Robert Green wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to
admit that a smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future
body counts. I've yet to hear justifications for 30 round
magazines that don't resolve into three fairly unconvincing groups:


I'll take a stab.

1 - "Because I wanna"

I'm a woman (not really). The AR-15 is very light and highly
accurate, easier to handle than an 860 Remington pump with a 36"
barrel (they are heavy ended), and I shoot a tight pattern at a
variety of distances.

The real question, Ms. Oren, g is "who are you intending to kill
(at a distance - rifles are not so good in close quarters) that you
need 30 rounds to do it?" Wouldn't a 14 round Glock do? Or probably
even a 7 round one? Are these armed multiple attackers in body armor?
Do they not halt their advance like most rational humans under a hail
of bullets? What needs 30 rounds to kill?

Perhaps an ex-prison guard faces that kind of really remote threat
but as the saying goes "your right to swing your fist ends at my
nose." A high-powered rifle's swing is mighty long, wouldn't you say?

Thirty rounds of rifle ammunition could kill *a lot* of people. Those
rounds could come out of the AR-15 of my neighbor "Betty Bad Shot"
and come through my window. I've "inherited" a laser sighted Ruger
Mini14 with a 30 round clip. Will I ever need it? Very, very
doubtful. When I hear a noise late at night, I go with the Glock. I
should be able to take care of any threat I've ever encountered with
a Glock and a standard sized magazine. Would I give up the hicap mag
for the Mini14? In a heartbeat if it were the national law. Would I
give up the gun itself? Nope. Different story.

The reason is simple. One common element of a number of recent gun
tragedies is the high capacity magazine. And it's the *only* factor
that can be pointed to as having reliably limited the carnage of at
least three shootings *in progress* when those three shooters were
tackled while changing magazines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his
pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed
it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a
folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the
14th injury. Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old
retired United States Army Colonel Bill Badger who had been shot
himself.

Several lives could have been saved if Loughner was using standard
magazines and had to change sooner. I want to give American heroes
like Maisch and Badger every edge they can get when faced with a
madman shooter. Limiting the size of civilian magazines can do that.
Bigger magazines just mean more people killed before there's an
opportunity to tackle the shooter. That's been irrevocably proven
with the results written in blood.

The NRA's inflexibility on the subject could prove the old adage "The
willow bends in winds that break the mighty oak tree." The recent
polls indicate that independent voters are siding with the Democrats
on the issue of compromise.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...ho-compromise/

There is much wrong with your post, I'll list a few:

1. How does prohibiting me from owning a 30-round magazine prevent a
nut-case from using one?

2. Bigger magazines DO mean that there could be more people killed. It's
obvious that I might NEED to kill - or at least significantly - more than
two or three trying to bother my peace. You no doubt recall the housewife
who shot a goblin FIVE TIMES with a .38. The stink-eye decided better
pickin's were elesewhere, so he got up a DROVE AWAY!

3. While I'm at it, why are you apparently okay with (up to ten) children
dying, but get all blanched at 30?

4. Your "one common element" is deeply flawed. The actual ONE common element
is mental derangement. Regrettably, there is virtually nothing that can be
totally effective against that.

5. You may say "but getting large capacity magazines would help." No it
won't. First, understand that magazines are designed to be disposable!
Second, they can be easily manufactured (see the various articles on 3D
printing). Third, we can't deport 10 million illegal aliens, how do you
expect to rid the country of 50 million magazines? That's a fools errand if
ever I saw one.

In my view, the only, ONLY, reason for waging war on large-capacity
magazines is that by so doing the anti-gun crowd will feel better. Not much,
but some.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

1. How does prohibiting me from owning a 30-round magazine prevent a
nut-case from using one?

More to the point: how does prohibiting ANYthing *prevent* it?

Speeding, theft, robbery, rape, murder, etc. are all *prohibited*, but obviously the laws do not
*prevent* those crimes.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:26:58 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

In my view, the only, ONLY, reason for waging war on large-capacity
magazines is that by so doing the anti-gun crowd will feel better. Not much,
but some.


"Feelings" matter. The anti-gun folks want to own the subject, control
the agenda and speak for those they "feel" are less superior and not
able to decide for themselves. They feel in control, which produces
better "feelings" amongst themselves.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:26:58 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Green wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to
admit that a smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future
body counts. I've yet to hear justifications for 30 round
magazines that don't resolve into three fairly unconvincing groups:


I'll take a stab.

1 - "Because I wanna"

I'm a woman (not really). The AR-15 is very light and highly
accurate, easier to handle than an 860 Remington pump with a 36"
barrel (they are heavy ended), and I shoot a tight pattern at a
variety of distances.

The real question, Ms. Oren, g is "who are you intending to kill
(at a distance - rifles are not so good in close quarters) that you
need 30 rounds to do it?" Wouldn't a 14 round Glock do? Or probably
even a 7 round one? Are these armed multiple attackers in body armor?
Do they not halt their advance like most rational humans under a hail
of bullets? What needs 30 rounds to kill?

Perhaps an ex-prison guard faces that kind of really remote threat
but as the saying goes "your right to swing your fist ends at my
nose." A high-powered rifle's swing is mighty long, wouldn't you say?

Thirty rounds of rifle ammunition could kill *a lot* of people. Those
rounds could come out of the AR-15 of my neighbor "Betty Bad Shot"
and come through my window. I've "inherited" a laser sighted Ruger
Mini14 with a 30 round clip. Will I ever need it? Very, very
doubtful. When I hear a noise late at night, I go with the Glock. I
should be able to take care of any threat I've ever encountered with
a Glock and a standard sized magazine. Would I give up the hicap mag
for the Mini14? In a heartbeat if it were the national law. Would I
give up the gun itself? Nope. Different story.

The reason is simple. One common element of a number of recent gun
tragedies is the high capacity magazine. And it's the *only* factor
that can be pointed to as having reliably limited the carnage of at
least three shootings *in progress* when those three shooters were
tackled while changing magazines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his
pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed
it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a
folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the
14th injury. Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old
retired United States Army Colonel Bill Badger who had been shot
himself.

Several lives could have been saved if Loughner was using standard
magazines and had to change sooner. I want to give American heroes
like Maisch and Badger every edge they can get when faced with a
madman shooter. Limiting the size of civilian magazines can do that.
Bigger magazines just mean more people killed before there's an
opportunity to tackle the shooter. That's been irrevocably proven
with the results written in blood.

The NRA's inflexibility on the subject could prove the old adage "The
willow bends in winds that break the mighty oak tree." The recent
polls indicate that independent voters are siding with the Democrats
on the issue of compromise.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...ho-compromise/

There is much wrong with your post, I'll list a few:

1. How does prohibiting me from owning a 30-round magazine prevent a
nut-case from using one?

2. Bigger magazines DO mean that there could be more people killed. It's
obvious that I might NEED to kill - or at least significantly - more than
two or three trying to bother my peace. You no doubt recall the housewife
who shot a goblin FIVE TIMES with a .38. The stink-eye decided better
pickin's were elesewhere, so he got up a DROVE AWAY!

3. While I'm at it, why are you apparently okay with (up to ten) children
dying, but get all blanched at 30?

4. Your "one common element" is deeply flawed. The actual ONE common element
is mental derangement. Regrettably, there is virtually nothing that can be
totally effective against that.

5. You may say "but getting large capacity magazines would help." No it
won't. First, understand that magazines are designed to be disposable!
Second, they can be easily manufactured (see the various articles on 3D
printing). Third, we can't deport 10 million illegal aliens, how do you
expect to rid the country of 50 million magazines? That's a fools errand if
ever I saw one.

In my view, the only, ONLY, reason for waging war on large-capacity
magazines is that by so doing the anti-gun crowd will feel better. Not much,
but some.

No, *THE* reason is that it makes it easier to drop the limit to
seven, then three, then zero. See: New York.