Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[Jayhawk]

Just because the Aurora shooting and other recent shooters didn't use automatic weapons, doesn't mean they couldn't acquire them. I would speculate that the choice of semi-automatic was a specific choice.  He wanted to pull that trigger every time, it was very personal for him.  If his objective was to kill as many people as he could, he would have been much better off using a bomb.  So it's not that the shooters COULDN'T get an automatic weapon, it's that they didn't want one.  My point it, criminals, psychopaths, will get what they want, illegal or not.

Also, your point that if there were smaller magazines, there would be less dead.  That is total speculation, it sounds nice, but there is no proof that would actually work.  The fact is, as terrible as these shootings are, they are very rare.  We can't give up personal freedoms because a ban on high cap magazines could possibly prevent a shooter from getting one which could possibly add a second or two to a mass shooting which could possibly save a person.

Finally, as a point not specifically to the magazine issue, but rather to the gun control, here's one of my favorite quotes:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Ben Franklin

[Widewing]

[TonyJoey]

A 15-round magazine limit does not limit the legal gun owners in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I repeat, a 15-round magazine limit does not limit the good guys in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I can say it 10 more times if that's what it takes to get through.

Jay- Your idea that they purposely chose not to use a fully-automatic gun is pure speculation. The simple fact is that they didn't, which supports my thesis that psychopaths use the tools available to them. On the other hand, I don't think that the idea that someone forced to use 15-round magazines would do less damage than someone with a 33 or 100 round magazine is speculation. Barring a malfunction or jam, in the same amount of time, a person who has to stop and reload a couple of times will get off less rounds than someone who doesnt. Period. Less rounds, less injured or dead. More reloads, more chance to be subdued. 

[Widewing]

A 15-round magazine limit does not limit the legal gun owners in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I repeat, a 15-round magazine limit does not limit the good guys in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I can say it 10 more times if that's what it takes to get through.

 

Most states have restrictions of 5 rounds for hunting... Hunting on private preserves may have different rules.

For self defense, you can't state for fact that 15 rounds would not limit self defense. Especially if you died while reloading in the dark, pumped to the max with adrenalin where your fine motor skills go to hell (unless well trained). A larger capacity magazine means you may not have to have spare magazines on your person. Grab your weapon and only your weapon and go. Very important when seconds count. Beats fumbling in the dark to find that spare mag while bad guys are kicking in the door of your daughter's bedroom.

Plan for the worst case, hope for better.

Collectors don't want non-original magazines. They are worthless to a collector and diminish the value of a collectible weapon.

So yeah, restricting magazine size can or will have a negative effect on two of the three you list.

One more point... No one has the right to tell me how I choose to defend myself, my family and my property. Just like no one has the right to tell me what constitutes an immediate threat. That is solely my decision and my determination.  If I'm wrong, I have to live with the consequences. If I'm right, I get to live. No politician, be they in Washington or a State House, sitting on their sizable backsides, has the right to tell me how to protect the people I love and the things I've worked a lifetime for.

[TonyJoey]

By collecting I meant you'd still be able to own your AK47's or Ar-15's or whatever else you fancy. Not only that, but the standard capacity magazines you already own would not be confiscated.

On self-defense, before I go any further, is there any magazine limit that you feel would not hinder self-defense?

[Jayhawk]

Jay- Your idea that they purposely chose not to use a fully-automatic gun is pure speculation. The simple fact is that they didn't, which supports my thesis that psychopaths use the tools available to them. On the other hand, I don't think that the idea that someone forced to use 15-round magazines would do less damage than someone with a 33 or 100 round magazine is speculation. Barring a malfunction or jam, in the same amount of time, a person who has to stop and reload a couple of times will get off less rounds than someone who doesnt. Period. Less rounds, less injured or dead. More reloads, more chance to be subdued.  

It's not really speculation (even though I did use that word), it more comes from my degree in Psychology.  Besides the very personal nature of a psychopath's actions, it also relates a lot to control.  A semi-automatic makes the killings very personal, and keeps the shooter very much in control.  These events are well thought out, well planned, and often, well documented.  You don't hear about these individuals trying and failing to acquire fully automatic weapons, which only strengthens my point, that they choose these weapons not because of their legality, but because it is how they want to carry out their actions.

Yes, a person who has to reload will not get as many shots off.  However, less rounds ≠ less deaths.  A Gatling gun fires 200 rounds per minute, but a M24 only fires about 20 rounds per minute.  Which one is more deadly?  Which one get's more deaths per round fired?  It's not about magazine capacity, it's not about speed, it's about the shooter's accuracy.  That is something we have no control over and reducing magazine capacity will have no effect on. **This also goes with the assumption that they wouldn't buy a high cap magazine because they are illegal and wouldn't be able to acquire them.**

[4Prop]

The AK-47 is 7.62mm while the AR is 5.56mm.

I know that. im saying had he used a bigger caliber, it would've been much worse

[TonyJoey]

All factors the same, less bullets = less injured/deaths. In this case, the only factor that would change would be the amount of bullets that the shooter got off. Same person, same accuracy, same weapon, less bullets.

[TonyJoey]

Okay, I'll bend even further to the right, but some of you guys have got to be willing to compromise a bit as well. How about simply an extended-magazine ban. Whatever magazine size comes standard with the weapon would be legal i.e. a glock 17 could have 17 rounds, an M-16/AR-15 could have 30 round magazines. Self defense would be entirely up to the homeowner. If he didn't feel safe with revolver, he could buy an M1911 with a 7-round magazine, an M9 with 15 rounds, or even a Glock with 17. Maybe he wanted an assault rifle for home defense; he could do that and have 30 rounds at his disposal. Whatever he felt the safest with, with he could purchase. On the other hand, mass murderers wouldn't have 33 round mags for their Glocks or 100 round mags for their M-16s. I think such a law would balance the interests of gun owners and public safety very well. That rectifies the collecting and self-defense issues Widewing brought up while limiting the output of a mass murderer on a rampage.

[grizz441]

How about a ban of all guns and weapons for anyone that was going to shoot up a place.  I think that is most fairest.

[guncrasher]

    Awesome, I totally believe you.

see nshida here's the numero uno.


semp

[nrshida]

see nshida here's the numero uno.

I know, I think Melvin is a fantastic bloke too 

[Jayhawk]

All factors the same, less bullets = less injured/deaths. In this case, the only factor that would change would be the amount of bullets that the shooter got off. Same person, same accuracy, same weapon, less bullets.

Unfortunately, in the real world, all factors don't stay the same.  There are too many variables to make a statement like that.  Maybe he would have practiced his reloading more, maybe he would have changed his strategy, who knows.  I'm not saying it would have been worse, but you can't say for sure that less people would have died if he didn't have those magazines.

[jimson]

Okay, I'll bend even further to the right, but some of you guys have got to be willing to compromise a bit as well. How about simply an extended-magazine ban. Whatever magazine size comes standard with the weapon would be legal i.e. a glock 17 could have 17 rounds, an M-16/AR-15 could have 30 round magazines. Self defense would be entirely up to the homeowner. If he didn't feel safe with revolver, he could buy an M1911 with a 7-round magazine, an M9 with 15 rounds, or even a Glock with 17. Maybe he wanted an assault rifle for home defense; he could do that and have 30 rounds at his disposal. Whatever he felt the safest with, with he could purchase. On the other hand, mass murderers wouldn't have 33 round mags for their Glocks or 100 round mags for their M-16s. I think such a law would balance the interests of gun owners and public safety very well. That rectifies the collecting and self-defense issues Widewing brought up while limiting the output of a mass murderer on a rampage.

Widewing: I didn't know that bullet holes were not a big danger to aircraft, guess i assumed that.

[Jayhawk]

For the record, I don't think I'll ever own a 33 round magazine or one of those silly 100 round magazines.  I just don't see the point of them, not to mention the cost of filling them up.  That being said, I reference back my previous posts that I don't think banning them will have any real impact on crime rates or these massacres.