarc wrote:I don't visualize assault weapons being used against a single intruder or even less than a handful of intruders. I visualize an assault weapon used against an invading tyrannical force.
+10
:ymapplause: :ymapplause: Exactly! You and other people HERE(on this forum) have a greater insight to things than a few people I know!
Seek the Truth wrote:The answer is all of the above.

"Long gun" deaths account for usually less than 5% of homicides in any given year, AR 15s being a fraction of that even. Mass killing is less than 1% of all homicides, and about 1/3 of those include long guns. So as far as the AR mag issue is concerned it is completely statistically insignificant one way or the other. You are more likely to be killed by lightning than someone using a 30 rd AR mag.

The point there is that most gun uses defensively and offensively are handguns. The current training people suggest NOT to use a long gun in the house because of getting around corners and so forth, the potential for a gun grab. If you go out of the house, bring that rifle.

The magazine issue is a complete red herring. Criminals will still obtain them while poor saps obeying the law won't. There are no statistically significant AR standoff shooting incidents to study from. All I know is the military and police use 30 rd mags, not 10, not 100, because that is the ideal configuration of steady fire and practicality. Having said that there are cases where you may want a 100 rd drum.

The bottom line is it's all stupid, and any free man should be able to choose for themselves what is the best way to defend their homes and families, just as the military and police do, includuing fully auto machine guns let alone "high capacity" magazines.
+10
Last edited by MsEva on January 17th, 2013, 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ktg
captain of 100
Posts: 840

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by ktg »

Those pushing for gun control know that it won't stop these shootings. That isn't their REAL goal. They plan to take our rights a little at a time. They'll get assault weapons and hi-capacity magazines banned and the shootings will continue. Then they'll say they need to go further, etc.... They want total gun bans and confiscation.

jeanpierre
captain of 100
Posts: 269

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by jeanpierre »

I fear the frequency of attacks on innocent people will increase because of increased desperation by the dark side of government to drive the gun ban agenda. I also expect the government will classify semiautomatic firearms and multiple capacity ammunition feeding devices as Title 2 National Firearms Act items under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Semiautomatics and high capacity magazines could be acquired only with great difficulty and at great expense by America’s estimated 100 million law-abiding firearms owners. Bringing semi-autos under Title 2 would be justified because they will claim semi-autos could be easily converted to full automatic. This would put semi-autos into the Class 3 category requiring a special fee and permit from the ATF, just like you have to do to possess an automatic weapon. And I am fearful that states and counties that resist new infringements on the RKBA will be confronted with military force to enforce them.

MsEva
captain of 100
Posts: 977

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by MsEva »

jeanpierre wrote:I fear the frequency of attacks on innocent people will increase because of increased desperation by the dark side of government to drive the gun ban agenda. I also expect the government will classify semiautomatic firearms and multiple capacity ammunition feeding devices as Title 2 National Firearms Act items under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Semiautomatics and high capacity magazines could be acquired only with great difficulty and at great expense by America’s estimated 100 million law-abiding firearms owners. Bringing semi-autos under Title 2 would be justified because they will claim semi-autos could be easily converted to full automatic. This would put semi-autos into the Class 3 category requiring a special fee and permit from the ATF, just like you have to do to possess an automatic weapon. And I am fearful that states and counties that resist new infringements on the RKBA will be confronted with military force to enforce them.

I agree with you.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Guns: Smaller Magazines...Maybe more rather than fewer d

Post by gclayjr »

Do you think they are going for smaller magazines only for rifles?

Regards,

George Clay

Post Reply