Lets talk gun control?
Is it too much to ask that we ban extended clips and put in place tougher background checks?
I actually don't hate guns and had extensive training through the Marines but if you can't take out a singe target in 1 or 2 shots then frankly you should not have a gun because its more likely you'll end up hitting someone other then your target.
Do you really think an Assault Weapons Ban will solve anything?
Far more people die from hand guns every month then they do from an assault rifle in an entire year. And when it comes to mass shootings a hand gun is far more deadly in close quarter combat(indoors) then a rifle.
Blake....They should have better training.
Piercing>>>But is a 30 round clip really needed in the civilian world? What use does it serve? As for the rest, I completely agree with you.
- John de WittLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
If anybody had proposed banning extended magazines it might have worked. Nobody tried. The proposal was a magazine limit of ten (and New York passed one at seven!). Keep in mind that if you were issued an M-9, it had 15+1 capacity, and many perfectly run-of-the-mill 9mm handguns go 17+1. I know several gun owners who would have swallowed a 20-round limit, but they universally became "extreme" when it became obvious the Democratic leadership weren't talking about reasonable restrictions but were apparently making a big and unreasonable step, sure to be followed by even more extreme and unreasonable steps. If those people in Foggy Bottom could be trusted to be sensible, things would be different.
I note your jarheads recently contracted for a bunch of 45 ACP's. I suppose the New York law will also encourage people to give up their 9mm's and go to the 7+1 1911a1-style pistols. It should be interesting to see how that works out!
- D.E.M.Lv 67 years ago
Thanks for serving, but have you ever been in a fire fight? If you have then you should know when the adrenaline is kicking in accuracy drops. Specially the first two or three times. In these circumstances accuracy is around 1 in 7 in a home invasion and even worse in a law enforcement situation. Most home invasions are two or more perpetrators. Me I would want at least a standard 20 to 30 round magazine if an AR or the standard 9 to13 magazine in a semi auto handgun.
I would also point out that so called assault weapons are used in less than .00005% of all crimes. This proves that there are definitely more important areas that the energy of our legislative branches could be putting their resources and energy. Specially when the administration has already stated that the current NICS check violations are to much of a burden for the Department of Justice and they are not going to prosecute them. I believe the term they used for lying on the form was they were paper violations, yet it is the very excuse they are using to put an undo burden on the law abiding citizen. I am disappointed that are legislators did not fix the laws to make it where the current system received the information from health care providers on mental health threats, that have been blocked by the HIPAA law. I also think some pharmaceuticals should be looked at as there effect on the brain has caused schizophrenia and paranoia. But to call a standard magazine an extended magazine or any of the terms they are now using is just wrong and limiting the magazine is not going to do anything but make me switch magazines, which takes less than a second.
Oh by the way according to your statement on they need more training in a firefight in Iraq the marines fired almost a thousand rounds, two years ago. The casualties were 23 dead 4 wounded. These were trained combat hardened Marines. They were used to being ambushed, yet even with all their training according to your statement they were not qualified. I would rethink my statement!
- shroudLv 77 years ago
if you don't think a Assault Weapons Ban will solve anything than why ban the magazines?
and yes when the cops start shooting they fire over 16 per man and they are trained to shoot
so a untrained person should be expected to need/use more rounds
those two women in California the cops shot looking for the bad cop, 2 cops put over 100 rounds in the truck and still did not kill the 2 inside - lucky for them
and you say why a 30 round magazine for civilians - hell why not? most gun owners will never break the law and they already have 30 round magazine and no one has come up with a reason to take those magazines away from them other than fear
mass shooting happen less than once per year
the shooter is normally alone
the shooters have all been found to be ether liberals or Muslim
the shooters all used stolen illegally obtained guns
any weapons or magazine ban would punish millions for the act of one person how can that be right
and what good would the harder backround checks have done to stop them
- 7 years ago
How about this instead. In Colorado we have a pretty straight forward carry and conceal law. You must be old enough to own a handgun, and you must go through a weapon safety class to then get the carry and conceal permit. I bring this up because since that law was enacted, NOT ONE SINGLE person who had their carry and conceal, and then committed domestic violence did so with a gun. Not once. they didn't shoot their spouse or even pistol whip. Seems to me the problem is education, because you cannot tell me that not one person who committed domestic violence was mentally unstable. so how about we take all the gun control laws and instead we begin educating our children on guns from an early age. they are not a toy, they are not cool, they are a weapon, or they are a tool. Hunting, home defense, defense against a tyrannical government. There is a reason the membership of the NRA has a lower incidence of gun violence than the membership of PETA. because the NRA is all about education. Proper education is the key to pretty much every single problem this country faces. the biggest problem there is the government being in charge of that education.. but i digress, that is for a different question i guess.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Mark JackLv 77 years ago
I'm a Democrat and support the right to own guns including modern sporting rifles and other semiautomatic weapons. 30 round MAGAZINES are standard in most modern guns and it only takes 1 second to reload a 10 round mag that isn't standard. There are more mags than guns that exist so banning 30 round mags will only triple the price of them. Plus they will be grandfathered so owning them can't legally be enforced. Our house door was kicked in, and if that ever were to happen again I would want less rounds to test my marksmen ship in a life or death shoot out with a group of armed robbers.
Picture 3 people with Glock 19's and 32 round mags vs 1 person with a Ruger mini 30 or AR-15 with 30 rounds. A few extra rounds may be needed for suppression.
I don't own a semi auto rifle (yet) but I support people being able to own them.
I say we enforce current law, put guards where they need to be and get ride of gun free zones, its basically a sitting duck zone.
- ?Lv 67 years ago
When you were a Marine you never encountered multiple targets or shot under stress.
I have been a police officer in the past and I have found that if you do not hit center mass (under combat stress) the subject might not stop.
My department had a shooting several months before I started. They stuck the subject 18 times but he continue to fight.
That couple with the fact that I watched the video of the Boston Police conducting warantless searches leads me to believe high capacity clips are still needed.
- DifdiLv 67 years ago
You obviously either flunked the Marine training where they teach you what the parts of a firearm are, or your service ended at least 50 years ago. The last U.S. issued weapon that I am aware of that used clips at all was the M1 Garand which was already obsolete by the time of the Korean conflict. Since then, all U.S. issue weapons have used magazines and while civilians can own M1s, most civilian weapons with removable ammunition arrangements use magazines as well.
The first problem with your question is, how do you define an extended magazine? Anti-gun nuts rant about capacity, while those knowledgeable about guns point to standardization. A 20 round magazine on an M1911 is extended, since the standard magazine for that pistol holds 7 rounds. On the other hand, a 20 round magazine on an AR-15 is not extended, since that is what the rifle was designed to use. 30-round AR-15 magazines are slightly extended, but not by a lot. What most gun experts consider an extended magazine on an AR-15 holds at least 50 rounds, possibly 100 or 200 rounds.
The second flaw you have is that 1 or 2 bullets thing. Police are trained to a higher marksmanship standard than your average citizen, and they tend to miss about 70% of the time with handguns. It's not unusual for a police officer to fire 8-12 shots from his Glock 9mm (standard magazine: 18 rounds) for every bullet that he manages to hit his target with. With any firearm, you shoot until the threat to your life stops being a threat, whether that be 1 shot (extremely rare) or 10-20 (much more common). Going by the standards of accuracy for U.S. forces in the Vietnam conflict, a 10:1 shot/hit ratio would be legendary, spectacular accuracy. The average for highly trained U.S. soldiers in Vietnam was 20,000:1. That's right, for every bullet they hit the enemy with, they fired TWENTY THOUSAND that missed entirely. Guns are not magic wands, and while waving one can cause trouble to disappear, they are not unstoppable death machines.
When shooting that average of 10 bullets to get their one hit, all those missed shots fly off until they hit something. Police know that they are protected from civil liability and often even criminal liability, so they are less discriminate when firing their weapons than private citizens, with the result that you are between 8 and 10 times more likely to be shot in error by a police officer than you are to be shot at all by an armed private citizen, since the citizen knows full well he's fully responsible for where every bullet goes.
Assault weapons represented approximately 40 of the nearly-10,000 deaths due to firearms in 2011 (no official stats for all of 2012 are collated yet). We don't know how many of those were women shooting would-be rapists, police shooting criminals or criminals shooting their victims. What is known is that due to their expense, few criminals use assault weapons; They tend to either use cheaper weapons or, if they have the money for an assault weapon, they buy a real military weapon on the black market. Why spend thousands on a gun that shots 1 accurate shot per second when you can get one that sprays 16 per second and you don't need to aim carefully for the same price?
You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a reckless driver's car than ANY gun. If you compare cars and assault weapons, those odds rise to 6,000 times. You're about equally likely to be struck 2-3 times by lightning as you are to die from gunfire from an assault weapon. Obviously the greater threat to human life, including the lives of our children, is civilian ownership of cars.
- out2lunch4now2Lv 77 years ago
Since more than 90% of denials based on the NICS background check are reversed on appeal, what good are they, really? Most criminals don't bother buying their weapons from people who do the checks.
Exactly what caliber handgun do you suggest I carry to take down the 6foot 8 inch, 280 pound drunk who is attacking me "in 1 or 2 shots"?
"Assault weapons", according to the legal definition, have been almost impossible to legally acquire for decades.
How about we have background checks for people buying cars. Wouldn't that prevent drunks from driving? (About as well as current anti-gun laws prevent people from getting guns, I'm sure.) How about we limit the size of gas tanks? Who needs 20 gallons of gasoline?
- 7 years ago
Background checks are not going to stop criminals no matter how extensive they are and really how many people buy assault weapons so what is the use of a ban on them
- 7 years ago
well your military training should tell you that a 30 round magazine is nothing short of ordinary size. cant stand those people saying a 30 round mag is 'high capacity'. now a hundred round drum, perhaps a special permit should be required. but i can drop and swap mags with any gun, be it rifle or pistol in less than two seconds. i think we should quit talking about weapon type and magazine size and start talking about access to the weapons; background checks, permits, training and the like is what is going to prevent bad things from happening.