5 ms·

Can we be intellectually honest? These are not "high-capacity" magazines - they are the standard capacity magazines the firearms were designed to work with. Th

by Alupis 6y ago

Can we be intellectually honest? These are not "high-capacity" magazines - they are the standard capacity magazines the firearms were designed to work with. The 10-Round Limit Magazines are Low Capacity magazines, are not standard, are often the source of feeding malfunctions, and in many rifles - are cumbersome to use/remove making for an overall more dangerous situation for all involved. Ban "Standard Capacity" magazines? Bad guys do not follow your laws.

jariel 6y ago
"are often the source of feeding malfunctions, and in many rifles - are cumbersome to use/remove making for an overall more dangerous situation for all involved." This is false, especially the part about 'more dangerous for all involved'.
- Alupis 6y ago
  You make the claim everything I said is false - do you have anything to backup your assertion? How often do you shoot a month? More than once? More than every weekend? Do you train and do you compete?
  - jariel 6y ago
    If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. To characterise the extremely marginal degree of 'safety concern' when using a weapon which is 1000x more likely to cause harm through the means that it was designed for (i.e. shooting, getting shot) is a little ridiculous, especially in the context of the objective of the legislation. While individual laws may be pointless by themselves, the fact is the US is basically an unruly, unlawful dangerous place with levels of violent crime completely abnormal for any civilised country. Even if you account for a number of 'danger areas / ghettos ' with anomalies amounts of crime, it's still bad. The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible. So if we want to have 30 round magazines and all those other things widely and easily available, open carry etc. (i.e the US is nothing resembling 'Switzerland') ... then we have to 'pay the price' and live with the consequences: about 10 times more likely to get shot and killed then if we lived in a civilised country without guns widely available, and without gun culture. The civilised places which have managed to live without widespread gun ownership have demonstrated that it's almost entirely a better option. Nobody is clamouring for guns in these places or contemplating that they need to follow America's example in this regard. In fact - just the opposite. Basically, America is looked upon as a complete failure when it comes to these things. What could work well? 'Well regulated Militias'. That might just work fine - rifles in the Armoury, keys held by the Sergeant at Arms. Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. Funny that ... 'Well regulated Militia' ...
    - Alupis 6y ago
      They are unsafe because they routinely cause weapon malfunctions. Trying to clear two rounds stacked into each other is dangerous and can cause a negligent discharge. Certain types of cartridges are even more susceptible to problems stemming from feed malfunctions, such as "Setback" in .40 S&W, which can turn your handgun into a hand grenade with no warning. Basically, your argument seems to be, guns can be dangerous if used improperly, therefore a magazine that was modified to meet some arbitrary requirement and causes routine malfunctions isn't a problem? That's absurd. When you examine violent gun related crime - it is simply not law abiding citizens causing the problems. It simply is not. It's gang shootings, and murders that dominate gun violence. Two things that will not stop if you magically removed all guns. You must be realistic, otherwise you're arguing from a disingenuous position. California - and particularly Los Angeles - has some of the most strict gun policy in the country! Yet... are responsible for most of the gun violence in the nation. How do you explain that away? Is it a bunch of law abiding citizens committing all that violence? No it is not. > The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible Really? One of the most commonly seized gang shooting-related firearms in California is the TEC-9, a gun that's been illegal to purchase since the 80's. No "otherwise lawful gun owner" has one - so how is your assertion possibly true? What about all the so-called "Ghost Guns" that gang bangers are supposedly manufacturing in their homes? Is that because "otherwise lawful gun owners" own legal guns? You cannot even legally buy the serialized component of the firearm to manufacture into a complete firearm without doing so through an actual FFL (these are commonly called "80% kits" or sometimes are just the bare lower receiver of a AR-15 rifle - they are serialized and tracked by ATF and DOJ). > Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. You mean to say, not an AR-15 pattern rifle, or an AK-47 pattern rifle? What about a Mini-14 or Mini-30? You've probably never heard of them or seen one in person, and would probably be fine with them I would assume. They don't look like "military" rifles, right? Even though they fire the exact same cartridges as the two "scary military" rifles and can hold 5, 10, 20, 30+ rounds in their magazines too? In any event, it seems abundantly clear you do not have much experience with these firearms and their magazines - which makes your rejection of my original comment highly suspicious, and likely completely baseless.
bifrost 6y ago
That is also very accurate. One of the arguments was that "these magazines are unusual" when in fact they are THE STANDARD size for many firearms. Many laws surrounding firearms were passed with misleading information like this. If you read through the text of some of these laws you'd laugh about how ridiculous some of them are. The reality is that most firearms restrictions have been passed due to Racism, one of the most onerous and racist being the "National Firearms Act". Basically politicians (in league with the KKK and several other racist groups) were afraid of non-white people gaining access to firearms and protecting themselves. If we fast forward to the 1960s, California banned a variety of things because the Black Panthers were following the existing laws and racists didn't like it. This story repeats itself a lot. If we fast forward to modern day - current firearms laws don't stop or deterr criminal use.
- minimuffins 6y ago
  Really pathetic that this is downvoted. It's correct. Whether you like gun control or not, the real history is it was kicked off in the Reagan era in response to the Black Panthers' efforts to arm themselves.
  - bifrost 6y ago
    Correct, the Mulford act was bitpartisan legislation driven by racism.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Gun control goes back farther than that, at least to Reconstruction. Can't have those freed slaves getting too free, dontchaknow.
threatofrain 6y ago
> Ban "Standard Capacity" magazines? Bad guys do not follow your laws. The "bad guys" of concern seem to be people with mental issues, not organized crime. In that respect, restricting low-effort access to weapons with a high kill-count capacity sounds targeted at the right demographic.
- jariel 6y ago
  No, the number of firearms used by 'mentally unstable' in killings is a tiny fraction of those used in street crime, impromptu crime, gangs etc.. They are almost separate issues.
  - bifrost 6y ago
    Correct, they are very separate issues. Criminal enterprise has more commonality with gun crime than gun ownership does. If gun ownership was simply the issue, there would be over 1000x since the US has millions of firearms in private ownership and has for a very long time. This is why overly broad laws that criminalize regular people are stupid. We can use things like gang enhancements and laws that say "gun was used in a crime, increase sentence" to criminalize the correct people.
    - jariel 6y ago
      What is 'stupid' is having millions of guns everywhere, willy nilly, people carrying them, threatening each other, cops afraid to pull people over. It's utterly clear to anyone who's bothered to live in a few different civilised countries, and one of the most shockingly 'wrong' thing that a lot of smart can't grasp. It's more of a case study in 'perspective and information bias' than it is guns. Ratcheting up the laws for use in 'gun crime' will help a little bit, but there are no situations in which the widespread availability of guns won't result in quite a lot of excessive violence. There is no way around the math: zillions of guns means excessive gun crime. That's it. People get angry, vengeful, stupid - when they have easy access, when we have 'gun culture' - they turn to guns. Where guns are sparse, and there is no gun culture ... they don't.

by Alupis 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

"are often the source of feeding malfunctions, and in many rifles - are cumbersome to use/remove making for an overall more dangerous situation for all involved." This is false, especially the part about 'more dangerous for all involved'.

Alupis 6y ago
You make the claim everything I said is false - do you have anything to backup your assertion? How often do you shoot a month? More than once? More than every weekend? Do you train and do you compete?
- jariel 6y ago
  If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. To characterise the extremely marginal degree of 'safety concern' when using a weapon which is 1000x more likely to cause harm through the means that it was designed for (i.e. shooting, getting shot) is a little ridiculous, especially in the context of the objective of the legislation. While individual laws may be pointless by themselves, the fact is the US is basically an unruly, unlawful dangerous place with levels of violent crime completely abnormal for any civilised country. Even if you account for a number of 'danger areas / ghettos ' with anomalies amounts of crime, it's still bad. The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible. So if we want to have 30 round magazines and all those other things widely and easily available, open carry etc. (i.e the US is nothing resembling 'Switzerland') ... then we have to 'pay the price' and live with the consequences: about 10 times more likely to get shot and killed then if we lived in a civilised country without guns widely available, and without gun culture. The civilised places which have managed to live without widespread gun ownership have demonstrated that it's almost entirely a better option. Nobody is clamouring for guns in these places or contemplating that they need to follow America's example in this regard. In fact - just the opposite. Basically, America is looked upon as a complete failure when it comes to these things. What could work well? 'Well regulated Militias'. That might just work fine - rifles in the Armoury, keys held by the Sergeant at Arms. Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. Funny that ... 'Well regulated Militia' ...
  - Alupis 6y ago
    They are unsafe because they routinely cause weapon malfunctions. Trying to clear two rounds stacked into each other is dangerous and can cause a negligent discharge. Certain types of cartridges are even more susceptible to problems stemming from feed malfunctions, such as "Setback" in .40 S&W, which can turn your handgun into a hand grenade with no warning. Basically, your argument seems to be, guns can be dangerous if used improperly, therefore a magazine that was modified to meet some arbitrary requirement and causes routine malfunctions isn't a problem? That's absurd. When you examine violent gun related crime - it is simply not law abiding citizens causing the problems. It simply is not. It's gang shootings, and murders that dominate gun violence. Two things that will not stop if you magically removed all guns. You must be realistic, otherwise you're arguing from a disingenuous position. California - and particularly Los Angeles - has some of the most strict gun policy in the country! Yet... are responsible for most of the gun violence in the nation. How do you explain that away? Is it a bunch of law abiding citizens committing all that violence? No it is not. > The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible Really? One of the most commonly seized gang shooting-related firearms in California is the TEC-9, a gun that's been illegal to purchase since the 80's. No "otherwise lawful gun owner" has one - so how is your assertion possibly true? What about all the so-called "Ghost Guns" that gang bangers are supposedly manufacturing in their homes? Is that because "otherwise lawful gun owners" own legal guns? You cannot even legally buy the serialized component of the firearm to manufacture into a complete firearm without doing so through an actual FFL (these are commonly called "80% kits" or sometimes are just the bare lower receiver of a AR-15 rifle - they are serialized and tracked by ATF and DOJ). > Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. You mean to say, not an AR-15 pattern rifle, or an AK-47 pattern rifle? What about a Mini-14 or Mini-30? You've probably never heard of them or seen one in person, and would probably be fine with them I would assume. They don't look like "military" rifles, right? Even though they fire the exact same cartridges as the two "scary military" rifles and can hold 5, 10, 20, 30+ rounds in their magazines too? In any event, it seems abundantly clear you do not have much experience with these firearms and their magazines - which makes your rejection of my original comment highly suspicious, and likely completely baseless.

bifrost 6y ago

That is also very accurate. One of the arguments was that "these magazines are unusual" when in fact they are THE STANDARD size for many firearms. Many laws surrounding firearms were passed with misleading information like this. If you read through the text of some of these laws you'd laugh about how ridiculous some of them are. The reality is that most firearms restrictions have been passed due to Racism, one of the most onerous and racist being the "National Firearms Act". Basically politicians (in league with the KKK and several other racist groups) were afraid of non-white people gaining access to firearms and protecting themselves. If we fast forward to the 1960s, California banned a variety of things because the Black Panthers were following the existing laws and racists didn't like it. This story repeats itself a lot. If we fast forward to modern day - current firearms laws don't stop or deterr criminal use.

minimuffins 6y ago
Really pathetic that this is downvoted. It's correct. Whether you like gun control or not, the real history is it was kicked off in the Reagan era in response to the Black Panthers' efforts to arm themselves.
- bifrost 6y ago
  Correct, the Mulford act was bitpartisan legislation driven by racism.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Gun control goes back farther than that, at least to Reconstruction. Can't have those freed slaves getting too free, dontchaknow.

threatofrain 6y ago

> Ban "Standard Capacity" magazines? Bad guys do not follow your laws. The "bad guys" of concern seem to be people with mental issues, not organized crime. In that respect, restricting low-effort access to weapons with a high kill-count capacity sounds targeted at the right demographic.

jariel 6y ago
No, the number of firearms used by 'mentally unstable' in killings is a tiny fraction of those used in street crime, impromptu crime, gangs etc.. They are almost separate issues.
- bifrost 6y ago
  Correct, they are very separate issues. Criminal enterprise has more commonality with gun crime than gun ownership does. If gun ownership was simply the issue, there would be over 1000x since the US has millions of firearms in private ownership and has for a very long time. This is why overly broad laws that criminalize regular people are stupid. We can use things like gang enhancements and laws that say "gun was used in a crime, increase sentence" to criminalize the correct people.
  - jariel 6y ago
    What is 'stupid' is having millions of guns everywhere, willy nilly, people carrying them, threatening each other, cops afraid to pull people over. It's utterly clear to anyone who's bothered to live in a few different civilised countries, and one of the most shockingly 'wrong' thing that a lot of smart can't grasp. It's more of a case study in 'perspective and information bias' than it is guns. Ratcheting up the laws for use in 'gun crime' will help a little bit, but there are no situations in which the widespread availability of guns won't result in quite a lot of excessive violence. There is no way around the math: zillions of guns means excessive gun crime. That's it. People get angry, vengeful, stupid - when they have easy access, when we have 'gun culture' - they turn to guns. Where guns are sparse, and there is no gun culture ... they don't.