O'Donnell calling for proof

[Ruby the Liberal]

That someone has EVER been 'saved' by having 31 bullets as opposed to 11.

Proof that there had EVER been a situation where a 30 bullet magazine made a difference over 10 when it came to safety or securing a situation.

:woohoo:

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I dunno, but 20-round clips were pretty handy on an M-16

in firefights, even if we only loaded them up to 18 in order to spare some tension on the follower springs. (And the last 2 rounds were tracers to warn you you needed another clip.)

[baldguy]

2. And that would be useful if you want to turn any given urban area into a battlezone.

[cliffordu]

108. Son, if someone is shooting at you with any weapon whatsoever,

you already have a battle zone.

Shoot back. Lots.

[Hoyt]

111. In a crowd, restaurant, public park, church? That's why guns in public ain't a good idea.

[cliffordu]

117. A worse idea would be to have the only people with guns be criminals.

[Hoyt]

121. I don't think having cowboys carrying guns in public and talking about blasting away is a good idea.

I know folks practice with paper targets, cans and sticks -- but the cowboys would be best to leave them at home. They don't sound like they'd handle a situation (which, of course, is not very likely) very well.

[David West]

137. Because we all know, Hoyt...

...that NO cops have EVER fancied themselves cowboys. None. Ever.

[GreenStormCloud]

118. We AIM our shots, We don't just blaze away in all directions. N/T

[Hoyt]

119. The poster above sounds like he's into to laying down a barrage. Not good in public.

Some of you guys don't sound very safe to me. Those types best leave them at home.

[X_Digger]

122. You are the one that proposed that strategy - 'barrage'.

Have you yet found a police training manual that advocates that tactic?

[oneshooter]

126. I don't believe that he knows what a "barrage" is. It just sounds scary to him. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. And what purpose does a civilian have manning an M-16 in a 'firefight'?

I think that was his point. Not that there is no use for them (military/police) but that civilians have no justification for them under the guise of 'personal protection'.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. The OP said nothing about civilians.

Nor was I suggesting anything about civilians. I was merely answering the question as best I could about the utility of 30-round clips. I couldn't give an eact answer because all we had was 20-rounders. Except for the machine guns, of course. They took belted ammunition so you could shoot them until they jammed from heat-swollen metal parts or the barrel melted (although I always considered it the better part of discretion not to do that).

[TheMadMonk]

6. No but, that doesn't excuse your conflation.

Civilian gun control (given that that is the topic de jour) is the obvious context of the discussion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. My bad. He was talking about private ownership, not professional (Police/Military/etc)

I thought that was a given, but can see where it was extremely vague given how I phrased it.

[Callisto32]

76. Fights never come to civilians?

[thereismore]

5. You are probably talking about wartime. nt

[RSillsbee]

115. I preferred the 20 round magazines

to the 30 rounders because of my short little arms. Definetely makes it easier to become one w/ the ground when you are being shot at

[Kaleva]

7. There's probably thousands of soldiers who would claim a high capacity magazine saved them.

"Japanese banzai charges had previously met with frequent success against poorly-trained Chinese soldiers armed with bolt-action rifles. Armed with the M1, U.S. infantrymen were able to sustain a much higher rate of fire than their Chinese counterparts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle

The Garand had faults though as it's magazine capacity was limited and one sees assault rifles today with 20-30 round magazines.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. I apologize for not being clear. This is in reference to civilian ownership.

[Kaleva]

15. Yes and that's why I made a follow up post.

[Hoopla Phil]

68. You do realize that "Heller" specifically listed the M-16 as being particularly suited

to militia service.

[oneshooter]

109. True enough. But the effective range, and the ability to have a

rapid sustained fire made it the best combat rifle of it's day.

BTW John Garand originally designed the M1 for use as a detachable magazine rifle. A 20rd mag with the ability to be reloaded with stripper clips. But the powers that be at the time insisted on a internal magazine, they were afraid that the external one would be easy to damage, get plugged with mud or debris, or get lost. You see, they were only planing to issue one per rifle!

Oneshooter
Armed and Living in Texas

[Kaleva]

8. In the civilian world, there's little difference between 3 10 round mags and 1 30 rnd mag.

Soldiers often have their weapon set to auto or 3 round burst and thus having high capacity mags is a plus as they are expending a number of bullets for every pull of the trigger. For the average civilian, whose intention is either defense or creating mayham, 3 ten round magazines is about the same as having one 30 round magazine as their weapon is semi-auto only. A person who takes the time to practice can learn to swap magazines very quickly.

"Army investigators working to reconstruct in second-by-second detail the one-man rampage inside a soldier processing facility at Fort Hood, Texas, on Thursday, are asking how the assailant had time to fire at least 100 rounds from a single handgun. The incident left 13 dead and more than 30 wounded."

"This implies that Hasan reloaded as many as five times before he was brought down by two civilian police officers."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10608013

[benEzra]

9. If more than 10 rounds are only needed for mass murder,

then why does your local police officer carry an over-10-round pistol on her hip? And why does she likely have a 20- or 30-round civilian carbine in her cruiser's trunk or roof rack?

Over-10-round rifles have been on the civilian market since the early 1860's. You could buy a rifle with a 34-round magazine in 1873. Over-10-round handguns date from the late 1800's, and have been widely used for lawful civilian purposes since the 1930's. They've been some of the most popular civilian firearms in the United States for decades.

Banning the standard factory magazines for the most popular civilian pistols and rifles in the United States is not a small step; ~40 million citizens already own roughly a quarter-billion such magazines. Between 1994 and 2000, merely raising the prices on some over-10-round magazines (without in any way reducing their legal availability) and requiring minor cosmetic and ergonomic changes to some civilian rifles, provoked an immense backlash among gun-owning voters, created the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme that haunted the party for more than a decade, and ultimately helped cost Dems the whole damn trifecta by 2000. It was an ill-advised and pointless move then, and it's even more ill-advised now, when far more Americans own smaller-caliber, higher-capacity guns now than in '94.

We'll keep them, thanks. :hi:

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. I support the carrying that - as that is their JOB. However;

would they need to if civilians weren't similarly armed?

Can you give me (Or L O'Donnell) ONE example of this being a benefit to society for civilian carry?

I don't give a shit if you feel the need to walk around armed like that. Just stay the fuck out of my neighborhood, ok? If shots are fired here in the city, I would prefer a few before someone has the chance to take out the shooter on reload than dozens of uninterrupted rounds.

Have a nice day.

[benEzra]

17. Yes...

because the purpose of having >10 rounds is reserve.

Capacity is much less important to an aggressor than it is to a defender. The worst mass shooting in U.S. history (Virginia Tech) involved a shooter using two pistols with ordinary flush-fit magazines (capacity 15 and 10); the murderer carried no less than nineteen magazines and he reloaded at least twelve times. The second-worse shooting I'm aware of (the Luby's Cafeteria shooting from the early '90s) likewise involved a shooter with lots of non-extended magazines and many, many reloads.

In both cases, the defining factors were slow and deliberate shooting at fairly close range, trapped victims, two pistols so as to not be vulnerable during reloads, and lots of reloading; the occasional 1- or 2-second magazine change was not a factor if the shooter planned ahead. The Tucson shooter apparently didn't think past the first extended magazine, but had he been forced to plan reloads ahead and structured his attack accordingly, I don't see the outcome being much different; he might have been less vulnerable with standard magazines than with the awkward extended mag, which appears to have gotten snagged.

Here's what a competent reload looks like with ordinary flush-fit mags, if you plan ahead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXNPo5krvw

A reasonable capacity limit (say 17+1 or 20+1 for pistols, 30+1 for rifles) might not have been so controversial back in '94, but a 10-round limit for all firearms was and is downright goofy; it bans civilian guns that have been legal since the fracking Civil War. No one knows how many over-10-round magazines exist in the United States, but a back-of-the-envelope guess might be a quarter-billion such magazines, give or take a hundred million or so either way, owned by ~40 million people.

Banning the lawful purchase and use of factory standard magazines for the most popular civilian pistols and rifles in the United States is simply not going to happen. There may be common ground to be found on this issue (and the related issue of mental health and background checks), but banning the most popular guns isn't it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Fine. Then lets go with the Chris Rock solution.

$5k per bullet and people will think twice.

[benEzra]

24. Which is why Chris Rock is a comedian.

Punitive taxation on a protected right is illegal (SCOTUS precedent is Minneapoli­s Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commission­er of Revenue, 1983).

American shooters expend 9 to 14 billion rounds a year in lawful target shooting, FWIW. In this economy, ammo is damn expensive as it is; when I shoot a match, even shooting the cheapest possible rounds, the ammo cost of a match is generally more than the entry and range fees combined.

[Atypical Liberal]

94. It made me think twice.

Shoot, just having them at $.50 a bullet has made me think twice. I now reload my own for about $.10 a piece. I recycle wheel weights and melt them down to make my own bullets. I recycle my brass. I can crank out 300 cartridges in an evening.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

123. Not a solution at all. Bullets can be MADE much cheaper than $5k.

A few melted lead tire weights, reuse the old ejected brass, and stuff some powder/primers in them.
Many shooters actually reload thier own ammo because it's CHEAPER than current ammunition prices.

Heck, for $5k, you could probaly start up a nice little ammo manufacturing home-business in your basement. And make a profit @ $0.40/round on the underground market.

[GKirk]

138. Great idea!

Then maybe something we could call a 'poll tax' so it would discourage undesireables from voting. Anyone with me?

[Union Scribe]

22. So it's okay for police to be able to kill a lot of people quickly

...because it's part of their...job?

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. They are trained specifically to serve and protect.

Not civilians with who knows what (if any) training or shooting range experience.

So yeah, if someone unloads point blank into a crowd of people, I would HOPE that the police have a leg up on them when it comes to firepower as well as reload speed/capacity.

You apparently want it all to be equal?

[beevul]

44. But not legally obliged to do so.

"They are trained specifically to serve and protect"

But not legally obliged to do so, UNLESS you are in their custody.


Court precedent.

[shadowrider]

53. Yup, they're trained

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x367353

And police have NO duty to protect anyone except themselves.

[Callisto32]

78. Yet they have a far worse record of shooting the wrong people AND general aggression than the people

you want to control.

The facts do not bear out your position.

[gejohnston]

105. Not always true

In New Zealand, you have to have twice the range time as a police officer. Did you know silencers are totally legal there?

[PavePusher]

112. I like it when the average Citizen can have tools for self-defense....

equal to or greater than those held by the criminals.

You apparently want it all to be equal?

And you have listed no reason why police should have a monopoly of force over lawful Citizens.

[YllwFvr]

127. i would trust many of the civilians I know

to watch my back over my LEO friends. trained doesnt mean good

[rl6214]

132. Police don't serve and protect

They show up after the crime has been committed, draw some chalk outlines, write some reports and go home.

[mwrguy]

135. "You apparently want it all to be equal?" You don't?

Some animals should be more equal than others?

[krispos42]

28. Handguns are surprisingly low-powered and hard to use.

The FBI manual on handgun wounding ballistics says, basically, that without a head/upper spinal cord shot, a person can stay function and dangerous for a minimum of 12 seconds. And that 12 seconds assumes a direct hit on the heart or a major artery or vein.

The reason most people don't stay functioning and dangerous after being shot is because of the psychological effects of being shot/shot at. Assuming the person is aware of being hit, often times they flee the danger and seek medical help. Or they panic and attempt to assess the damage and attempt some kind of wound treatment. Or the fear of being shot more makes them surrender.

However, people fueled by rage or drugs can easily not know or not care that they are shot. Even with several rounds in the torso, it can conceivably take several minutes for such a person to weaken from blood loss and pass out, on the way to dying from blood loss.


People also miss a lot with them. Target fixation (you're suppose to focus on the front sight when shooting, not the target) result in misses, and they're generally harder to aim than a rifle or shotgun.

I had a bit of experience with this first-hand at a cowboy action shoot. A guy was nice enough to let me try out a game. 5 targets on arms with a common pivot point. Hit the first target and the plate falls off, altering the center of gravity and making the arms start to spin randomly.

I did pretty well with the rifle (I think I got all five before running out of ammo) but with the pair of sixguns I think I only hit three. I had 10 rounds in the rifle and 10 in the two pistols.

So you're faced with a situation where a) you'll probably need a couple of hits to end the threat quickly, and b) you're probably going to mostly miss if the bad guy is dodging.


Assuming that the situation goes downhill enough that you're seriously facing having to shoot, there's a decent chance that 10 rounds won't be enough.

Now, it's a given that in the vast majority of cases when the victim confronts the attacker with a gun, the attacker flees; it's not personal for him and he's not trying to be a hero. The attacker typically wants cash or something that can easily be converted to cash, and he'll just move on if he can.

But, not all situations are like that. Especially domestic-relationship situations, which are intensely personal and highly charged. Shooting a gun at a jilted ex-lover who is angry and emotional and irrational might well need more than 10, especially in a close situation like a house.

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. I have heard that domestic relationship issues are the most dangerous for the police to answer.

Thanks for the insight.

[krispos42]

43. It's a very emotional environment if it attracts police attention

Many victims defend their abuser, for example, and might do so violently if the police try to arrest them. And if other family members are there, God alone knows how it will shake out.


It's a stew of powerful and irrational emotions.

[Callisto32]

77. If this is the real position of prohibitionists,

explain then why police ALWAYS get a "this doesn't apply to you" clause in the kind of legislation you propose.

[Remmah2]

93. Should we be revising the job descriptions of criminals?

Do criminals have job descriptions at all?

Should criminals be unionized and have designated working hours, regulations and minimum job rates?

When bad things come a knocking, car jacking, raping, robbing and pillaging there are no rules that are enforced as to what the bad people carry or how many of them show up. There is no crystal ball and no guarantees.

There is also no limit on the quantity of firearms a bad person can carry or the number of magazines they carry either, or the number of shotgun shells in their pocket either. Magazine holding capacity is just an exercise in math.

[oneshooter]

110. Simply done, since I have no idea where your neighborhood is.

And who are you to say that your beliefs outweigh the law?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Officers carry whatever is standard for the issued weapon

plus one in the chamber, and two standard magazines for that weapon.

Also standard is a SHOTGUN... not a carbine.

In fact, a few PDs, see LAPD only issue AR-15 to Sergeants or tactical team.

[benEzra]

23. Civilian .223 carbines as a replacement or supplement to the traditional patrol shotgun

has been ongoing for nearly two decades now in most of the country. I'm not talking about the use of Title 2 weapons by SWAT, but rather ordinary Title 1 civilian guns (mini-14's, Title 1 AR-15's, Remington 7615's, etc.).

http://www.officer.com/interactive/2010/04/13/patrol-rifles/

That all said, I was intrigued by the current results of the poll we’re running (found elsewhere on the home page). The poll question is this and the answers follow:

What long gun do you have in your patrol vehicle? (I assume that it is there legally and within departmental policy)

17% - None. Whether by choice or policy, these officers have no distance engagement choice beyond their handgun.

2% - Pistol-caliber carbines. (see the comments above about a compromise)

2% - Pump-action rifle. (see other comments above about a compromise)

41% - Semi-automatic patrol rifle (I cheered for this number)

6% - Select fire rifle. (I can’t help but wonder if these are all SWAT guys)

32% - Shotgun (second largest response)

The current sampling is just under 1,000 votes so it’s fairly comprehensive but far from “scientific”.

I wouldn't call LAPD "behind the curve", necessarily, but their attitude that civilian carbines are super-squirrel equipment for elite "UPR certs" only, while an 870 full of buckshot is more suitable for the capabilities of the average officer, is not necessarily grounded in reality, or in step with the consensus nationwide. Particularly since LAPD restricts the use of slugs, and buckshot poses a considerable downrange hazard in an urban evironment if bystanders are present, and for most people a hard-kicking pump is tougher to run safely and effectively under stress than a carbine.

The shotgun tradition stems from a day when proficiency with a 12-gauge pump was widespread due to hunting use, but that's not really the case now, and shotguns present greater hazards with regard to overpenetration, ricochet, and whatnot in most circumstances.

[Callisto32]

79. I think they are far more common in rural police departements.

You know, the ones where the police have to supply their own weapons from a list of approved choices.

[benEzra]

91. Not sure if you saw this poll...

http://www.officer.com/interactive/2010/04/13/patrol-rifles

If you Google around, LAPD's position on carbines vs. shotguns is a bit of an anachronism.

[RagAss]

12. Uhhhh...Stalingrad?

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Your reference is lost on me.

Sorry, long day and I am half asleep at this point.

Please elaborate.

[RagAss]

29. I meant ....You probably needed a 30 round clip at the Battle of Stalingrad !!!

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Which wasn't fought by civilians to the best of my knowledge.

Then again, what do I know? :D

[RagAss]

47. Plenty of Russian civilians fought in that battle.

[sylvi]

16. I'd ask Mr. O'Donnell

Say there is an armed intruder breaking into your house. You have reason to believe that your life or that of your family is in immediate danger

On the table in front of you are two pistols (or rifles). One has a ten-round magazine, the other has a thirty-round magazine.

Which one would you pick up?

[RegieRocker]

19. Both I have two hands!

More gun nonsense. Good question!

[Ter]

96. Like Duke Nukem!

Let's rock, Hail to the King baby! :)

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Seriously?

WHY in hell would I want to pump 31 rounds into a single person?

If I am no better a shot than to take them down with ~3 bullets, I have no business owning a gun in the first place. All 31 rounds will end up doing at that point is fucking up my house and the possessions within.

[benEzra]

25. There's no penalty for leaving unfired rounds in the gun. That's the point of having them...

in a LEO or civilian defensive context---so you won't shoot all your ammo.

Going by the rule of threes, if you have 30 in the gun, you'd want to shoot no more than ten. Personally, I have a 20 in the carbine at home at the moment, but I use 30's for matches. My wife keeps a 15 in her pistol.

The only real reason police handguns only hold 14 to 18 is that smaller calibers (which fit more rounds in a magazine) are considered too weak for law enforcement use, and longer magazines would snag on things.

FWIW, the average number of rounds fired per officer in LEO-involved defensive shootings is around 8, regardless of capacity. That does mean that a standard deviation or two puts you well over the archaic 10-round limit that the opportunists are pushing.

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. Sorry for my ignorance, but what is LEO?

[Fla_Democrat]

40. Wow, really?

I, I uhm, wow.


Law Enforcement Officer.



:smoke:

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. DOH!

I really should have gotten that.

Thanks.

:dunce:

[sylvi]

27. If you're some character in a John Woo movie

I guess you could depend on your first three shots landing home.

Real life is a bit different.

Personally, I'll take the chance of "fucking up my house" a bit if it suppresses the bad guy's fire.

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. If you are depending on a weapon of this nature for protection,

I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend spending a lot of time at a gun range.

Situations can get out of control in a hurry when guns are introduced to the mix. If you pull a weapon, you best be prepared (and skilled enough) too make it effective or else you can find yourself in an even more dangerous position.

[Marengo]

116. Why are you giving advice?

You don't own firearms, admit not being competent enough to operate one, and didn't recognize the acronym LEO. Why should anyone accept advice from you on this issue?

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. Oh, and another thought.

Fucking up one's house isn't going to deter the bad guy if you don't hit him. All it is going to do is make him even more aggressive about a counter attack.

[PavePusher]

58. Lots of criminals will run if you shoot at them. Even if you miss. n/t

[sylvi]

70. Is all that acumen

from the depths of your experience in close-quarter combat and defensive shooting?

:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

74. From my direct experience

the last time I had to draw a fire arm in self defense the criminal took off running.

[oneshooter]

113. She apparently watches a lot of movies and television. Real good experience! n/t

[gejohnston]

106. where did you see that?

Not based on criminology research. In fact, just the opposite.

[Tejas]

56. "WHY in hell would I want to pump 31 rounds into a single person?"

Um, given the question you responded to, the intruder isn't Santa Claus and could be intent on raping and murdering your spouse (or you) so that might be a hint.

Not getting it yet? How about 2 intruders...or 3?

[sylvi]

71. That doesn't answer the question. nt

[Callisto32]

80. The trained police you refer to so much also often take a full mag to deal with a situation.

Adrenaline is the enemy of marksmanship, and it runs high in fights for your life. Ask me how I know.

[Ter]

104. Don't be silly

If you have a 6 shooter, you may miss, or there may be another attacker behind him. Me, I'd want a mini-gun, with over 100 rounds of ammo, like Jesse Ventura in Predator.

You wouldn't fight a t-rex off with a bat. You don't go one one one with an armed intruder with the same weapon, you take the next step up.

It's payback time!

[Blue-Jay]

46. What if THIRTY intruders break into your house?

Then you'll need a 31 round magazine, and possibly a grenade launcher.

What if a rhino wearing magic underpants breaks into your house? Or Hitler's ghost? Where do you live that people are always breaking into your house? Ever heard of a shotgun? You barely even need to aim one of those.

[Tejas]

57. "Ever heard of a shotgun?" 30 intruders > 8 + 1 in Chicago

"You barely even need to aim one of those."



and........we're off!

[Callisto32]

81. Lulz.

I love when people say "but shotguns just shoot indiscriminately!" The look on their faces when you explain the actual ballistics of a shotgun is worth having to listen to the ignorance.

[Euromutt]

83. "You barely even need to aim [a shotgun]"?

Shows how much you know. Even with a cylinder ("open") choke, most buckshot rounds will produce a pattern at most 10" in diameter at 15 yards range, which is beyond the kind of distance you're going to be dealing with a home defense situation. You can't just aim in the general direction of what or whom you want to shoot; if your point of aim is off by one foot at 15 yards, your entire load is going to miss the target.

[krispos42]

26. "World's Wildest Police Videos" has had quite a few videos of that scenario

Besides, who every complained they had too much ammo in their gun??? Plenty of people in critical situations have thought "oh shit!" when their gun's hammer falls on a empty or already-discharged chamber. I can't imagine a situation where the intended victim looks at his gun with disgust and says "shit, I have like four rounds left. What was I thinking???"



The problem with O'Donnell is that he says "okay, 30 is too many, 10 is enough".


Why 10? Is 10 the result of some kind of study done on non-police self-defense shootings? Or is it just an arbitrary number that's nice and round and "reasonable"?


If you're going to advocate for some kind of artificial limit, then the number you advocate for should have some kind of rational besides "one round for each finger" or "it's what the previous law was".


If 10 was based on, say, taking the average number of rounds fired to stop an attacker and then doubling it, that would at least have some underlying rationality to it.

But if it is, nobody has ever mentioned it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

37. I would like to know where 10 came from as well

Is that a default magazine for most handguns?

[krispos42]

42. Nope.

Single-stack magazines like those used on small carry pistols and on older designs like the .45 auto, Luger P08, and Walther PP, it is usually between 6 and 8 rounds. It depends on the overall length of the magazine (smaller guns generally have smaller magazines; magazines don't typically extend past the bottom of the grip) and how fat the cartridge is.

If it is a double-stack magazine (fatter), it is typically twice a single-stack magazine, minus 1. It used to make the grips of all-steel handguns uncomfortably wide for many people, but a modern computer-machined pistol made from injected polymer can make a double-stack magazine ergonomic and comfortable for many more people.




Double-stack pistol magazines typically carry between 10 and 17 rounds. Double-stack rifle magazines hold between 4 and 30 rounds. Hunting laws generally limit the magazine capacities hunting guns to 6 total in the gun, hence the 4-round magazines.

At the same time, the number of rounds that can be fit into a spring-loaded magazine and feed reliably into the gun seems to top out at about 30 or so. Anything larger and it gets very difficult to keep compressing the spring to put in more ammo because you need longer, stronger springs. And if you don't use the longer, stronger springs, the gun tend to start suffering misfeeds for the last few rounds.


Consider: 30-round magazines of pistol ammunition were standard-issue to German, British, and American soldiers who carried submachine guns in World War Two. Today, some 65 years later the typical submachine gun has a 30-round magazine. Still.


It's probably because we have 10 fingers and 10 numbers. It's a nice round number, after all.

[RamboLiberal]

49. No it is not

That's what the writers of the law settled on as their "sensible" limit.

And Dems and liberal pundits ought to get off that stupid line in the sand. They might stand a better chance if they went for what the handgun is built for or a top end of 20. At least with handguns.

Rifles & maybe even shotguns will be a whole another fight.

With a Repub house IMHO this is not worth giving them and their supporters ammunition, pun intended.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Unrec, you'll be asking the same question incrementally until everyone is Barny Fife or disarmed

[RamboLiberal]

31. Because bad guys are not always stopped with 10 rounds

Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

This article was posted in the guns forum.

As far as I'm concerned O' Donnell & Rachel are all wet on this issue. I want at least to carry the magazine that my firearm was designed for - why should only military & LEO's get that privalege but a law abiding citizen doesn't?

And there are firearms competitions where "high capactiy" magazines are used every weekend by gun owners out having fun on the range with their firearms.

[Callisto32]

82. DAMN.

22 hits of .40, 17 center mass...just damn.

[Codeine]

36. If you get it down to ten you'll start bitching for five.

Five and you'll want to limit it to single-shot muzzle-loading muskets. Nothing will satisfy the anti-gun crowd.

I'm flatly against the piecemeal erosion of any constitutional right.

[sofa king]

45. I proved it to myself just a couple weeks ago.

Here's the short version:

The worst mass murder (with guns) by an individual in US history was perpetrated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre">George Pierre Hennard in 1991, using primarily a Glock 17 with an expanded clip....

Which led to a federal ban on expanded clips (more than 10 rounds), which expired in 2004, which led to the use of 15 round clips in the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Skip the Wikipedia disaster on the federal assault weapons ban and instead read Chapter VI of the Virginia Tech Review Panel report here. The report details how Cho bought 15 round magazines, but note also that they differ from my own conclusion, claiming the larger clips made little difference.

Oh yeah? Well, I say it does. I point out that from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, there were numerous massacres. Not a damned one of them even approached the body count achieved by the two massacres above, perpetrated with high-capacity magazines, with one notable exception, Columbine, in which a 52 round clip was used with a Tec-9 (but also almost ten full 10-round magazines of 9mm, but the issue is further complicated by the fact that the shooters provided one another cover). In fact, in that period in the U.S., the massacre average began to drop toward the historical average of 11 dead victims for people who ran amok in Indonesia for hundreds of years, usually without any firearms at all.

That does it for me. I'm a realist who thinks that gun ownership should be a solemn responsibility, since there is no way to get rid of any reasonable fraction of the nation's 100 million or more guns. But the ban on high capacity clips obviously worked in reducing the scale of the disaster when mass murderers strike alone. In the most recent case, the killer was stopped only when he finally needed to reload, which provides a key insight into why the post-ban disasters have been worse.

Some advocates may point out that the vulnerability of reloading is exactly what a high capacity magazine is supposed to prevent. But dudes, zombies don't exist in real life. If you have to fight off more than ten people at a time, you fucked up and it's time to face the music.

[RamboLiberal]

48. Cho at Virginia Tech used mostly 10 round magazines

At least that is my understanding and it fits the math. Cho fired 174 rounds. He left 17 empty magazines. That works out to 10.2 rounds per mag or that the majority of the magazines were 10 rounders.

On edit the official report:
Cho expended at least 174 bullets from two
semiautomatic guns, his 9mm Glock and .22 caliber
Walther, firing often at point-blank range.
The police found 17 empty magazines, each
capable of holding 10–15 bullets. Ammunition
recovered included 203 live cartridges,122 for the
Glock and 81 for the Walther. The unexpended
ammunition included two loaded 9mm magazines
with 15 cartridges each and many loose
bullets.

http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/report/15_CHAPTER_VIII.pdf

[Kaleva]

50. There was no federal ban on high capacity magazines

During the time the AWB was in effect, it was perfectly legal to sell, purchase, or own such magazines. There was a federal ban on the production of new such mags but those manufactured prior to 1994 remained legal and as millions had been made, there was no shortage of them. Sen. Feinstein herself claimed one of the major loopholes in the AWB was that it was legal to import high capacity magazines.

"Since passage of the legislation, Senator Feinstein has sought to strengthen the law by closing the loophole regarding import of foreign made high capacity ammunition magazines."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/assault_weapons_ban.html

"Responding to concerns arising from the Jonesboro, Ark., killings, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a group of Democratic and Republican legislators will file a bill today that would ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and plug a major loophole in the federal assault weapons law."

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/31/news/mn-34524

"“The Assault Weapons legislation enacted in 1994 prohibits the domestic manufacture of clips, drums and strips that hold more than ten bullets,” Senator Feinstein said. “The loophole in this law is that the foreign manufacturer is allowed to continue to export their large clips into this nation when they cannot be manufactured in the United States.”"

http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases99/gunclipsban.html

[one-eyed fat man]

62. The loophole of lies.

The 1994 banned the manufacture and importation of large capacity magazines made after the effective date of the ban, September of 1994, except for use by law enforcement or the government. It required all magazines made after the date to be specially marked.



To say otherwise is a lie. Particularly if it is the "good Senator" making the claim. As you may remember, Dianne Feinstein IS THE AUTHOR of "Feinstein Amendment" which became the ’94 gun ban and thus SHE WROTE the magazine restrictions!

Any magazine that was built before that date was legal to import. Consider the Browning Hi-Power a 9mm pistol first on the market in 1935. It has been used by the military and police of over a hundred countries. It has been produced in nearly 80 countries from Argentina to Zimbabwe. How many magazines could conceivably be importable that were built between 1935 and 1994?

Consider that a manufacturer who had a stock of preban magazines for one of his products. If by segregating his preban stock for sale in the US at premium prices while reserving post ban production for the Law Enforcement and Export market how is he evading the law?

One large police supply dealer at the onset of the magazine ban offered to trade even up to any police officer who traded in a used gun with it's pre ban magazines for a BRAND NEW GUN, of the same make and model with the same capacity magazines that only a policeman could possess.

If there were any shortcomings in the old law, Dianne only had to look in the mirror to see who precisely to blame!

[benEzra]

51. You're wrong on at least two points.

Hennard did *not* use an extended magazine. He used exclusively standard factory flush-fits, capacity 15 and 17, like just about every Browning/S&W/Beretta/Ruger/Taurus/Glock/other full-sized double-stack 9mm has been designed to use since the 1930's, and just like the ones your local police officer carries on her hip for personal defense. The use of extended pistol magazines in mass shootings is very, very rare, but the use of non-extended 13-20 round pistol magazines for lawful purposes (LEO and civilian) is far more widespread than hunting is.

Second, you're wrong about the 1994 non-ban. Sec. 110103(a)(w)(2) and (4) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 completely and unconditionally exempted the entire extant worldwide stockpile of 30-round magazines from the ban, with no restrictions whatsoever, as of the date of enactment. As a result, the 1994 law did not, in fact, ban the purchase of 30-round magazines; it paradoxically encouraged such purchases 1994-2004. One can safely say that more 11 to 30 round magazines were sold 1994-2004 than in all the decades prior, as a direct result of the ill-advised law.

When it was clear that the law had a good chance of passing, manufacturers ramped up and produced several decades' supply prior to the ban's enactment, so that after the initial buying spree wore off, there were few shortages that I can recall. Purchase of 15- and 30-round magazines was just as legal (and probably just as common) as purchase of 10-round magazines, and unrestricted in any way.

Today, ~40 million people own around a quarter billion of the magazines you wish to outlaw, give or take a hundred million either way. Over-10-round civilian guns have been on the market since the early 1860's, and we will keep them.

[Callisto32]

84. Unfortunately,

I think this recent shooting has created the idea that a 9mm Glock is somehow a magical 31 round weapon, all the time.

[PavePusher]

114. Your post seems to imply that large-capacity magazines were not in Citizen possesion...

during the "ban".

This is absolutely not factual.

Any seeming lack of criminal use during the "ban" period is entirely coincidental.

[Hoyt]

52. Up until recent years, a 5 shooter was a common gun for defense. Now they aren't macho enough to

attract those obsessed with guns.

[RamboLiberal]

54. False

Some of the hottest selling firearms are the snubbies and new generation pocket pistols/revolvers like the Ruger LCR & LCP and S&W Bodyguards and small slim 9mm that are less than 10 rounds. Ruger for instance just announced the LC9 with a 7+1 capacity.

A lot of people who carry will confess they are more likely to slip a pocket pistol/revolver in their pocket or a slim or compact pistol on the belt for carry than strap on a full size gun. Even most of the compact pistols come in at 10-13 rounds.

It's hard to CCW a full size pistol especially in warm weather and even open carry it can be uncomfortable to carry that much on the belt all day.

Bet if you did a poll of those who carry everyday you'd find majority <=15 rounds with many <=10 rounds.

[guitar man]

61. I carry my 1911 a lot

When I'm going somewhere in my pickup but on my motorcycle, I like to carry my wife's Ruger sp-101. She gripes about me swiping it so I think I'm going to have to get one of my own lol.

[Hoyt]

65. There was the 38 special until marketers found gun toters like sexy "assault" weapons.

They were BIGGER, Sexier and appealed to baser instincts. Proving the gun obsessed are not just buying multiple units for self-defense.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Wrong again.

I really wish you would do some research before you blather.

Then again, it's fun to watch I guess.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Still Phelpsing gun owners, I see....

[east texas lib]

60. He must be out of penis and race cards nt

:o

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Not quite. See post #65 n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. And that reminds me- Add the "Uncle Ruckus" to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725

[oneshooter]

63. I often carry a 4 1/2" Colt SAA in 45colt. I built a IWB holster for it. Very comfortable. n/t

[guitar man]

66. A man after my own heart

I love my SAA Colts, I have a Frontier 44-40 that was made in 1877 and a .38 that was made in 1875. The .38 is a .38-40 frame that's been converted to .38 spl with a later model smokeless cylinder and barrel. I don't take the 44-40 out much but oftentimes I'll take the 38 along with me. The old pistol still shoots good and straight and I just don't think you can get anything more reliable. :)

[Callisto32]

85. Bullshit.

J-frame S&W of 5 round capacity are extremely common personal defense weapons, as are the smaller autos with a similar (5-7rd) capacity.

[gravity556]

139. I wouldn't carry a 5 shot revolver

as a primary. Too slow to reload, comparatively. Particularly when I have 3 times that many rounds available on tap with my G19, and either a reload (another 15 rounds) or my P3AT (+1 extension and an extra mag in a pocket holster).I don't have any 30 round mags for my pistols (wife and I both carry G19s), not because I'm opposed to them, but because they're rather unwieldy for concealed carry.

The Brady ban had absolutely no effect on anyone's ability to buy as many full capacity mags as they wanted. Made some more expensive (125 bucks for a standard cap G21 mag!), but didn't slow anything down. Now there are ban states and non-ban states, and I think even one state that has the moronic law of equating a 30 round mag with a machine gun. And even in the states that have bans, there are ways around them. Sure, you can't buy a new full capacity magazine for your AR, but you can buy replacement parts for your old ones. New body, follower, spring and floor plate, hey presto!

[benEzra]

86. Ummm, just when were 5-shooters common *primary* weapons rather than backups?

5-shooters were, and are, used as backup guns to a higher-capacity primary weapon, but when in the 20th century was the preferred primary carry gun (whether pistol or revolver) or home gun (revolver, pistol, carbine) a 5-shooter? Unless you're talking about 5+1 shotguns, but shotguns fire eight to twelve 7.62mm to 9mm projectiles with each pull of the trigger, so their effective capacity is greater than a 5-shot .38 or 9mm.

[Katya Mullethov]

90. One of histories most infamous " little men "

carried a 31 caliber 5 shot Root in his younger days .
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTHYaQ5Ydg7BZ1Lm-kFjGxb5tJ6Mrgia98LSppcb_On95L6hG4OA&t=1

[one-eyed fat man]

92. You must be a young'un

There was a whole generation of cops for whom a J-frame Smith was their duty gun. I recall being told I was wasting money when I bought an M1911 through DCM sales in 1961. Why would anyone want one of those hard-recoiling, inaccurate, Army surplus guns when you could buy a nice Smith & Wesson for twenty dollars more?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=304267&mesg_id=304547

This was the "combat stance" the FBI was teaching in 1957.

[RamboLiberal]

98. They are primary weapons for a lot of CCW holders

As I said in another post a lot of CCW holders will confess especially in warm weather to slipping one of these or the new small semi-autos or revolvers in the pocket or the belt(or other holster location) and not strap on the full size.

[benEzra]

102. Oh, agreed. Full-sized guns and 30-round carbines are primarily kept

for defense in and around the home. CCW guns tend to sacrifice power, capacity, or both for concealability.

[YllwFvr]

128. always carry full sized myself

I feel better knowing my carry weapon will just become my duty weapon, less chance of confusion if I need it. Plus I dont want to have to qualify with a 5 shot revolver. Speed loaders blow, IMO

[gejohnston]

131. Back in the day

S&W chief Specials were commonly issued to detectives in larger cities.

[Marengo]

136. LOL! Just like the single-shot wasn't "macho" enough for those who chose revolvers?

You do realize revolver technology significantly improved the lethality of handguns, correct? Where those who chose to carry a revolver instead of a single shot muzzle loader "obsessed with guns"?

[Katya Mullethov]

59. When pushed Harry Beckwith could rock and roll

He used amongst other things , a subgun most vile .


http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

[one-eyed fat man]

97. The S&W 76 has an interesting history.

Certain organizations were using Carl Gustav M/45 submachine guns during cross border operations in Laos and Cambodia during the Viet Nam war. In 1966, the Swedish government blocked the sale of firearms to the United States because it opposed the Vietnam War. This created a problem for the Navy SEAL Teams, MACV SOG and others who used them in covert operations in Southeast Asia.

Noting this, Smith & Wesson began to produce the M76, an M/45 clone, which was ready for production in 1967. The M76 was produced only in limited quantities with some going to the police and civilian market.

Colloquially, the guns were called, "Swedish K's" in country, "Kulsprutepistol" probably not easily pronounced, although it loosely translates quite descriptively as "bullet squirting pistol" Many of the Kpist m/45's used by US forces and agencies were "sanitized", which means that they were devoid of any markings, implicating clandestine use.

Carl Gustaf Kpist M/45


Smith & Wesson M76

[krispos42]

64. Seems to me than finding a police report where an intended victim

emptied a 10-round magazine shouldn't be that hard.

[Hoopla Phil]

67. Ask the shop keepers during the King riots.

[PavePusher]

69. Try here:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

After the verbal finger-wagging Low-Do gave all gun owners tonight, I refuse to do his research for him.

He's a vile authoritarian prick with a severe stump up his ass, and as far as I'm concerned he can go get geo-spatially challanged and self-fornicate.

[rl6214]

133. +1000

[Callisto32]

75. The military.

All the fucking time.

[Euromutt]

87. Why only those two options, 30 or 10? That's a false dichotomy

There's a hell of a lot of wiggle room between 30 and 10, and even if it were true that nobody has strictly speaking needed a 30-odd round magazine, it does not automatically follow that 10 is sufficient. Most modern "full-size" handgun designs will accept flush-fit magazines holding between 13 and 19 rounds, at least in calibers smaller than .45, and demonstrating that 30-odd rounds is more than anyone needs (or failing to prove that it doesn't) does not constitute evidence that 13-19 rounds is as well.

And to be blunt, nobody owes Lawrence O'Donnell evidence of anything; if he wants magazine capacities legally restricted to 10 rounds, he can provide evidence that 10 rounds is always sufficient. And if he's actually being honest, he can agitate for not having an exception for law enforcement.

[rrneck]

100. There y'go. +1000

[Katya Mullethov]

88. How about 105 rounds in three minutes ?

Keep running your cock holsters . Please .

[Katya Mullethov]

89. Correction -- 105 rounds in two minutes

The fuzz showed up in three . 105 rounds in two minutes , 1 minute of awkward silence , and then the cops came . But it's still a rhetorical ,self aggrandizing/back patting, rhetorical question .

[Atypical Liberal]

95. I'm sure many police officers have been saved.

There is a reason why police officers carry 15 or even 17 round magazines. In a firefight, most of your shots miss. I think last time I googled this it was like 40% of shots fired miss. Having more ammunition available means you can stay effective in a fight longer.

If this rationale is legitimate for police officers (and it is), there is no reason why a civilian should not be able to avail themselves to the same utility.

[benEzra]

101. The impetus for issuing police officers over-10-round pistols

was the death of several officers who ran out of ammunition when trying to repel attackers, e.g. the Newhall massacre. That one is also instructive for those who think that if criminals only used revolvers, sawed-off shotguns, and 7-shot .45's then they would be less of a threat to law enforcement.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

99. What about the fact that STANDARD pistol mag sizes usually range from 12-18 rounds?

Why take it all the way back to 11?

If she's going to say "11 rounds is the chosen number" then I want quantitave logical reasoning showing me what significant difference exists between 11 & 12 rounds that does not also exist between 10 & 11 rounds.

I don't care why she doesn't want me to have "XX" round magazines... I want to know what her reasons are for promoting 11 rounds.

[cliffordu]

107. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME - THIS IS NOT A CALL OUT.

JACKPINE RADICAL
RUBY THE LIBERAL

JACK RUBY??????

Mebbe I shouldn't self medicate quite so much.

Maybe I need more......

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

124. what?

:wtf:

[guardian]

120. This my idea of idea home defense with a high capacity magazine

The Auto Assault-12 (AA-12). The weapon is selective fire, operating as a semi-automatic, or in fully automatic mode at 300 rounds per minute. It is fed from either an 8-shell box magazine, or a 20- or 32-shell drum magazine.

If only we were allowed to purchase for civilian use....


Youtube video showing it in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

[Glassunion]

125. Does the Marine come with it?

If so, I'd like to order one. With all of the accessories(strap, drum magazine, Glock and backup magazine for the Glock) and in ebil black...

[Kennah]

129. Military, Cops, or Private Citizens?

[Kennah]

130. I carry a Glock 23, two spare 13-round mags, and 40 rounds of ammunition

Private citizen, not a cop.

For a time, I was fine carrying a 5-shot revolver. Then I did some training with my Glock, and that became my carry gun. I could consistently bang away with my Glock all weekend, putting several hundred rounds downrange, and my hand didn't sting. Greater firepower, easier to shoot, faster reloads. Win-Win-Win.

Carrying spare magazines causes some to wince and think "gun nut", but magazine springs can fatigue, bind, go bad, whatever. I've found that Glock factory mag springs generally suck anyway, as do most factory magazine springs, so I replaced mine with Wolff springs.

Most of the time, the sequence of events is pull trigger, gun go boom. However, I've encountered bad ammo, even factory ammo, where I pulled the trigger, and gun didn't go boom. This one time, at gun camp ... another Glock shooter and I were both using S&B .40 ammo, and we were both experiencing about 1 in 10 rounds would not fire. Primers were dimpled, so we figured the primers were too hard.

I cannot count the number of times I've had a failure to fire that I cleared with a Tap-Rack-Target drill, aka Level One Malfunction. My experience with that ass sucking S&B ammo really gave me lots of good practice with that drill.

I've learned and practiced Level Two Malfunction Clearance Drill: Lock, Rip, Rack-Rack-Rack, Magazine, Rack, Target

I never expected it could ever happen, but I saw our instructor experience one and expertly clear it.

Shit happens. Carrying a gun, if one EVER has to use it, there is no alternative and there is no Do Over or Time Out.

Some people are confident openly carrying. Not me.

Some people are confident with a 5 shot revolver and nothing else. Not me.

Having spare mags and more rounds than I would likely ever need gives me a calm and a peace of mind.

I suppose I could sling an AR-15 over my shoulder, but I'd likely cause alarm in others around me.

[S_B_Jackson]

134. How about Rosie O'Donnell prove that HER armed security

needs more than 10 rounds per magazine of the firearms they're carrying?