The shooter fired 31 shots from an extended clip.

[RandySF]

Just how big was that clip and it legal???

[CountAllVotes]

1. it is legal only in AZ I was told

Otherwise it is not legal to have one of these in your possession.

That said, how many was he really planning to kill with this "magazine" (as they are called)? I believe it was a hell of a lot more than just one as we already know!

:grr:

:kick:

[LiberalEsto]

What isn't legal in AZ?

Nukes?

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Mexicans

[Agent William]

9. +1

Nice

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Ka-blammo

[slackmaster]

8. Not true. I own a 31-round Glock magazine legally, in California.

Mine is "grandfathered" because I bought it before California's ban on new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

They're available in nearly all states, and can be sold by mail-order except to places where they are prohibited.

[CountAllVotes]

16. goody for you

n/t

[slackmaster]

17. Back at you

[CreekDog]

20. i won't question the legality of your ownership of a 31 round magazine

but i will question the wisdom.

[slackmaster]

23. Please take a look at my profile before you start impugning my "wisdom"

The large Glock magazine is an item I bought because both the federal government and my state were making moves toward prohibiting the manufacture or importation of new ones.

My gun collection is a portion of my retirement savings. The value of a collectible item is inversely correlated with its availability.

[CreekDog]

24. my statement stands

your collection notwithstanding.

[slackmaster]

25. What's unwise about me owning it?

Please explain yourself.

[CreekDog]

26. a weapon capable of that much destruction?

should only be accompanied by the need for it. and there isn't.

again, collection value notwithstanding.

[slackmaster]

27. The collection value is the ONLY reason I own that, or most of what is in my collection

I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's the way it is and that's how it's going to be.

[X_Digger]

28. And who's the Secretary of Need?

Did the president have to do a recess appointment for that spot?

[CreekDog]

29. you're wasting your time if you think it's fruitful to discuss ownership of his weapon

i know where rationalization of such ownership has gotten us though.

[X_Digger]

30. Perhaps you missed my point, let me reverse it..

By what justification would you prohibit this magazine?

That's how the law works- things aren't illegal by default, and you must justify 'allowing' them.

How often are large magazines involved in crimes, compared to non-criminal uses? Surely you can find a decrease in their incidence in crime during the '94-'04 "assault weapons ban", right?

[SteveM]

66. Tell us about your mysterious "rationalization of such ownership."

Just what has it "gotten us" when 2 thugs in California, using TRUE FULL-AUTO AK-47s, were unable to kill anyone in a battle with cops? When Cho killed more at Virginia Tech using one gun with a smaller magazine? When thousands have been killed in Central African countries with machetes during tribal and civil conflicts?

You are right, however, that it is "wasting time" talking to a wall of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[CreekDog]

73. well how easy was it for thugs to get assault weapons in a society where they are so available?

and do i really feel safer knowing that their opponents are as well armed?

not really.

but find the silver lining that rationalizes keeping these things legal. you certainly are good at it!

[oneshooter]

78. "Assault Weapons" Do you know anything about which you speak? n/t

[CreekDog]

83. don't make this about terminology

i'm referring to any gun that is able to kill many of people quickly.

[X_Digger]

84. That is any gun other than a derringer, single shot shotgun, or bolt action rifle.

'Terminology' is important when you're making broad sweeping statements like that.

[CreekDog]

85. well by saying that, you support banning of some types of guns

right? just as long as they are the ones you think are appropriate to ban.

[X_Digger]

86. No, I was merely adding reality to your broad-brush statement.

If you don't have the technical expertise to express yourself correctly, don't take those actually explaining the impact of your statements as endorsements.

[CreekDog]

87. Not willing to ban a single, solitary gun

well there you are.

no point in discussing anything with you.

[X_Digger]

90. That's your definition of 'reasonable'? Thanks for confirming it. n/t

[CreekDog]

91. i never used the word "reasonable"

next time respond to the poster you are referring to.

[X_Digger]

92. By the logic you expressed in post 85, that makes you 'unreasonable' then?

Let me state it clearly- I don't think there is a single firearm for sale legally today that should be banned. Certainly not the majority of weapons, as your proposal would do.

I'm surprised you haven't come up with the 'mustkets and flintlocks' canard yet. That seems to be the next step in posters who come up with such ideas here in the gungeon.

[CreekDog]

93. are you willing to ban even one type/kind/even model of gun?

even just one? or not? so far you refuse to say you will even ban one.

if that really is the case, then yes, it is pointless to have any discussion with you.

which is why i'm asking.

[X_Digger]

94. Did I stutter?

Let me state it clearly- I don't think there is a single firearm for sale legally today that should be banned.

Actually, I'll revise that. I think sound suppressors shouldn't be restricted, they should be available over the counter, as they are in much of europe.

[CreekDog]

95. okay this is a waste of time

just giving it one more chance to be sure.

thanks anyway.

[PavePusher]

101. In other words...

you got no game and no facts, so now you're gonna go pout.

Now why hasn't that debate strategy ever been a winner...?

[CreekDog]

109. don't misrepresent me, i've been debating here in this forum continuously

but i'd rather spend my time with people who there's a point in discussing with.

and you, unwilling to entertain any restrictions, are not one of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. What would banning 'even just one' accomplish?

Besides pissing off 'the right' and losing us the Senate too?

It's certainly not going to protect anyone from anything.

[GreenStormCloud]

107. There are some that ARE already banned.

He is not willing to ADD to the list. He is NOT arguing for any to be removed from the list.

[S_B_Jackson]

108. Ok, you've convinced me.....

your arguments are so persuasive that I'm willing to ban the unlicensed possession of a Lahti 20mm Anti-Tank Rifle

[Callisto32]

97. I am not willing to ban ANY item.

Rather, the ban should be on certain kinds of behaviors.

Will you have a conversation with me about the issues, or will you be happy just declaring your position superior to mine without any discussion and patting yourself on the back?

[oneshooter]

88. OK, how about a howitzer. Legal to own, slow rate of fire, massive damage capability

perfectly legal to own without government permission.

Would you be for banning such a weapon?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[CreekDog]

89. i don't know what specific weapons should be banned

but the idea that none that are called "guns" should be banned is ridiculous.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Ugh, seriously? Howitzers?

First off, not banned.
Second, not 'firearms'.


Ordnance like this has been carefully regulated as a Destructive Device, not a Firearm, for nearly a century.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. So all of them, then?

Because that's every last one. It can even be done with black powder.

[SteveM]

64. I think you are searching for enemies. nt

[CreekDog]

74. I'm searching for people willing to make responsible choices

and not arm themselves to the hilt and support companies that profit off having as many people as possible do just that.

[slackmaster]

77. I'm not armed, CreekDog. I own a 31-round Glock magazine. It's kept locked up in a big safe.

Bolted to the floor of my house.

[oneshooter]

79. I on the other hand am armed. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Nope, vast majority of the US states allow them

[RSillsbee]

34. Well, you were told wrong NT

[itsrobert]

2. Probably a 30 round clip

with 1 round already locked and loaded. If the shooter tried to put 31 rounds in a 30 round clip that could be a possible caused of the malfunction of the weapon when he attempted reloading.

[aikoaiko]

3. Its legal in AZ and in most states.

Its about double the capacity of a standard Glock 17 magazine.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Thanks a pantload, NRA!

Legal or not, they're still readily available, and the armaments industry wouldn't have it any other way. After all, who are we to infringe upon gawd-given rights to carry a weapon with a 31-round clip anywhere & everywhere?

[lawodevolution]

39. So I guess you don't approve of my 75 round AK47 magazine

[oneshooter]

43. Or the 250rd belts for my semi-auto 1919a2? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I carry a total of 46 rounds at all times.

Granted, I carry 3 15 round magazines, and one in the chamber, but still.

'gawd' has nothing to do with it.

[SteveM]

67. Solution to extended magazine ban: more magazines. nt

[moondust]

5. And he had another clip with him.

But was apparently subdued before he got that far.

[X_Digger]

6. Only 11 or so states have any restriction on magazine size.

Not that it matters-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477191684809913367#

[somone]

10. This long:

[slackmaster]

18. Not at all easy to conceal

I've never used mine. It seems kind of ridiculous.

[lawodevolution]

40. now that the gun control authoritarians are zeroing in on the large cap magazines

people will be buying them by the thousands, thus proliferating them to a level never seen before similar to how the Brady Campaign and other gun control groups have helped guns proliferate to a level never before seen in the USA where soon there will be more guns than people. Guns and accessories sales people of the century should go to the Brady campaign. Also it seems everyone I know now has an "assault rifle" when before only the odd enthusiast had one. Good job Brady Campaign, you mainstreamed the AK47 and AR15.

[Tejas]

11. Ban fast cars!

With speed limits on our roads, what good is a Corvette anyway?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Glock makes 33 round clip that will fit that handgun

There are 3rd party ones as well. http://www.pistolcraft.com/hicap.htm for those that want to see what is out there.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. isn't it great?

I feel so much safer knowing that a fucking nut job can walk around with a concealed glock and multiple 31 round clips and not violate any laws at all (at least in Arizona.)

Yes for sure this is our last line of defense against tyranny.

[slackmaster]

19. The shooter in yesterday's incident violated numerous Arizona state laws

:argh:

[CreekDog]

21. not until it was too late

:(

[slackmaster]

22. Criminal laws are always and will always be "too late" to prevent crimes from happening

That's the way things work.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. well then why bother with these ineffective laws at all?

[SteveM]

69. Like the movies, "this is where we came in," Warren. Give us some answers.

[PavePusher]

102. Because laws set up the legal conditions to punish those who cause harm...

with good justification (i.e. self-defense).

[SteveM]

68. What would you have done to prevent it's being "too late?" nt

[one-eyed fat man]

32. a fucking nut job

killed 87 people with a bucks worth of regular and two matches.

That's the problem with fucking nut jobs. No one seems to notice what fucking nut jobs they are until AFTER they commit some insane act.

Then it seems everyone who knew him since grade school is saying "he" always was a little strange...

Certainly we get all these folks after the tragedy, who proceed to "connect the dots" to show the rest of us how some loser left a trail of evidence that somehow predicted the irrational act that the "authorities" were derelict in not finding.

Everyday we drive down roads traveling 100 feet in the space of an eye blink trusting the person on the other side of a yellow paint line will not suddenly take it into his head to ram us head on.

The police are extremely good at preventing crime in their presence. Even some lunatics won't do something with a cop standing there. Otherwise, all they do is take reports, and call someone to clean up the mess.

That's the problem with fucking wackos, laws, rules, reason or common sense don't seem to have any affect on their behavior.

How would YOU design a ban on "nut jobs?"

[Warren Stupidity]

36. I can't ban nut jobs.

Here is what I can do:

1) start refunding mental health services
2) re-instate bans on concealed carry
3) ban the sale and possession of concealable semi-automatic weapons (glock class devices).

Yes it will not prevent all nut jobs from committing nut jobbery. Just because we cannot prevent all harm from occurring does not mean we should not try to prevent some harm from occurring.

Oh and arrest Palin et al for inciting violence.

[one-eyed fat man]

37. Explain to me please!!!!!

How do you keep fucking nut jobs from carrying concealed anyway?

How fucking nuts would a fucking nut job have to be to say, "Damn, I can't commit this murder I am planning because I might get in trouble for concealing my weapon?" Are you requiring that all future nut jobs will be both crazy and stupid?

Oh, and just come straight out and call all "glock class devices" what they really are,handguns. What you want is a complete handgun ban.

"Just because we cannot prevent all harm from occurring does not mean we should not try to prevent some harm from occurring."

I could use your approach to the problem to stop rape in one generation. Kill every male baby at birth. Oh, some might get killed who never would have been rapists, but that's just the price they have to bear.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Nothing is perfect.

What I am against is making it massively easy for them to do so.

[SteveM]

70. You said it best: "I can't ban nut jobs." (that's because bans don't work)

[one-eyed fat man]

76. What is easier than arson?

Flying an airplane into a building?

Deliberately driving into a crowd?

Same difference!

Oh, wait, a car was not designed to kill.................



That must have been a BIG consolation to the dead and maimed bicyclists.

No doubt the grieving relatives and survivors are suppressing their desire to crush the car instead of lynching the driver.

[PavePusher]

103. Ah, yes. Having a law makes breaking that law difficult.

Circular logic, much?

[YllwFvr]

105. a total ban, yes that works

ask Jamaica how they are doing, let me know what you find

[gravity556]

38. re:I can't ban nut jobs.

Except for the neat little fact that criminals, by definition, break the law. So the only people you would disarm are the law abiding, leaving them at the mercy of armed law breakers. The criminals will ALWAYS have guns. For an advance preview of what happens when there are armed criminals and unarmed citizens, see also; Chicago, Detroit, DC, and for a look at the 10 year plan, northern Mexico.

No freaking thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. so you are in favor of nuts with concealed glocks?

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I'm in favor of you not stripping my ability to do something about it.

I am a lawful gun owner. I conceal carry. I do not, nor have I ever caused problems.

Do not attempt to disarm me.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. so no license, anyone can carry?

[AtheistCrusader]

57. In my state, a license is required.

Consists of a background check, including fingerprints, performed by the FBI and State Patrol, and a 70$ fee.

This clown probably would have been rejected, in my state.


Your turn: Without that law, do you think he would have left his gun at home? I mean really, does a car bomber really care if he's double-parked?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. does a car bomber really care if he's double-parked?

if he is a smart car bomber he does. The laws against double parking allow law enforcement to inspect the double parked vehicle and question its occupants. This may not prevent all suicide bombers who double park, but it will prevent some suicide bombers who double park.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. By all means, point one out, that was caught for such.

The one they found 'smoking' in New York was a total failure to ignite.

I can think of no incidents of a car bomb being discovered prior to detonation due to a parking infraction.

I will accept any single example.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. smoking and illegally parked. nt.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. It was smoking because it didn't properly detonate.

Meaning, it arrived on target, on time, and 'went off', it was just a dud. So parking enforcement didn't save anyone.

I found two in the UK that support this theory, towed vehicles that were discovered to be bombs and defuzed before detonation. I had to go outside the US to find an instance of this occurring though.

[Katya Mullethov]

96. The sytem worked !

Now , how about a Freedom Pat , honey ?

[one-eyed fat man]

82. You really must need some caffeine!

"The laws against double parking allow law enforcement to inspect the double parked vehicle and question its occupants."

"...prevent some suicide bombers who double park."

This only works on suicide bombers who aren't willing to commit suicide when they trigger the bomb. I, for one, would be hard pressed to find something more likely to send a suicide bomber into paroxysms of glee and a self-atomizing frenzy than have a cop tap on his window to ask to see his proof of insurance.

The last time the United States faced a really determined number of suicide bombers was in 1945. In six weeks off Okinawa 1500 Kamikaze cost the Navy more ships and men than the rest of the Pacific campaign up to that point in the war.

No law, rule, or ban you can contrive will deter him. There is absolutely no effective counter to someone who is planning to die for for his cause except to discover his intent and grant him his wish before he gets close enough to take out his objective.

[SteveM]

71. Well, in Vermont, any sane, non-felon can carry. HUGE CRIME RATE.

And it's been that way for many, many years.

[PavePusher]

104. Works for Vermont. For over 200 years, please note. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

63. Apparently, the day the were doing NICS checks

Claire Vuoyant, the clerk in charge of future crimes, was unable to come to the telephone. As a result a low level loser was under the radar until he became a highly notorious loser.

Richard Lawrence, not only failed at his big bid for glory, Andrew Jackson himself chased and beat his erstwhile assassin down with his cane.

Charles Julius Guiteau was a loser lawyer.

Leon Frank Czolgosz was a loser.

John Flammang Schrank was a failed saloon-keeper.

Giuseppe Zangara, a deranged bricklayer who envied those who had more than he did.

Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, Puerto Rican pro-independence activists, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, attempted to kill Truman

Richard Paul Pavlick. Pavlick's plan was to serve as a suicide bomber by crashing his dynamite-laden 1950 Buick into Kennedy's vehicle

Samuel Byck apparently planned to kill Nixon by crashing a commercial airliner into the White House.

Lynette Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, drew a Colt M1911 .45 caliber pistol on Gerald Ford when he reached to shake her hand in a crowd.

The idiot Hinckley and his bid to impress Jodie Foster.

Out of that list of assassins, and would be assassins, by no means exhaustive, the only two who were acting to forward a political agenda, were the Puerto Rican pro-independence activists. The rest were listening to the voices in their heads.

So how loony does a nut-case need to be before you are ready to lock them up. If they are not provably nuts enough to lock up, what other rights are you willing to deny them?

How many eccentric losers never harm anyone for every unhinged lunatic decides to make himself famous?

[lawodevolution]

41. "Here is what I can do" Sorry, #2 and #3, you can't do, ok.

You will not ban concealed carry and you will not ban semi-automatic weapons. I just want you to be read when you fail so it doesn't affect your mental health.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. I just want you to be coherent while you rant.

" I just want you to be read when you fail so it doesn't affect your mental health.'
eh?

Automatic weapons are banned and many states ban concealed carry - so actually we can do both 2 and 3.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Automatic weapons are not banned, and only 2 states ban concealed carry.

You are entitled to your opinion, not made up facts.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Full auto banned for most people since 1934

yes the ban is not total. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Concealed Carry with a permit: I'm fine with that but think the permits should be based on justified need.
The vast majority of states that allow concealed carry require a permit.

Concealed Carry no permit: the stupid in full.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Wrong again.

Full Auto was controlled by the 1934 NFA, to require a 200$ tax stamp, and registration. That is not a ban.

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment closed the registry so no new firearms can be added to the registry. Sort-of a ban, kinda, except all the fully automatic weapons registered prior to 1986, are still in lawful circulation, per the stipulations of the 1934 NFA.

[oneshooter]

80. Are you fine with a test to proove that you "need" to vote? n/t

[Straw Man]

110. Need.

Concealed Carry with a permit: I'm fine with that but think the permits should be based on justified need.

OK, I'll bite: Will the permit bureau employ a clarivoyant who will lay hands on applicants to determine whether they will someday be the victim of a violent crime?

[kudzu22]

62. If by "many" you mean "two".

Only IL and WI have no concealed carry permit process.

[YllwFvr]

106. and wisconsin allows open carry

so its not like there is no carry at all

[Euromutt]

44. You missed a point: repealing the Fourth Amendment

See, you can ban carrying in public--openly or concealed--and you can even totally ban possession of handguns, but the problem is that in practice there's little chance of detecting the fact that a guy with intent to assassinate a public figure or a government official has a gun on his person until he draws it and discharges it, even if you don't have a restriction against randomly stopping and searching people on the street.

Volkert van der Graaf apparently possessed his handgun (illegally) for several years, but nobody knew he had it until he drew it and shot populist politican Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Similarly, nobody was aware Mohammed Bouyeri was illegally carrying a handgun until he drew it and shot Theo van Gogh to death in 2004, nor did anybody notice Gavrilo Princip was illegally carrying a handgun before he drew it and killed Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand and Arch-Duchess Sophie in 1914. Nor were the British able to curtail the activities of the IRA assassination unit known as "The Squad" (aka the "Twelve Apostles"), who murdered a number of plainclothes and covert security personnel--particularly "G men," members of G Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police--during 1919 and 1920, culminating in "Bloody Sunday," November 21st 1920, when "The Squad" assassinated 14 (pro-)British operatives (including MI5 agents, Royal Irish Constabulary plainclothes personnel, one civilian informant and two members of the RIC "Auxiliary Division") and wounded another six.

History is littered with examples of people getting hold of handguns--even where possession of such was strictly outlawed--and then using those guns to commit assassinations without anyone with an interest in preventing it ever seeing it coming, even in jurisdictions (such as Nazi-occupied Europe) in which random stops and searches were commonplace.

So you can argue that "just because we cannot prevent all harm from occurring does not mean we should not try to prevent some harm from occurring," but the question that raises is how much harm you're actually going to prevent from occurring, and how much harm you're going to facilitate by depriving law-abiding citizens of the means to defend themselves. Frankly, item 1) is the only one that's likely to do a net amount of good, if you ask me.

[Katya Mullethov]

65. We like to call this ......... "The Freedom Pat "

Now , arms out , turn your head and cough please .

[kudzu22]

61. One out of three

#1 - absolutely, hear hear!
#2 - probably won't happen, the trend is in the opposite direction. Besides, it would have done exactly nothing to prevent this tragedy.
#3 - I wouldn't even support this, and it likely wouldn't withstand constitutional scrutiny, given the recent Heller and McDonald rulings.

Unfortunately the only way to prevent this sort of thing is metal detectors at all political events.

[-..__...]

15. Personally...

I'm not a big fan of over extended pistol magazines... they're too unwieldy and add too much weight.

However... in no way would I want to see them banned or regulated.

[oneshooter]

31. Gee I guess that my semi auto 1919a2 .....

with a 250rd belt will scare everybody to death, without firing a shot!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. I have one in the glovebox of my car.

Loaded full of Federal HST hollow points.

If I ever have to reach for a spare magazine... I want the mag to be HUGE.

[GSLevel9]

35. btw...

the time lost to load a new magazine on a Glock is approx 2 seconds to the average user, half that time for a pro.

The whole concept of limiting magazine capacity is illogical and knee-jerk.

[lawodevolution]

42. and in 2 seconds

you will not be able to disable him before he starts shooting again. What allowed the shooting to stop was the jam, which glocks almost never do and can be attributed to the magazine he used. Anyone who knows anything about the 30+ cap magazines for pistols know they are not to be trusted if you life depends on it.

[Hoyt]

45. We need to make carrying in public like smoking a big, stinking cigar or drinking/driving.

[SteveM]

72. If it's concealed, how would you adjudge the size and stink?

[RamboLiberal]

52. And for those focused on the mag capacity

There is nothing to prevent a mass shooter from bringing a 2nd gun or a 3rd gun, etc. This shooter bought 2 guns from info I've seen but only brought the Glock - no info on the other gun yet. The Virginia Tech shooter brought 2 guns. Other mass shooters have brought more than 1 gun.

The 10 round mag limit back in the 90's was nothing but another do nothing law but get Dems defeated measure that did not ensure anyone's safety.

[Francis Marion]

111. It's a magazine...

Clips are another thing altogether.

And of course it's legal by the Second Amendment:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As legal as your right to remain silent or have a jury trial.