High capacity magazine in rampage was banned under Clinton-era law

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, I have an entire shrine built in honor of your posts. Search engine? Pffft. Search engines are for pussies.

Lol naturally. Noone searches for Garys posts. They save them, offline, for posterity.

The gospel of Gary - now hear the word: I, I, I, I, I, me, my, I, me, I, I, I, I, me, my

Edited January 11, 2011 by Ron Burgundy

[slim 1,525]

Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds.

Please explain to me how the shooting you're referring to here - "The gunman shot Giffords first. As she fell, he turned away and seemed to shoot anyone else who appeared before him." - could've possibly been stopped by reinstituting the '94 ban.

I kind of see where you're going with this, but since he shot the congresswoman first - you'd better try to ban ALL bullets and/or ALL magazines. Heck, why not ban handguns while you're at it? Oh, I know - we should ban murder!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Had I been in the crowd I would have capped him off before he killed number 2. Too bad I don't go to Democrat rallies, eh? I would not wait until he ran out of bullets...I have no need to.

He was standing in line when he began firing, so there were innocent bystanders all around him. While I enjoy a good western where a gunslinger is able to shoot a gun out of the hand of the bad guy, I also know that's Hollywood and not real life. I believe in our constitutional right to bear arms and am in favor of concealed weapon permits, but we've got to have reasonable gun laws to protect citizens from these kinds of mass shootings from happening. The assailant was shooting at random after hitting his initial targets. He was hoping to go down in a blaze of glory, but fortunately, no gunslingers happen to be shopping in that area that morning.

There's no rhyme or reason why anyone would need a high capacity magazine clip with 31 rounds, except out of convenience, especially since all the gun freaks here say that changing a magazine is pretty quick. And yet, here we had four very brave people stop the shooter from killing anyone else because he finally ran out of ammunition after firing off 31 consecutive rounds.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Please explain to me how the shooting you're referring to here - "The gunman shot Giffords first. As she fell, he turned away and seemed to shoot anyone else who appeared before him." - could've possibly been stopped by reinstituting the '94 ban.

I kind of see where you're going with this, but since he shot the congresswoman first - you'd better try to ban ALL bullets and/or ALL magazines. Heck, why not ban handguns while you're at it? Oh, I know - we should ban murder!

Lets avoid the straw man arguments and stick with this critical fact - Four brave people wrestled him to the ground once he spent his last round. He was attempting to reload when they did. You can't get around that fact here. That split second, or perhaps seconds, was just enough time for these people to stop him....and they were unarmed. 31 rounds were fired, 6 people dead and 12 injured. You do the math.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

especially since all the gun freaks here say that changing a magazine is pretty quick.

did you just call me a gun freak?

[slim 1,525]

Lets avoid the straw man arguments

I thought posting facts was avoiding straw man arguments. If he shot the congresswoman first.... uh....... how could any capacity restrictions have prevented this from happening?

Are you really insinuating that a 10 round restriction would've stopped this from happening?

and stick with this critical fact - Four brave people wrestled him to the ground once he spent his last round. He was attempting to reload when they did. You can't get around that fact here. That split second, or perhaps seconds, was just enough time for these people to stop him....and they were unarmed.

So, what happened at Virginia Tech? Were they fresh out of brave people?

I don't remember that idiot having 31 rd. magazines. I do, however, remember him doing mag changes.

31 rounds were fired, 6 people dead and 12 injured. You do the math.

18 casualties from 31 rounds.

Statistically speaking, that's a very high casualty rate of about 60%. I guess what you're saying is this would've been A-OK had only six people become casualties and not 18. Reduce the rounds by 1/3 and you'll reduce the casualties too?

Tell that to the folks at Virginia Tech where nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines were used. Perhaps we should have limits on how many mags someone can own?

[james&olya 1,121]

I thought posting facts was avoiding straw man arguments. If he shot the congresswoman first.... uh....... how could any capacity restrictions have prevented this from happening?

Are you really insinuating that a 10 round restriction would've stopped this from happening?

So, what happened at Virginia Tech? Were they fresh out of brave people?

I don't remember that idiot having 31 rd. magazines. I do, however, remember him doing mag changes.

18 casualties from 31 rounds.

Statistically speaking, that's a very high casualty rate of about 60%. I guess what you're saying is this would've been A-OK had only six people become casualties and not 18. Reduce the rounds by 1/3 and you'll reduce the casualties too?

Tell that to the folks at Virginia Tech where nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines were used. Perhaps we should have limits on how many mags someone can own?

Maybe you would like to see the potential lethality of weapons out there increased rather than decreased. Maybe we should have let this guy buy grenades also, maybe 50 caliber machine gun. Yes, 6 casualties would be better than 18! If you don't think so why not ask the families of casualties 7 through 18!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I thought posting facts was avoiding straw man arguments. If he shot the congresswoman first.... uh....... how could any capacity restrictions have prevented this from happening?

Are you really insinuating that a 10 round restriction would've stopped this from happening?

So, what happened at Virginia Tech? Were they fresh out of brave people?

I don't remember that idiot having 31 rd. magazines. I do, however, remember him doing mag changes.

18 casualties from 31 rounds.

Statistically speaking, that's a very high casualty rate of about 60%. I guess what you're saying is this would've been A-OK had only six people become casualties and not 18. Reduce the rounds by 1/3 and you'll reduce the casualties too?

Tell that to the folks at Virginia Tech where nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines were used. Perhaps we should have limits on how many mags someone can own?

Look, if you want a real argument, don't make these straw man fallacies. People's lives were saved because some brave people were able to wrestle the shooter when he ran out of bullets. He wouldn't have been able to fire off 31 rounds without using a high capacity magazine. I know the mere thought of a gun law that bans such high capacity magazines makes gun freaks have chills up and down their spines, but the logic is right there. There is no reasonable argument as to why anyone would need such a high capacity magazine except out of convenience. A little inconvenience to limit the amount of potential lethality these kinds of mass shootings can cause.

Edited January 11, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[^_^ 5,021]

He wouldn't have been able to fire off 31 rounds without using a high capacity magazine.

The same weapon that can fire off 31 rounds in front of an Arizona Safeway can fire off 31 rounds at incoming ChiCom invaders. Let's keep some perspective, shall we?

[james&olya 1,121]

Look, if you want a real argument, don't make these straw man fallacies. People's lives were saved because some brave people were able to wrestle the shooter when he ran out of bullets. He wouldn't have been able to fire off 31 rounds without using a high capacity magazine. I know the mere thought of a gun law that bans such high capacity magazines makes gun freaks have chills up and down their spines, but the logic is right there. There is no reasonable argument as to why anyone would need such a high capacity magazine except out of convenience. A little inconvenience to limit the amount of potential lethality these kinds of mass shootings can cause.

I know we have the 2nd amendment, whatever that vaguely worded sentence actually means. I wish we did not all have to worship at the altar of gun rights to the point of having to pay in the blood of innocents so that gun-owners will not have the slightest inconvenience whenever they feel the need to get off by squeezing out 31 rounds without pausing a few seconds to reload!

[Peikko 1,575]

Machine guns for everyone!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The same weapon that can fire off 31 rounds in front of an Arizona Safeway can fire off 31 rounds at incoming ChiCom invaders. Let's keep some perspective, shall we?

But, but, but....magazine capacity has no bearing on the efficiency of an able shooter so these high capacity magazines must be a fashion trend, like "Hey Fred, look at my 31 round magazine clip. Pretty spiffy, eh?"

[slim 1,525]

Maybe you would like to see the potential lethality of weapons out there increased rather than decreased.

Magazine capacity has ZERO to do with lethality. Ask the families of casualties 1-47 at Virginia Tech and/or any number of persons killed by revolvers, single shot weapons, knives, cars, poison, etc.

Stairs and swimming pools are pretty lethal in this country. Perhaps we should ban them as well?

How about fast food and smoking?

I know, we should ban reality TV since everyone is overweight! Mandatory stretching and workout programs for those of us who work and pay taxes (since nobody else will actually do them.)

Lethality? HA!

Apathy is lethal.

Maybe we should have let this guy buy grenades also, maybe 50 caliber machine gun.

I'm a firm believer in having an armed citizenry in possession of such things.

Yes, 6 casualties would be better than 18! If you don't think so why not ask the families of casualties 7 through 18!

I don't know them. But what I don't understand is why you feel the "empathy" for 12 OTHER people you don't know as if they're somehow as important as the first six people you don't know either.

[james&olya 1,121]

The same weapon that can fire off 31 rounds in front of an Arizona Safeway can fire off 31 rounds at incoming ChiCom invaders. Let's keep some perspective, shall we?

ChiCom invaders? Are you serious? They are coming and you are going to stop them with your 31 round magazines. Better hope they don't get 32 round magazines!

[^_^ 5,021]

I know we have the 2nd amendment, whatever that vaguely worded sentence actually means. I wish we did not all have to worship at the altar of gun rights to the point of having to pay in the blood of innocents so that gun-owners will not have the slightest inconvenience whenever they feel the need to get off by squeezing out 31 rounds without pausing a few seconds to reload!

It's not about convenience, it's about efficiency.

When those ChiCom bastards invade, do you want the weapons in the hands of the American resistance to fire off 1 round every hour or something? What the hell is wrong with you? I know this is tough but do try to keep some perspective on what this issue is really all about. Think of those evil ChiComs and what they'll do to your wife and baby!

Perhaps an illustration will sufficiently provoke your patriotic fervor, if plain logic does not.