9 ms·

Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there would be a provision for a type of license that would allow a

by dm2 13y ago

Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there would be a provision for a type of license that would allow a larger magazine if you had a valid reason and very clean record. If you live on a large farm and like to shoot for fun, then maybe a larger magazine would be acceptable. If you live in an apartment in a city, then you don't reasonably need extremely large magazines for your weapons. The law would probably only prohibit the sale of large magazines but grandfather in existing owners, so who really has an issue with this? And more background checks shouldn't be an issue, as long as there was some sort of process or committee for appeals and exceptions. Someone with a history of mental illness or a felony should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Someone who was wrongfully convicted or had a minor offense that was charged as a felony decades ago might be a candidate for an exception.

talmand 13y ago
Because, in most cases, its a stupid argument and a requirement that only restricts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws in the first place. It's a way for certain politicians to appeal to a certain base that, in the end, helps no one in any way that was proposed. Get into a boxing match and stipulate that both boxers must have their right hand secured behind their back. You step into the ring to find your opponent has chosen to ignore that rule. The ref tells you that while you must keep your hand tied or be disqualified, he cannot deal with your opponent's lack of respect of the rules until after the match is finished. How exactly did that rule help you? Some people disagree with the law, some people think it's the beginning of slippery slope that leads to confiscation, some people don't like their rights being used as a cheap election gimmick. Take your pick.
koenigdavidmj 13y ago
Soon fifteen is going to be an insufficiently low limit. Yes, slippery slope is generally a fallacy, but...it actually is happening. In Colorado, your "reasonable" magazine size limit is fifteen. In New York, it's ten in a pistol and five in a rifle, and you can only load seven rounds in the ten round magazine. California was a governor's veto away from banning all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I also have yet to see a reason why these shouldn't apply equally to the police. If large capacity magazines only exist to kill people as quickly as possible, then why should the police have that? How many times are they going to encounter enough armed belligerents for the capacity to matter?
wl 13y ago
The magazine size restriction only looks reasonable if you're unfamiliar with guns and how they're used in crime. The most common criminal use of a gun consists of a few rounds, rarely exceeding the capacity of these restricted size magazines. If we move to the much more rare mass shooting, we see that magazine size doesn't really reduce the body count. In the Virginia Tech shooting, for example, the shooter killed 32 people and injured 17 more with only 10 and 15 round magazines. In exchange for this limited or non-existent benefit, you seriously inconvenience gun owners who will likely never misuse their guns. The opposition to background checks isn't necessarily unreasonable, either. Pretty much all of the mass shootings in the US in the past 15 years have been carried out by people who would have been able to pass background checks. In the more common cases of illegal gun use, the user tends to be a felon who already got the gun through black market channels. Perhaps the benefit here is greater than the magazine capacity restrictions, but I don't know. I do know that background checks have been used to create a special tax on firearm transactions that greatly exceeds the cost of doing the checks. I also do know that these background checks have been used to create databases that were later used to confiscate firearms. Pretty much all the practical objections to background checks could be worked around if legislators wanted to. The problem seems to be that legislators who promote such bills don't seem interested in doing so.
- dm2 13y ago
  The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout These high-capacity magazines are devastating when used to commit a crime and there is zero legitimate use of them for a civilian. Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies.
  - waffle_ss 13y ago
    > The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. No. Drum magazines are prone to jamming, which is exactly what happened in your linked scenario (the gunman then decided to drop the rifle rather than clear the misfeed). The same thing happened to the Aurora, Colorado shooter and his drum magazine. An efficient killer would be better off with a MOLLE vest with the pouches filled with smaller-capacity magazines. > Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies. The 2nd amendment was not written for hunters or people who enjoy recreational shooting. It is an emergency brake against tyranny and a prodding towards militia defense of the country rather than standing army (read what James Madison wrote about the subject), so yes it actually is about killing people. In a time when all branches of federal government seem to be ignoring the Constitution, I for one am glad that we still have it.
wtbob 13y ago
> Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. Because there's nothing wrong with having a magazine which holds more than 15 rounds. That's the standard size for many black rifles. The universal background check law means that it's illegal for me to give or lend my firearm to my brother, my cousin or my good friend. The existing law was fine: it should be illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone ineligible to own one.
- Crito 13y ago
  > The universal background check law means that it's illegal for me to give or lend my firearm to my brother, my cousin or my good friend. The existing law was fine: it should be illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone ineligible to own one. To improve the efficacy of the existing law, I think it would be useful to provide a free and anonymous service to the public that allows private gun owners to query the ATF, asking if a particular person is ineligible to own one. Use of the service would not be required by law (and possibly would be done with the permission of the person in question? I'm not sure there; there might be privacy concerns) but would allow law abiding citizens, who almost certainly have no interest in selling guns to criminals, to make an informed decision when selling a gun privately.
  - kansface 13y ago
    You'd need their SSN.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Yes, at least. I'd be mildly concerned about people like landlords misusing the system, but I suspect that you can already determine if somebody is a felon with their SSN?

by dm2 13y ago

talmand 13y ago

Because, in most cases, its a stupid argument and a requirement that only restricts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws in the first place. It's a way for certain politicians to appeal to a certain base that, in the end, helps no one in any way that was proposed. Get into a boxing match and stipulate that both boxers must have their right hand secured behind their back. You step into the ring to find your opponent has chosen to ignore that rule. The ref tells you that while you must keep your hand tied or be disqualified, he cannot deal with your opponent's lack of respect of the rules until after the match is finished. How exactly did that rule help you? Some people disagree with the law, some people think it's the beginning of slippery slope that leads to confiscation, some people don't like their rights being used as a cheap election gimmick. Take your pick.

koenigdavidmj 13y ago

Soon fifteen is going to be an insufficiently low limit. Yes, slippery slope is generally a fallacy, but...it actually is happening. In Colorado, your "reasonable" magazine size limit is fifteen. In New York, it's ten in a pistol and five in a rifle, and you can only load seven rounds in the ten round magazine. California was a governor's veto away from banning all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I also have yet to see a reason why these shouldn't apply equally to the police. If large capacity magazines only exist to kill people as quickly as possible, then why should the police have that? How many times are they going to encounter enough armed belligerents for the capacity to matter?

wl 13y ago

The magazine size restriction only looks reasonable if you're unfamiliar with guns and how they're used in crime. The most common criminal use of a gun consists of a few rounds, rarely exceeding the capacity of these restricted size magazines. If we move to the much more rare mass shooting, we see that magazine size doesn't really reduce the body count. In the Virginia Tech shooting, for example, the shooter killed 32 people and injured 17 more with only 10 and 15 round magazines. In exchange for this limited or non-existent benefit, you seriously inconvenience gun owners who will likely never misuse their guns. The opposition to background checks isn't necessarily unreasonable, either. Pretty much all of the mass shootings in the US in the past 15 years have been carried out by people who would have been able to pass background checks. In the more common cases of illegal gun use, the user tends to be a felon who already got the gun through black market channels. Perhaps the benefit here is greater than the magazine capacity restrictions, but I don't know. I do know that background checks have been used to create a special tax on firearm transactions that greatly exceeds the cost of doing the checks. I also do know that these background checks have been used to create databases that were later used to confiscate firearms. Pretty much all the practical objections to background checks could be worked around if legislators wanted to. The problem seems to be that legislators who promote such bills don't seem interested in doing so.

dm2 13y ago
The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout These high-capacity magazines are devastating when used to commit a crime and there is zero legitimate use of them for a civilian. Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies.
- waffle_ss 13y ago
  > The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. No. Drum magazines are prone to jamming, which is exactly what happened in your linked scenario (the gunman then decided to drop the rifle rather than clear the misfeed). The same thing happened to the Aurora, Colorado shooter and his drum magazine. An efficient killer would be better off with a MOLLE vest with the pouches filled with smaller-capacity magazines. > Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies. The 2nd amendment was not written for hunters or people who enjoy recreational shooting. It is an emergency brake against tyranny and a prodding towards militia defense of the country rather than standing army (read what James Madison wrote about the subject), so yes it actually is about killing people. In a time when all branches of federal government seem to be ignoring the Constitution, I for one am glad that we still have it.

wtbob 13y ago

> Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. Because there's nothing wrong with having a magazine which holds more than 15 rounds. That's the standard size for many black rifles. The universal background check law means that it's illegal for me to give or lend my firearm to my brother, my cousin or my good friend. The existing law was fine: it should be illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone ineligible to own one.

Crito 13y ago
> The universal background check law means that it's illegal for me to give or lend my firearm to my brother, my cousin or my good friend. The existing law was fine: it should be illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone ineligible to own one. To improve the efficacy of the existing law, I think it would be useful to provide a free and anonymous service to the public that allows private gun owners to query the ATF, asking if a particular person is ineligible to own one. Use of the service would not be required by law (and possibly would be done with the permission of the person in question? I'm not sure there; there might be privacy concerns) but would allow law abiding citizens, who almost certainly have no interest in selling guns to criminals, to make an informed decision when selling a gun privately.
- kansface 13y ago
  You'd need their SSN.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Yes, at least. I'd be mildly concerned about people like landlords misusing the system, but I suspect that you can already determine if somebody is a felon with their SSN?