or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Take all of the guns. All of them. - Page 97

post #1441 of 1721

Quote:

Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

Bump.

Can we talk about high capacity magazines? What's the point of having a high capacity magazine on your AR15 unless you're shooting up a nightclub? Is it really going to save you in a home defense situation?

I'm interested in hearing someone defend them. Usually the argument on this forum is "it doesn't really make anyone safer and just takes away something useful from civilians" but I am having trouble seeing why it wouldn't make these mass shootings less tragic without really inconveniencing lawful gun owners.

 

That guy didn't shoot 100+ people using one magazine.  That means he had to reload.  No one stopped him while he was reloading, so what makes you think a 5 round magazine would have changed anything?

post #1442 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

I guess I mean 30 round magazines which Ataturk corrected me already - those are standard capacity.

Still, why need more than 10 rounds?

Why need 10?
post #1443 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Quote:

That guy didn't shoot 100+ people using one magazine.  That means he had to reload.  No one stopped him while he was reloading, so what makes you think a 5 round magazine would have changed anything?

You don't think having to reload more often would make a difference? 30 rounds is a lot more than ten. Having to reload five times to make 60 shots vs reloading once seems like it would make a difference.
post #1444 of 1721
Um, guys, one doesn't "reload" one changes the magazine and one has multiple magazines on them. Also, you duct tape two magazines so you just pop out, turn over and insert, then rack.

I totally get the egregious nature of high capacity mags. I hate when some Bubba moronically grins at the camera and unloads 30 rounds from his Glock on youtube. But the magazines are not the problem.
post #1445 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Why need 10?

I've never been in a home invasion situation nor a hunt not protected myself in an armed mugging, so I don't know. I've never shot a handgun either. Still, 10 seems like a reasonable number in a protection or hunting scenario.

BTW before Harvey shows up to call me a socialist fuckpig, I don't have my mind made up, I'm pretty pro gun, and I'm just trying to think this through.
post #1446 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Um, guys, one doesn't "reload" one changes the magazine and one has multiple magazines on them. Also, you duct tape two magazines so you just pop out, turn over and insert, then rack.

I totally get the egregious nature of high capacity mags. I hate when some Bubba moronically grins at the camera and unloads 30 rounds from his Glock on youtube. But the magazines are not the problem.

My point is that maybe they could be part of the problem and maybe one which could have an effect without really taking anyone's freedoms away.
post #1447 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

I've never been in a home invasion situation nor a hunt not protected myself in an armed mugging, so I don't know. I've never shot a handgun either. Still, 10 seems like a reasonable number in a protection or hunting scenario.

BTW before Harvey shows up to call me a socialist fuckpig, I don't have my mind made up, I'm pretty pro gun, and I'm just trying to think this through.

And if we limit them to 10, I'm sure that's where it will all end. It will be the last time we hear of more restrictive gun laws. And of course we will see a drastic decrease in gun violence all because of this restriction.

FYI, my dealer told me that one of his distributors sold 170,000 p mags today.
post #1448 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

My point is that maybe they could be part of the problem and maybe one which could have an effect without really taking anyone's freedoms away.

I think instead of getting off 200 rounds maybe it'll slow them down to 150 type thing. A person can get pretty proficient at swapping mags with just a little practice. Another way around it to just carry a few more guns loaded with the duct taped mags I mentioned above.

I get how having high capacity mags seems egregious and off putting and how folks might think banning them would materially help. Me personally I can't see how if this guy managed to only kill 30 people would have been that much better than managing to kill the 50 he did, and as mentioned, if I can come up with some workarounds from my limited knowledge imagine what a motivated person could come up with.
post #1449 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

My point is that maybe they could be part of the problem and maybe one which could have an effect without really taking anyone's freedoms away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

You don't think having to reload more often would make a difference? 30 rounds is a lot more than ten. Having to reload five times to make 60 shots vs reloading once seems like it would make a difference.

I don't think it would make a difference. The guy probably swapped magazines 10-20 times. No one stopped any of those times. Why would doubling or tripping that number make a difference? Drum magazines holding 50 or 100 rounds are common, but you never hear about people using those in these situations.

Why are you anchored to 10? Revolvers historically have been 6. Shotguns often less than that.

Maybe we should go back to muzzleload only.

Limiting magazines is reducing freedom definitionally.
post #1450 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

And if we limit them to 10, I'm sure that's where it will all end. It will be the last time we hear of more restrictive gun laws. And of course we will see a drastic decrease in gun violence all because of this restriction.

That's not the discussion I'm trying to have. I know the left wants to ban guns outright. I think it's very clear. if it's a decision between hi cap mags and banned guns, I'll choose hi cap mags.
That doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile question.
post #1451 of 1721
Don't forget if you ban them they are really easy to make, 3d print or just buy on a secondary market because there are probably 10s of millions in circulation.
post #1452 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


I don't think it would make a difference. The guy probably swapped magazines 10-20 times. No one stopped any of those times. Why would doubling or tripping that number make a difference? Drum magazines holding 50 or 100 rounds are common, but you never hear about people using those in these situations.

Why are you anchored to 10? Revolvers historically have been 6. Shotguns often less than that.

Maybe we should go back to muzzleload only.

Limiting magazines is reducing freedom definitionally.

I'm not anchored to 10. I'm asking what people with more knowledge about firearm use than I have think is a number that's worth having in a real life situation in which a gun is necessary.

If he did reload 10-20 times, that is a good argument. Is it true?

And yes, another restriction is limiting freedom, but I meant freedom as in using a gun as a tool in any likely or unlikely scenario rather than "FREEDOM".
post #1453 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

I'm not anchored to 10. I'm asking what people with more knowledge about firearm use than I have think is a number that's worth having in a real life situation in which a gun is necessary.

If he did reload 10-20 times, that is a good argument. Is it true?

And yes, another restriction is limiting freedom, but I meant freedom as in using a gun as a tool in any likely or unlikely scenario rather than "FREEDOM".

Yes it is true. The guy didn't shoot 100 people with 100 rounds. He likely shot 4-5 times for every person he hit. That would be 400-500 rounds. Divide that by thirty and you get 14-17 magazines. That's assuming he was using 30 round magazines rather than 20 which is also common (less common than 30 though). It doesn't sound like he used his pistol, but that would have probably held 10-14 rounds per magazine.
post #1454 of 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Yes it is true. The guy didn't shoot 100 people with 100 rounds. He likely shot 4-5 times for every person he hit. That would be 400-500 rounds. Divide that by thirty and you get 14-17 magazines. That's assuming he was using 30 round magazines rather than 20 which is also common (less common than 30 though). It doesn't sound like he used his pistol, but that would have probably held 10-14 rounds per magazine.

You don't think it would have been better if he had been carrying 14-17 10-round magazines? You can only carry so many magazines at once, no? 17 magazines is a lot to carry on your person, and if it took 500 rounds to kill 50 people, wouldn't it be better if we were able to limit the amount of rounds a person could easily carry on their person at once?
post #1455 of 1721
Why need a 30 round mag? Ask the cops. Why do they use them?

100 round mags are the true "high capacity" mags. And only fucking idiots use them because they jam all the time. This ISIS retard was smarter than that fucktard Holmes who used a 100 round mag which did exactly that. 100 round mags should be encouraged for these morons because they never work.

A ban on true "high capacity" mags would result in more deaths, not less. Unintended consequences are not unforeseen consequences.

And Jesus fuck, Piob, only amateurs duct tape mags over-under. Hitting a table or anything with the lower mag while you're shooting shit up will fuck up the top of the mag (upside down with the duct tape) and will fail to load when you switch them out.

And yes, you're a socialist fuckpig for even asking this stupid fucking question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.