High Capacity Magazines

[bossy22]

I have a simple question. If high capacity magazines are only good for killing lots of people (like gun control proponents keep saying), then why do we allow our police to possess them? Last time i checked killing lots of people isnt part of a police officers job in the U.S.

[Arctic Dave]

1. Fail.

Why give them a gun then? Why give you a gun then?

[bossy22]

2. ?

i'm not talking about the gun itself but the capacity of the magazine. If we are told by gun control advocates that the only use for a high capacity magazine is to kill alot of people- why are we giving them to civilian law enforcement officers?

[Arctic Dave]

3. A police officers job can consist in killing lots of people

if they are threatening lives. However, off the top of my head I can't think of a mass killings by a LEO unlike civilian ownership.

Should the police not have a bomb squad considering blowing stuff up isn't in their job description?

[aikoaiko]

16. Lawful civilians need to protect themselves from the same criminals as police.

[Arctic Dave]

25. Really, they do?

Tell me, when was the last time you busted down the door of a drug dealers house?

[aikoaiko]

26. I haven't done that, but I did live next door to a drug dealers house

Sometimes the bad guys come looking for you when they think you called the police.

Really, they do.

[Katya Mullethov]

28. We bloodied one up real good recently

I doubt he'll make much of a drug dealer as he was a damned shitty burglar .

[YllwFvr]

4. because they miss a lot

how many times do you want them to reload? As few times as possible.

But I get your point. They are here to protect us. They have pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, body armor, tanks, helicopters, grenades, gas, riot gear, sound and energy weapons, attack dogs...

Wait what are they protecting us from again?

[oneshooter]

6. They are not protecting you personally. They only protect society as a whole.

This is according to SCOTUS

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[YllwFvr]

9. I should have been a bit clearer,

i suppose. yes I meant "us" as society as a whole. My fault for being quite vague on a group of people to keep me safe anyway. I can take responsibility for my own safety anyway and would rather not rely on others for that

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

5. Because their job is to run towards the gunshots, ours is to run away!

:D

[jeepnstein]

17. Says who?

Being exposed to danger is a fact of life in law enforcement, that's for sure. But if you think the job description includes "must be willing to rush into the face of danger" then you don't know much about the job. Airborne Rangers, Marines, run-of-the-mill infantrymen, soldiers, will rush headlong into the breach every day and not give it a second thought. Police officers are not soldiers. We'll do what we can to help but the prime directive includes going home at the end of the shift.

[krispos42]

30. Well, I didn't say run headlong without cover...

:-)

[Statistical]

23. Technically Police have no duty to protect. n/t

[applegrove]

7. Because a police officer could potentially face a gang shoot out at them with multiple

weapons and the officer might be on patrol alone. Other than drive by shootings, gangs don't attack civilians with multiple rounds. Only sick loners do. Gangs fight police or other gangs.

[WheelWalker]

8. Correct. In a defensive posture facing a pack, there is clear utility.

[TPaine7]

10. Please follow the link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x353329

Sometimes, humans attack in packs. Have you ever heard of "wilding"?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Wasn't Mr. McDonald from the Chicago case also dealing with gangs?

I don't know if he was using a 30 bullet clip but he still had to be on guard for multiple attackers. So honest citizens have may also be confronted by multiple attackers.

And ironically, he had to be on guard because the police were ineffectual.

[Statistical]

21. Gangs don't attack civilians? WTF fantasy land do you live in.

I mean think about it if gangs only attacked non-civilians gang violence wouldn't really be an issue.

You must live a very sheltered life to think gangs are only a Police problem.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. You mean like the shop keepers did after the Rodney King riots?

[white cloud]

11. The high capacity

The high capacity (30+ round magazine, he had 1-30 in weapon and 1-30 in his pocket or belt?) he used is not standard issue and stick out of frame 5,-6? inches. Police do not carry 30 rd mags and don't want to because of difficulty in tactical handling of weapon with 30 rd. Normal Mag in 9mm is 15 to 17 rounds with mag flush with frame.

Police and sportsmen hunting would not want to carry 30rd and don't have much use for 30rd. Heavy, awkward, and effect point of impact.
They normally would carry 1 or 2 extra 17rd mags.

All a 30rd is good for is a 2 block drive by IMO.

[PavePusher]

12. They'd be suitable for home defense, when you don't have to carry far. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

13. For home defense I prefer a shotgun

I have high cap magazines but they're for carbines.

[Statistical]

22. So why is McCarthy trying to ban 11 round "high capacity" magazines?

Why is all the gun control coming from the left loony?

I mean why can't gun control advocates be honest and say there is utility to FULL CAPACITY magazines and seek to ban say 22+ round magazines.

Personally I still think it would be ineffective and pointless but at least it would have some honest to it.

The people proposing the ban would call you 17 rnd magazine "high capacity" and a "mass murder machine".

[benEzra]

27. That's true for pistols, but not for carbines.

McCarthy et al are trying to outlaw all magazines over 10 rounds (not 17 rounds, 10 rounds), for both pistols and rifles. I expect a much lower capacity limit for shotguns (e.g., 4 or 5) would also be in there, as it was in H.R.1022.

[jeepnstein]

18. The standard issue magazine...

for the military is thirty rounds. That's a sensible limit, so let's say the firearm can hold no more than thirty one. That way citizens can possess the same magazines as a typical soldier. That seems reasonable so long as higher capacities are still available through the NFA.

[lawodevolution]

19. There is no need to rationalize the availability of high cap magazines

just like there is no need to rationalize large memory cards in cameras. Sure those memory cards can hold a lot of child porn pics, but in the end 100 pics is just as illegal as 5000. The point is not to reduce the number of pics from 5000 to 100, we want to reduce it to zero. Same with murder and violence. No one in the Az shooting was worth more than the other Americans killed by violence, so the real question is what is happening to the rate of violence overall. The answer is that it has been going down. I see no value in passing a law that ignorant people think will reduce the number of victims in a shooting like in Arizona, I see value in treating the underlying cause of violence and applying more health care coverage to people who need it. As a person who was born into the gun culture I am more of an expert than any of you anti-gun folk, and I think that this man would have shot more people had he had 4 or 5 regular magazines because the 30+ round magazine tends to cause the gun to jam or malfunction. A law banning high cap magazines will do nothing to reduce the number of people shot in this country, so rather than allow our politicians to focus on "feel good" gun laws that fail to accomplish anything, let's force them to have to look into mental health care, because in the end, that is what the government is avoiding by throwing the "let's pass some gun laws" smoke in front of your eyes and shame on all of you for falling for it. Now go out there and demand improvement in mental health care if you think we have a problem with violence in this country.

[white cloud]

20. MHR

Look at all the cut of the "entitlements" that the freeper are pushing down our throat so the 2% keep their cuts. No funds for MHR.

[guardian]

24. they are also handy for

target shooting. You don't have to stop to reload as often and can focus on improving your technique.