HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Most Back Ban on High-Cap...

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:57 PM

Most Back Ban on High-Capacity Clips

Source: Yahoo

More than half of Americans say the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, reflect broader problems in society rather than an isolated act of a troubled person - more than after other recent shooting incidents, suggesting the possibility of a new national dialogue on violent crime.

This ABC News/Washington Post poll also finds that 54 percent of Americans favor stricter gun control laws in general, numerically a five-year high, albeit not significantly different than in recent years. Fifty-nine percent support a ban specifically on high-capacity ammunition clips, a step on which partisan and ideological gaps narrow substantially and "strong" support peaks.

On specific measures, 52 percent favor banning semi-automatic handguns (it's been 48 and 55 percent in previous polls) and 59 percent support banning high-capacity clips that carry more than 10 bullets (it was a similar 57 percent in early 2011, after the Tucson shootings). Banning the sale of handguns entirely (except for law enforcement) remains broadly unpopular, with 71 percent opposed, numerically a new high in results since 1999.

Intensity is on the side of supporters of stricter gun control in general - 44 percent of Americans are "strongly" in favor, vs. 32 percent strongly opposed, the widest intensity gap since spring 2007. And on banning high-capacity clips, strong supporters outnumber strong opponents by an 18-point margin, 47 percent vs. 29 percent.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/most-back-ban-high-capacity-clips-many-see-170041347--abc-news-politics.html



Do it. Now.

52 replies, 5059 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Most Back Ban on High-Capacity Clips (Original post)
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 OP
doc03 Dec 2012 #1
BainsBane Dec 2012 #7
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #8
BainsBane Dec 2012 #9
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #11
BainsBane Dec 2012 #12
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #13
BainsBane Dec 2012 #16
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #17
Dokkie Dec 2012 #35
pintobean Dec 2012 #18
Ineeda Dec 2012 #43
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #44
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #52
doc03 Dec 2012 #15
lbrtbell Dec 2012 #26
24601 Dec 2012 #27
BainsBane Dec 2012 #28
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #37
UndahCovah Dec 2012 #30
pop topcan Dec 2012 #34
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #23
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #25
UndahCovah Dec 2012 #31
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #36
doc03 Dec 2012 #14
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #19
doc03 Dec 2012 #21
UndahCovah Dec 2012 #32
Blandocyte Dec 2012 #41
Blandocyte Dec 2012 #42
SkyDaddy7 Dec 2012 #2
cosmicone Dec 2012 #6
SkyDaddy7 Dec 2012 #39
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #3
RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #4
freshwest Dec 2012 #5
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #10
onehandle Dec 2012 #20
DesMoinesDem Dec 2012 #22
PavePusher Dec 2012 #24
Brother Buzz Dec 2012 #33
PavePusher Dec 2012 #45
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #46
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #29
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #38
truth2power Dec 2012 #48
truth2power Dec 2012 #47
machI Dec 2012 #40
hack89 Dec 2012 #49
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #50
hack89 Dec 2012 #51

Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:08 PM

1. I have a 40 cal Springfield XDM with two 16 round magazines

that makes it possible to fire 33 rounds in 33 seconds that's being conservative. I would have no problem if they limited the magazine capacity to 10 rounds, that would still give me the capability of 21 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

7. Question

i appeciate your openness to reform. But I have a question. What do you do with that gun? Why do you need a capacity of 21 rounds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:27 PM

8. Let's say you had to pin down some shithead, like the Trolley Square shooting.

Two off duty cops did it. Held him at bay. They were just there, off duty as normal people, but happen to carry, as most cops do off duty. Suppressive fire consumes a LOT of ammo.

So, that might not be why someone NEEDS a capacity of 21 rounds, but it might serve as an example of something lawful and productive, that one would do with it.

I carry 46 rounds, two mags on one side, one in the gun. Less because I think I might need the ammo, and slightly more because it balances the weight of the carry rig somewhat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

9. You're not a cop

I don't want you pinning down anyone. This isn't the Wild West.

If you are a cop, you're trained to deal with these situations. If not, stay the fuck out if it. You're only going to make matters worse. What a fucking insane response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:39 PM

11. The two individuals that opposed the TS shooter were not acting in their capacity as law enforcement

officers. There have been many instances of civilians opposing active shooters, both off duty cops and just regular ordinary joe's. One guy stood up to Maldonado, the Tacoma Mall shooter. He lost. He was crippled. But he delayed the shooter so long, no one else got hurt. Everyone had time to get away. Mark Allen Wilson died stopping the Tyler Tx. Courthouse shooter from killing his own son. In doing so, no one else got shot after that point.

Armed opposition to an active shooter is critical. Cop or otherwise.

Find me an example of a private citizen intervening in a mass shooting that made it worse. One will convince me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

12. So you agree with Louie Gohmert that teachers should be armed with machine guns?

No law enforcement expert agrees with you. They all know your so-called solution is a recipe for greater fatalities. The more bullets flying, the more people dead. This level of delusion is profoundly disturbing. Knock off your fantasy of cops and robbers. Human lives are at stake; children's lives are at stake. You are advocating illegal, violent behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:51 PM

13. I am not in favor of arming teachers.

Nor did I say so. There are better solutions, like we had at my high school: we had a police officer liason at the school during open hours.

I don't particularly care what experts say in theory, I care what the evidence shows, empirically, where the rubber meets the road. The evidence does not back your position, shooting after shooting. Joe/Jane private citizen with a firearm hasn't maybe helped as much as some people hope, usually not being within range at the time, but you'd be hard pressed to find an instance where one made a situation worse.

Ihop shooting? Good guy with a pistol held back, because he would have had to charge across an open space, against a guy with a rifle, and he couldn't be sure who was behind the shooter. Did the right thing. Sadly, that means he didn't help the situation either.
Arizona/Giffords. One CPL inside the safeway. By the time he got to the scene, it was already over. Didn't draw his weapon, and didn't make the situation worse.

Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:08 PM

16. that is not evidence

that is cherry picking you have done to support your paranoia. Your post terrifies me. I have been naive. I understood people here supported gun rights and shared identical views with the NRA. Somehow I never pictured you people walking around heavily armed, poised to kill people at a moment's notice. I did not know I was talking to people who spent their days thinking about how to kill others. You have made my skin crawl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:12 PM

17. That actually IS evidence.

I asked you if you could provide some that shows a detrimental effect to armed individuals opposing an active shooter. The most reliable way to end a shooting is for the dirtbag to encounter armed resistance. They usually self-destruct when they do. I can provide umpteen examples of that actually happening.

Wanting to honestly assess the risk of crossfires or confusion when LEO arrive on-site, I have looked for instances of such bad effects. I have found none. Again, I ask you to provide some.

I don't care what the NRA's view is. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have now opposed the NRA's view on at least the point of arming teachers, if I understand the news reports of the NRA's support for the Texas law allowing teachers to carry. So, I'm going to dismiss your criticism as unfounded on that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:58 PM

35. the problemw with having just 1 police

 

liason armed is that any criminal attempting to assault the school will target the armed police first and then its a cake walk from there. This is why its important more people arm themselves and be ready for shooters. You see this all the time in movies and real life when a lone police man or armed guard is taken out before an attack or robbery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:15 PM

18. Actually, that's not true.

I think arming school personnel is a bad idea. One of our local police chiefs is talking about it though.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:21 AM

43. August 2012

Not private citizen but even worse: well-trained LEOs. Refute this, and tell me how an 'ordinary joe' would do better.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday's Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire, CNN reported Saturday morning.

According to Kelly, of the nine wounded, three suffered gunshot wounds and six were hit by fragments.

Gunfire broke out shortly after 9 a.m. on Friday when a gunman identified as 58-year old Jeffrey Johnson shot and killed former coworker Steve Ercolino near the Empire State Building.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ineeda (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:52 AM

44. Historically, joe citizen has FAR higher accuracy or hit ratio than police officers.

Some officers never fire their weapons outside qualification. Police also have a predator/prey response driven by their mandate to apprehend people.

At the point that exchange took place, the shooter wasn't doing anything. They didn't necessarily have to shoot him at all. Non-LEO may not have shot him. Impossible to say for sure, that's why I asked for non-law enforcement examples. They have a different mandate for public safety, than joe or jane citizen. And a different legal standard for justifiably employing lethal force.


(NYPD stands next to LAPD as having the BY FAR most abysmal accuracy/hit ratio's in the nation. And this is including people like SPD, where a couple years ago, some kid stole a police car, and two cops saw each other driving, each thought the other was the kid, pulled over and started shooting at each other. 31 rounds discharged, no one hit a damn thing. I think it's safe to assume, NYPD has a training issue, and it is probably caused by budget cuts.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:36 PM

52. "NYPD has a training issue." Yes, and a political ignorance issue. Bloomberg has mandated

 

the use of extra-heavy triggers on the Glocks used by the NYPD without appreciating the adverse effect that this has upon accuracy. This also poses a safety issue involving the general public.

"31 rounds discharged, no one hit a damn thing." I'll bet that his security detail is not required to use the extra-heavy triggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:06 PM

15. I agree 100% reading that makes me uncomfortable about the

caliber of people that have CCW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:02 PM

26. The Clakamas Mall shooting was stopped by a citizen

An "insane" person with a concealed weapons permit SAVED LIVES by shooting the guy who was shooting unarmed people.

The only insane response is yours. If you think a cop can magically appear in the few seconds it takes for someone to fire a gun, stab you with a knife, or crush your skull with a blunt object, that is just crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:26 PM

27. Where's the validation that only the police are sufficiently trained? For example, there are plenty

of vets who have seen no shortage of combat. I've never been on a police force; however, I was on the Army pistol team (NCAA - not the AMTU). My 25-year military career usually had annual weapons training (probably missed 2 or 3 years), including an Air Force's quick-reaction course with the requirement to meet proficiency with my non-dominant hand.

I don't carry; however, if I did, I'd be qualified. And I'm certainly not the only one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:27 PM

28. well it certainly puts to rest the meme

that gun owners here are law abiding citizens who intend no harm to others. I actually believed that before this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:21 AM

37. No one here has advocated breaking any laws.

Two of the examples that have been cited for you required no violence on the part of the resistance. The mere appearance of a person with a gun caused the shooters to terminate themselves.

Every single one of those examples, people acted to protect human life. Precisely the same action any on-duty law enforcement officer would take in the same situation.

I'm curious why you feel this thread has changed your perception that CPL holders are law abiding and intend no harm.

Maldonado? The Tacoma mall shooter I told you about? The man that opposed him and was crippled for life for it, had the drop on him. Could have gunned him down without question. Instead of shooting him, he asked the kid to put his rifle down. A man with a pistol, going up against a kid with a rifle, and he tried to get the kid to surrender. He'll be in his wheelchair for life, barring some medical breakthrough. Because he valued human life, even the life of a kid who just went on a shooting spree. If you ask him, he has no regrets. His action saved lives. Didn't take any lives himself. Didn't even fire his gun. Shot through the spine with a rifle, in payment.

He has no regrets.

Some of us value human life in ways that are difficult to explain. Carrying a firearm is one small way in which I work for that. I work for it on social causes, like workers rights, SS and Medicare, not just to keep people alive but to preserve quality of life. I spend weeks every year re-upping my search and rescue, triage, first aid, CPR, AED, and other certifications. All tools in service of my desire to preserve human life.

Not a single person in this thread has demonstrated a shred of bloodthirstiness, or disregard for the law. So, can you explain this objection you just raised?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:23 PM

30. I fully support citizen action to prevent crime in some cases

 

Seriously. We are not drones, we are by and large sensible organisms, and if a citizen finds himself in a situation where he can make a difference, or even save lives, in the absence of law enforcers, go for it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:35 PM

34. Until you can guarantee safety for me and my family, I will thank you to STFU about what I

 

(speaking for myself here) can personally do. God, you "leave the thugs alone and let them do whatever they want" people make me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:33 PM

23. Jesus Christ.

How many of these delusional scenarios have you played through in your head? If it was up to me you wouldn't have anything more than a slingshot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:57 PM

25. Well, it's not up to you.

It's up to the people and legislature of my state.

Not sure why you call it delusional. These scenarios can and have happened. (I just cited 4 specific real world instances in this thread)

More reasonably, you might call it an exceedingly unlikely scenario, as it is a 'black swan' when you are talking about individuals encountering it. You also didn't read it terribly closely, as I specified "that might not be why someone NEEDS a capacity of 21 rounds" but only that it is a lawful and productive use of a CPL+firearm. It is not a 'scenario' that runs through my head, simply an answer to a question posed upthread.

Edit: In Canada, off duty officers don't carry. They check in their weapons when they go home. Would that be preferable to you? Trolley Square shooting would have undoubtedly been worse, had there not been two off duty, armed LEO in the building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:24 PM

31. Its good to be prepared for ANYTHING

 

If you find yourself in a situation, you'll be faster to react if you've thought through what you may need to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UndahCovah (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:14 AM

36. Ok.

I guess I better keep a few grenades and a rocket launcher in my car, you know, just in case the reds attack.



If you're carrying that much firepower and fantasizing about saving a Taco Bell full of people, you're a nutcase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

14. I like to shoot now and then, it's a grown-up toy. I suppose I could use it if someone

broke into my house while I was home if I couldn't get to my shotgun first. I have no use for even a 10 round magazine. The reason I said 10 rounds that was what the limitation the op was suggesting. The cartridges for that gun run about 40 cents each to shoot you take one in the chamber and 10 rounds that burns up about $4.40. I am retired I can't waste that kind of money. I got a CCW permit and only carried a gun a handful of times just for kicks. About CCW the course we took to get the CCW is a joke. It was the NRA handgun safety course and the range training amounts to hitting the broad side of a barn and not shooting anyone at the range. You pay I think $50 to the sheriffs department to be finger printed and a background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:15 PM

19. My state doesn't have that at all.

We have two protections: state fingerprinting database check against state patrol (They own the statewide DB's), so they can catch crimes that haven't been reported to the FBI, and a FBI fingerprint check. We have no training requirement.

I'm ok with that, from a physical accuracy standpoint, but I think there should be a LOT of legal training. A lot of people who have CPL's don't understand the laws of this state, such as, you are not allowed to shoot someone to protect property. (Well, sub-felony level theft anyway) People don't understand that, and if they act on it, they become the bad guy.

If people aren't willing to train, and don't understand that the PRIVILGE of a CPL is to protect human life, then they shouldn't be carrying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:31 PM

21. The training on the laws amounted to here's the laws if you would

like to look at them. It's been a couple years but I think we had to have 8 or 10 hours of classroom training which consisted of the NRA Handgun Safety course. Then the next day we went down to the range a couple hours where we each punched 5 holes in a fairly large target at 50 feet. We actually went over and above the accuracy requirement it only required 5 shots at only 15 feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:26 PM

32. In Texas you can almost light somebody up for TPing your house

 

And it is certainly within the law to use deadly force to prevent any kind of theft.

Yeehaw, as they say. I live in the NE, much different laws in this regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:08 PM

2. Can't & Won't be done now...

I can already see folks setting themselves up for disappointment...And when nothing happens they will of course blame Obama, NOT Congress, as usual.

No gun control legislation has a chance of reaching Obama's desk before 2015...We did win the past election but the House still needs cleaning!! Let us not forget this fact as we begin to place blame on Obama for the lack of gun control laws in this country.

BTW- Not saying you are blaming Obama but others are on other post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkyDaddy7 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

6. Now ... only if Adam Lanza

had taken his anger out in the house Republican caucus things may be possible!

(Intended as humor and no advocacy of violence against the congress is intended)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:47 AM

39. I know you were being funny but...

in a way you are 100% correct...If members of the House GOP caucus were subjected to the trauma of being shot at or even shot be a delusional killer with assault weapon minds would change...Or probably even more of mind changer would be if their children had to go through what the kids who were in that 1st grade class had to go through!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:10 PM

3. I agree, there seems to be a group of people that want to blame Obama for everything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:13 PM

4. Yep, if they do pass such a law

the other side will blame Obama as well. He's in a no-win situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:15 PM

5. Good idea. Slow 'em down. Leave that for war zones. Then eliminate the wars, too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

10. NOW

Now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:26 PM

20. Boy, this thread brought out the loons.

Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

I don't care about your fetish's details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:19 PM

22. Then people would just load their magazines by hand.

Sorry, the the media ignorance of gun terms is getting to be too much. If you don't know what a clip is you shouldn't be writing an article on it. A clip is not a magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:56 PM

24. None of my clips hold over 10 rounds, so ban away.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:33 PM

33. My magazine will eat two of your clips

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:18 AM

45. Stop trying to spoil the joke. sigh. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:25 AM

46. LOL I see what you did there.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:52 PM

29. TGFGN's

This is sort of like having a discussion about what can be done to reduce child sex trafficking and somebody (who seems to know a little too much) says they don't know what they're talking about because they can't describe a particular sex act.

But for anyone who wants to know the difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

"A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm."

Now - How long does it take to load a 15-round magazine by hand as opposed to inserting a clip?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:25 AM

38. Depends.

You could use a lula, or just load by hand. Clips aren't necessary to produce the desired effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:35 AM

48. Thanks. I typed my reply, below, before I read to the end of the thread. I'll check out the link...

so...each firearm can have only one magazine (cylinder). And what should be outlawed are clips?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:29 AM

47. Could you please explain the difference? Thanks. I'm trying to educate myself, here...

FWIW, after much reflection on this issue since last Friday, it appears to me that the crucial factor is the ability to fire off 20-30 rounds within a few seconds.

If Adam Lanza had been in possession of 1 (or even 2) six shot revolvers, how many people would be dead now? Maybe none.

To prohibit the buying, selling, possession, building etc. of such high capacity (magazines/clips?) would be a good first step. Just my $.02.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:30 AM

40. Ten round ammunition clip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:19 PM

49. Since the ban will not be retroactive

not sure it will make that much of a difference. Most owners will have plenty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:25 PM

50. Good. You can sleep well tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:30 PM

51. You are missing the point

if high cap mags are such a danger yet proposed legislation will leave hundreds of millions of them legal to use and own, then just how much safer are you?

I understand the "lets so something" emotion behind this but there should be some room for rational assessment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread