Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

[nismaratwork]

I'm in agreement with Ivan - when he posted
"it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons. ".

Ahhhh... gotcha.

edit: Wow, I just plain MISSED that. I have to start getting more sleep on weekdays...

 

[Al68]

(bold and snip mine) It reduces the chances that you'll be it because you were what was being aimed at... lovely logic.

That's your logic, not mine.

Essentially you're hoping that someone misses you in a crowd... well... there's a decent chance that someone else is going to catch that lead for you.

Or vice versa. My obvious point was that complete misses are more likely in full auto. And I said exactly that in the part of my post you "clipped" out.

edit: Wow, I just plain MISSED that. I have to start getting more sleep on weekdays...

So that's the problem. You seem to be missing or mis-construing a lot of the posts you respond to.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's your logic, not mine.Or vice versa. My obvious point was that complete misses are more likely in full auto. And I said exactly that in the part of my post you "clipped" out.So that's the problem. You seem to be missing or mis-construing a lot of the posts you respond to.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3082046&postcount=89

...If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

Yeah, you could be arguing that, or you could be making a statistical argument. If you practice automatic fire, your target is a confused crowd of unarmed civilians, and you're at nearly point blank range... it's not obvious. You can control an automatic pistol, and while accuracy suffers, that's kind of the point of fully automatic fire. After all, he could have jammed, or he could have expended 33 rounds, reloaded, and shot FAR more people.

There is no "obvious" here, except that when accuracy is reduced (accuracy is a function of AIM) the risk in a crowd is more evenly distributed, increasing the pool of potential victims while reducing individual risk of being hit by anyone bullet.

Maybe you should make your arguments clearly when it comes to firing into a crowd?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Before a law is passed limiting the number of rounds allowed in a magazine, shouldn't the author of said law at least show some evidence that there's a problem in the first place? A lot of opinion has been presented in this thread, but no evidence that those opinions are based in anything but conjecture and hand-waving...

I'll say it again- California already has a mirror of this proposed federal law. Since California passed the law (magazine size limited to 10 rounds or less), have there been any studies which show it was effective in reducing shootings (or average number of deaths in shootings)?

 

[turbo]

I'll say it again- California already has a mirror of this proposed federal law. Since California passed the law (magazine size limited to 10 rounds or less), have there been any studies which show it was an effective in reducing shootings (or average number of deaths in shootings)?

As I mentioned earlier, when the slide stays back (gun is empty) it takes only a second or less to eject the empty clip, jam in another one and release the slide to reload and fire.

Limiting clip-size is just another feel-good measure (for anti-gun people) to try nibble away at gun ownership. It won't prevent nuts from killing people and it won't prevent gang-bangers in Compton from buying and packing any kinds of guns that they want with any magazines that they want.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...when the slide stays back (gun is empty) it takes only a second or less to eject the empty clip, jam in another one and release the slide to reload and fire.

I mentioned this at the very start of this thread- It isn't a given that a 30-round mag is "more deadly" than 3 10-round mags. If it isn't more deadly, and you aren't limiting the total number of rounds allowed to be carried, what's the point?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps we should expand this to workers put in harms way along the border?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17087113

"Mexican gunman fires across border toward U.S. highway workers"

I wanted to work the border problem into my statement but found it cumbersome. However, I agree this comes into play. In a very real sense, we are now fighting a border war with foreign invaders - the drug and human smuggling cartels, not the illegal immigrants just hoping to find a better life. The people living along the border need proper protection. Again, one has to assume there is no time to call for help when help is needed.

On this point alone, I think it can be argued that since the Federal government has failed in its primary responsibility to protect our borders, there is no moral justification, much less a Constitutional justification, for limiting the effectiveness of assualt weapons. They may be needed by law abiding citizens. Note that the drug lords have now begun to threaten police here in the US, as they have long done in Mexico.

 

[Al68]

As far as fully automatic weapons, it should be obvious that far less people would have been killed/injured had Loughner's glock been fully auto. Unlike in the movies, a 30 round clip doesn't last long in full auto, and accuracy suffers, to say the least. Especially with a light handgun used by a shooter unaccustomed to full auto. Most of the rounds probably would have gone way over the heads of the intended victims.

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

Yeah, you could be arguing that, or you could be making a statistical argument...Maybe you should make your arguments clearly when it comes to firing into a crowd?

I added back and bolded the part of my post you edited out. The part of my post that makes my point clear. The part you edited out for the purpose of misrepresenting my post.

BTW, it violates https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" to edit my post in a way that changes its meaning in a way relevant to your response.

 

[nismaratwork]

As I mentioned earlier, when the slide stays back (gun is empty) it takes only a second or less to eject the empty clip, jam in another one and release the slide to reload and fire.

Limiting clip-size is just another feel-good measure (for anti-gun people) to try nibble away at gun ownership. It won't prevent nuts from killing people and it won't prevent gang-bangers in Compton from buying and packing any kinds of guns that they want with any magazines that they want.

Yet this is the moment when an unarmed civilian can, and DID, (with some luck that's part of firearms...) stop Loughner. I also don't care how much you practice: what you do with a magazine on the range or hunting doesn't always equate to what a maniac does during a mass shooting where at any time another armed individual could arrive.

edit: While you have the rules there, I did actually offer your entire post, and give proper indication of the snip... you've edited mine with neither.

 

[nismaratwork]

I added back and bolded the part of my post you edited out. The part of my post that makes my point clear. The part you edited out for the purpose of misrepresenting my post.

BTW, it violates https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" to edit my post in a way that changes its meaning in a way relevant to your response.

Your argument about my supposed deception would have been much better if, when creating your post, you ignored the fact that I linked directly to your post, placed ellipses so that it was clear, even from a cursory reading that this was part of your post.

As it happens I wasn't trying to be muddle your post; the former portion does nothing to clarify the latter.

If I fire at a stand of trees, and I aim for a specific point on that tree, a lack of accuracy is only a boon, possibly, for that one tree. If someone is firing at you, and misses, you think it automatically sails into the sky forever, or just thuds into the ground like a brick? Fire into a crowd with a fully automatic Glock, and it would be a lot like trees; they wouldn't have much of any time to react.

There is a trade between accuracy, and fire-rate that you're ignoring or don't understand for lack of experience. I don't know which.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Yet this is the moment when an unarmed civilian can, and DID, (with some luck that's part of firearms...) stop Loughner. I also don't care how much you practice: what you do with a magazine on the range or hunting doesn't always equate to what a maniac does during a mass shooting where at any time another armed individual could arrive.

So your basic argument after all this is that more reloading gives good samaritans more of a chance to stop "maniacs" from reloading and continuing their rampage. Is this not also true for a person acting in self-defence?

 

[nismaratwork]

So your basic argument after all this is that more reloading gives good samaritans more of a chance to stop "maniacs" from reloading and continuing their rampage. Is this not also true for a person acting in self-defence?

A person acting in self defense has no need to discharge 33 rounds; if they do they should be in protective custody because their presence in society is an unreasonable and predictable risk to bystanders. If you over-discharge (read shoot too much) your weapon in self defense, get ready for a murder trial of some kind. Hell, most self-defense advocates will tel you: don't exceed the clip-size of your local police, and even leave one or two out of the magazine to show that you don't intend "overkill". In addition, use the ammunition type (JHP, FMJ, etc) that your local or state police use.

All of our other discussion aside, from one gun owner to what I presume to be another; that advice will keep you from unreasonable civil and criminal prosecution when you're just acting in self defense.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Nis, you've wandered far from your original intent in this thread. It almost seems that you're now trying to argue anything that doesn't agree with your personal opinion. You however started the thread off in the following fashion:

You look at the statistics and try to find, as we do with the legal limit for blood alcohol or a speed limit, the optimal balance between adequate self-defense, and undesired results.

Do you have ANY statistics which back up your claim (opinion) that 33-round magazines are unnecessary and should be banned? You patronizingly called upon my status as a mechanical engineer saying I should be looking at the statistics and making a logical decision based in the spirit of risk mitigation. So I'm calling you out- do you have any statistics that make possible such a decision?

We're basically stuck in an infinite loop: the core problem is this law is meant to apply to people that don't obey the law in the first place. So what it accomplishes instead (as with most gun control laws) is limits availability to law-abiding citizens that we don't have to worry about in the first place.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nis, you've wandered far from your original intent in this thread. It almost seems that you're now trying to argue anything that doesn't agree with your personal opinion. You however started the thread off in the following fashion:



Do you have ANY statistics which back up your claim (opinion) that 33-round magazines are unnecessary and should be banned? You patronizingly called upon my status as a mechanical engineer saying I should be looking at the statistics and making a logical decision based in the spirit of risk mitigation. So I'm calling you out- do you have any statistics that make possible such a decision?

We're basically stuck in an infinite loop: the core problem is this law is meant to apply to people that don't obey the law in the first place. So what it accomplishes instead (as with most gun control laws) is limits availability to law-abiding citizens that we don't have to worry about in the first place.

*sigh* No... mine was a call to compile and scientifically compare those statistics instead of either:

1.) Doing nothing
2.) Having Lautenberg or another like him simply pick an arbitrary number.

I've already made this case... the fact that the thread continually turns into a general gun-rights debate, and my attempt to restrain that and eventual involvement in it doesn't change my original point.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You basically think that since (in your opinion) magazines over a certain capacity have little usefulness in a self-defence situation they can be banned with no negative repercussions, but many in this therad (including myself) are saying that in order to ban them you need to PROVE that:

1. Extended capacity magazines are used in many killings every year.
2. Reducing the legal maximum magazine capacity reduces the number of killings every year.

Just as you said in the start of the thread, we should look at the statistics and make a rational risk management decision. Problem is, such a decision can only be made if and when the statistics exist. We can't assume the findings of such a study before it exists and pass a law based on those assumptions.

 

[nismaratwork]

You basically think that since (in your opinion) magazines over a certain capacity have little usefulness in a self-defence situation they can be banned with no negative repercussions, but many in this therad (including myself) are saying that in order to ban them you need to PROVE that:

1. Extended capacity magazines are used in many killings every year.
2. Reducing the legal maximum magazine capacity reduces the number of killings every year.

Just as you said in the start of the thread, we should look at the statistics and make a rational risk management decision. Problem is, such a decision can only be made if and when the statistics exist. We can't assume the findings of such a study before it exists and pass a law based on those assumptions.

You and others can say anything you want... this isn't a burden of proof issue, this is a debate. There is existing jurisprudence and even law that could be re-instated, AND has already faced constitutional challenge.

The burden of proof is on anyone who need 33 rounds in one clip for any legal or sane purpose. CAN you think of a single goddamned reason?

edit: At this point we're literally going over the same points ad nauseum... none of us seem to agree with the law as drafted or its motives, and opinion is divided on the rest.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You and others can say anything you want... this isn't a burden of proof issue, this is a debate.

It is absolutely a burden of proof problem. If there is no proof that reducing magazine capacity saves lives, what's the point?! Where are the statistics enabling a logical and rational decision that you insisted I make?

The burden of proof is on anyone who need 33 rounds in one clip for any legal or sane purpose. CAN you think of a single goddamned reason?

Target practice is a perfectly good reason. Additionally, some people may feel more comfortable carrying one 30-round magazine than 2 15 round mags. You said yourself that reloading can be a problem, why not skip it altogether? Yes it might make the gun more difficult to conceal, but not impossible.

 

[nismaratwork]

It is absolutely a burden of proof problem. If there is no proof that reducing magazine capacity saves lives, what's the point?! Where are the staistics enabling a logical and rational decision that you insisted I make?



Target practice is a perfectly good reason. Additionally, some people may feel more comfortable carrying one 30-round magazine than 2 15 round mags. You said yourself that reloading can be a problem, why not skip it altogether? Yes it might make the gun more difficult to conceal, but not impossible.

You keep asking for statistics I never claimed to have. You claim that somehow this would be good for target practice... I can't take you seriously.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You keep asking for statistics I never claimed to have.

...but you claimed that they should be used for rational risk-mitigation measures. So if the statistics don't exist, how are we to make a decision that isn't a knee-jerk reaction?

You claim that somehow this would be good for target practice... I can't take you seriously.

Why not? When shooting at targets, if you're for example practicing trigger pulls or tracking methods, more time can be spent on-target if you have more rounds in the gun. Additionally, it's more FUN (which you found to be a valid concern as well).

 

[nismaratwork]

...but you claimed that they should be used for rational risk-mitigation measures. So if the statistics don't exist, how are we to make a decision that isn't a knee-jerk reaction?

I claim that they should be... wait... I just answered this a few posts ago.

*sigh* No... mine was a call to compile and scientifically compare those statistics instead of either:..

Unless you can do that faster than anyone ever has, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing... I presume because of the whale thread, or for reasons I won't speculate about in anything but a friendly little PM, if you like.

Why not? When shooting at targets, if you're for example practicing trigger pulls or tracking methods, more time can be spent on-target if you have more rounds in the gun. Additionally, it's more FUN (which you found to be a valid concern as well).

Personally enjoy field-stripping, cleaning, and swapping magazines. I like to practice the way I shoot, and that includes multiple magazines. You seem to have only a very basic grasp of target shooting in my opinion, and again, in the larger debate, none of this helps me take you seriously.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I claim that they should be... wait... I just answered this a few posts ago.

Unless you can do that faster than anyone ever has, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing... I presume because of the whale thread, or for reasons I won't speculate about in anything but a friendly little PM, if you like.

You're calling for the compilation of statistics, but you still feel 17+ round magazines should be banned despite the lack of proof that it will help anything.

Personally enjoy field-stripping, cleaning, and swapping magazines. I like to practice the way I shoot, and that includes multiple magazines.

YOU enjoy that, does that mean everyone feels exactly like you?

You seem to have only a very basic grasp of target shooting in my opinion, and again, in the larger debate, none of this helps me take you seriously.

Maybe branching out from mechanical engineering to firearms and social issues was a bit of a leap?

Please refer to the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181" of this forum, specifically these rules:

In addition to content already prohibited by our global forum guidelines, the following are specifically NOT permitted in Politics & World Affairs:
...
2) Statements of a purely inflammatory nature, regardless of whether it is a personal insult or not.
3) Assigning truth values to opinions.
...
Consistent with our general forum guidelines, if you disagree with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks.

 

[Al68]

The burden of proof is on anyone who need 33 rounds in one clip for any legal or sane purpose.

How crazy (authoritarian) is that? The burden of proof is on those who advocate the use of force against another citizen, not the citizen the force is used against.

Owning a 33 rd mag isn't a use of force. A government prohibition is. Very simple logic.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The burden of proof is on anyone who need 33 rounds in one clip for any legal or sane purpose.

I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

Edit: Looks like Al68 beat me to this thought.

 

[Al68]

As it happens I wasn't trying to be muddle your post; the former portion does nothing to clarify the latter.

Baloney. The former did clarify the latter, and obviously so. It's against forum rules to edit a member's quote that way.

 

[nismaratwork]

Baloney. The former did clarify the latter, and obviously so. It's against forum rules to edit a member's quote that way.

I disagree with that, and you're still claiming that I broke a rule when I showed were I cut, and provided a link to your entire post IN CONTEXT if people so chose. If you really are convinced that I was tricking you, report me. It wasn't my intent, but as always the mentors judge this; I'm not going to continue this endless detour.

 

[nismaratwork]

You're calling for the compilation of statistics, but you still feel 17+ round magazines should be banned despite the lack of proof that it will help anything.



YOU enjoy that, does that mean everyone feels exactly like you?



Please refer to the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181" of this forum, specifically these rules:

So, full, of, pasta...

Al68/Jimmy SNyder: You have the right to bear arms, The SCOTUS already decided you don't have the right to bear them all.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Al68/Jimmy SNyder: You have the right to bear arms, The SCOTUS already decided you don't have the right to bear them all.

But I do have the right to extended clips. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

 

[nismaratwork]

But I do have the right to extended clips. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

Really? Where's your "right to extended clips"?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Really? Where's your "right to extended clips"?

I have the right to do anything legal. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have the right to anything legal. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

So once something made legal, it can never be made illegal by that logic.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So once something made legal, it can never be made illegal by that logic.

No, it only assigns who has the burdon of proof. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, it only assigns who has the burdon of proof. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

So, it was legal, then illegal, now legal AND a right. This is about legal privileges beyond the simple right to bear arms, and that's not my opinion, that's the onion of The SCOTUS. In theory you could be right if this very issue hadn't already been settled law.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So, it was legal, then illegal, now legal AND a right. This is about legal privileges beyond the simple right to bear arms, and that's not my opinion, that's the onion of The SCOTUS. In theory you could be right if this very issue hadn't already been settled law.

It is currently legal and therefore currently a right. The constitution prohibits ex post facto. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

 

[nismaratwork]

It is currently legal and therefore currently a right. The constitution prohibits ex post facto. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

I don't believe you understand the rule of settled law the SCOTUS level; if this law is reinstated, any challenge would be unlikely to be heard by the court, and challenges might not reach that level at all.

This isn't about setting some kind of playing field for debate, and once again, your logic is begging the question. If every time something becomes legal, it becomes this mythical RIGHT, then you can only move a society towards more and more lax controls. That's patently absurd on its face, which you'd expect, given its fallacious premise.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't believe you understand the rule of settled law the SCOTUS level; if this law is reinstated, any challenge would be unlikely to be heard by the court, and challenges might not reach that level at all.

This isn't about setting some kind of playing field for debate, and once again, your logic is begging the question. If every time something becomes legal, it becomes this mythical RIGHT, then you can only move a society towards more and more lax controls. That's patently absurd on its face, which you'd expect, given its fallacious premise.

The only laws that count are current ones. Currently extended clips are legal. Everything that is legal, is a real right, not a mythical one. You can move towards stiffer controls, but the burdon of proof should be on the one who wants to make them stiffer. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.