Tucson Arizona group trying to ban magazines to 10 rounds

fire suppressor · Jan 9, 2012

I was watching NWCN tonight and they had a story about the one year anniversary of the Tucson Arizona shooting, it had a very negative anti gun message. They showed pictures and videos of people holding candles and ringing bells while they recited gun related death and injury statistics and did nothing to cover the actual gathering held today in Tucson. The story focused on a Arizona biased group trying to get the federal government to restrict all magazines to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammo. The groups argument is because the shooter in Tucson was tackled during reloading fewer people would have been killed and injured if he was limited to how many rounds he could shoot. The story did not make it clear if survivor Governor Giffords would be supporting the group but anytime a politician as a reason to go after gun owners I get nervous. I could not find a video of the broadcast on the CWCN website only the link below, unfortunately the link below does not deal with the same issues the broadcast did. Something ells for us to watch out for http://www.nwcn.com/news/Giffords-Tucson-mark-1-year-since-deadly-rampage-136908153.html

amlevin · Jan 9, 2012

Yup! That'll do it. Prevent all that violence.

Do these morons think that will stop anyone from reloading? Ban mag capacity to 10 rounds and they'll just carry more.

But wait, there's more. Since these shooters are committing a criminal act anyway, what makes the idiots that want the ban think that anyone like this really gives a crap about their laws? They'll find "hi-cap" mags somewhere. It's not like they're scarce.

Difdi · Jan 9, 2012

I have no doubt at all that such a ban would help prevent folks who would never go on a shooting spree from going on a shooting spree. Of course, they wouldn't do that without the ban, but the sheer lack of shooting sprees by law-abiding citizens will be upheld by politicians as "proof" the ban is a total success!

Criminals, meanwhile, who are not noted for their respectful adherence to laws in general, will go right on possessing high capacity magazines. Murderers who are subject to execution for their crimes will, of course, respect a law that adds 5-10 years to their sentence, right?

If a homeowner who respects the law gets shot while reloading after shooting his 10 rounds by a home invader who uses a 50-round magazine and therefore doesn't need to reload as often? Oh well, a little collateral damage is to be expected when you're tough on crime, right?

John Hardin · Jan 9, 2012

...except that Loughner WASN'T tackled while reloading. He successfully reloaded and was tackled and disarmed when his gun JAMMED.

The "tackled while reloading" claim is an outright lie that should be disputed whenever it appears. Come on, people! If an article or comment says this, call them on it! Don't let that lie go unchallenged!

Metalhead47 · Jan 9, 2012

Of course, makes perfect sense really. Laws are so effective at preventing violence. Oh, wait, now that I think about it, the Columbine murderers were already in violation of numerous existing federal & state laws before they ever started shooting, and the most fired gun had 10-round magazines... nevermind, stupid facts.

fire suppressor · Jan 9, 2012

Metalhead47 said:
Of course, makes perfect sense really. Laws are so effective at preventing violence. Oh, wait, now that I think about it, the Columbine murderers were already in violation of numerous existing federal & state laws before they ever started shooting, and the most fired gun had 10-round magazines... nevermind, stupid facts.

+1

deepdiver · Jan 9, 2012

John Hardin said:
...except that Loughner WASN'T tackled while reloading. He successfully reloaded and was tackled and disarmed when his gun JAMMED.

Great, thanks for bringing up that! Now they are going to want a law that all guns manufactured after a certain date jam repeatedly!

o2ryan · Jan 9, 2012

I was part of a magazine band once, we only played covers.

FMCDH · Jan 9, 2012

*rolls eyes*

As I made perfectly clear to Inslee back when they made this same call last year, magazines, even extra or "extended" capacity magazines are not exactly rocket science to make.

A guy I knew in Alaska made a 23 round magazine for his 1911. All it took was 3 standard mags and a bit of careful welding and cutting. It worked like a charm, and it took him less than an afternoon to do it. He was working on welding together 3 double stack 9mm mags for an XD too, tho I never got to see it shoot.

Like everything else, a lack of education on the simple mechanics of firearms is one the faults that fuel these pipe dreams of legislating firearms to a point where they are unable to be abused by the wicked and determined.

amzbrady · Jan 9, 2012

I wonder if they would feel better to see people with 6, 10 round mags on their belt?

FMCDH · Jan 9, 2012

amzbrady said:
I wonder if they would feel better to see people with 6, 10 round mags on their belt?

Only to be followed next by a call to ban carry of more than 2 magazines. :uhoh:

FMJ 911 · Jan 10, 2012

Oh come on! This whole "No more than 10 rounds" thing is just plain stupid.

Look at the wars of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. Their guns held only a few rounds, and they could still cause massive damage! So again, these "Capacity Limiters" have no base to work off from.

The M1 Garand held only 8 rounds, The famous SMLE Rifle series held 10 rounds, and the Mauser 98 series of rifles held only 5, but you could do a lot with those 5 rounds!

I know, they had Machine-guns and other "Exotic" weapons, but the vast majority of fighting troops used the good ol' Infantry-Pattern Rifle. Whether it be a Bolt-Action, or Semi-Automatic.

For a very long time, most handguns held under 10 rounds. The Broom-Handle Mauser, was the only "Hi-Cap" until the 1930's, when the Browning Hi-Power came out. Even then, many Handguns never held more than 10 rounds.

It's not how MANY bullets you can carry, it's what you DO with those rounds.

amlevin · Jan 10, 2012

Difdi said:
Murderers who are subject to execution for their crimes will, of course, respect a law that adds 5-10 years to their sentence, right?

Someone once posted that we should execute using tree chippers. For most capital crimes it's "Head First" and for the especially heinous then "Feet First".

There's a part of me that can see the justice in that method given what's happening in society today.

Too bad the authors of the Constitution didn't word the "no cruel and unusual punishment" part to say "No more cruel or unusual than what was inflicted on victim(s)".

Difdi · Jan 10, 2012

amlevin said:
Too bad the authors of the Constitution didn't word the "no cruel and unusual punishment" part to say "No more cruel or unusual than what was inflicted on victim(s)".

Well, we know that hanging and the firing squad aren't considered cruel and unusual under the Constitution, because the one crime and punishment enumerated in the Constitution specifies those as punishments.

John Hardin · Jan 10, 2012

amlevin said:
Too bad the authors of the Constitution didn't word the "no cruel and unusual punishment" part to say "No more cruel or unusual than what was inflicted on victim(s)".

+1000

Superlite27 · Jan 10, 2012

It always amuses me when idiots try to require schizophrenic nutcases to make 1.3 second reloads during their mass killing sprees.

I hope they're happy when shooting 50 people takes 8 seconds longer than usual.

Hopefully, someone will ask them "Hey, anti-gun, high capacity magazine freaks, how do you think these lunatics will feel now that they are required by law to make a 2 second reload during their killing spree?" (which appear to also be illegal)

Or, here's a good one: "Hey Mr. Anti-gun high capacity magazine freak: If mass murders are illegal, why would a lunatic volunteer to follow your magazine ban when they could care less about killing as many people as possible?"

Is there some strange, alternate universe bubble that surrounds murder scenes that causes a mindless killer determined to end as many lives as possible regardless of the laws against it to care deeply about a law requiring him to take an extra two seconds to do so?

Hardbuck90 · Jan 10, 2012

John Hardin · Jan 11, 2012

Superlite27 said:
Or, here's a good one: "Hey Mr. Anti-gun high capacity magazine freak: If mass murders are illegal, why would a lunatic volunteer to follow your magazine ban when they could care less about killing as many people as possible?"

They seem to think that banning something will magically make it completely disappear from the entire world. :banghead::banghead:

deepdiver · Jan 11, 2012

It's like so many other things we see regulated... Someone who doesn't know anything about the matter made up a number for an agenda item. Why not 7 rounds, like the venable 1911? Or 9 rounds so you end up (9+1) with 10 in a fully loaded sidearm. Or 12 rounds, a nice even dozen. Just making up stuff. ..

PavePusher · Jan 12, 2012

fire suppressor said:
I was watching NWCN tonight and they had a story about the one year anniversary of the Tucson Arizona shooting, it had a very negative anti gun message. They showed pictures and videos of people holding candles and ringing bells while they recited gun related death and injury statistics and did nothing to cover the actual gathering held today in Tucson. The story focused on a Arizona biased group trying to get the federal government to restrict all magazines to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammo. The groups argument is because the shooter in Tucson was tackled during reloading fewer people would have been killed and injured if he was limited to how many rounds he could shoot. The story did not make it clear if survivor Governor Giffords would be supporting the group but anytime a politician as a reason to go after gun owners I get nervous. I could not find a video of the broadcast on the CWCN website only the link below, unfortunately the link below does not deal with the same issues the broadcast did. Something ells for us to watch out for http://www.nwcn.com/news/Giffords-Tucson-mark-1-year-since-deadly-rampage-136908153.html

Minor correction... she was/is not "Governor"...

Tucson Arizona group trying to ban magazines to 10 rounds

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member