Limit number of rounds in a gun; but not limit drinks in a bar? (Phoenix: low crime, credit)

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Irish4evr

What lawful purpose would any individual "civilian" find the need to own an extended magazine...30 round magazines are designed with only one purpose and intent....

I'm sure I will hear from "sport" shooters as that might be the only valid reason.....

I fully support our 2nd Amendment rights, however, all one reasonable, thinking person has to do is attend a local gun show....observe the wide variety of characters walking out the doors with extended magazines, massive amounts of ammunition....semi-automatic weapons...(long and hand)....it is scary....!

I would be very interested to hear responses from those readers that feel they can justify the lawful need to own an extended mag....Save the "it's my right" line.....and if you claim personal protection....might I suggest you spend a little more time at the range....If it takes 31 rounds to neutralize your target...you need it........Hunting...not hardly !

I guess if I owned a gun store and some 22 year old kid walked thru the door requesting to buy a 9mm Glock complete with 30 round clips....I'd have to exercise my right of refusal....or ask to see his badge.......

The only "intent" when the extended mags were designed was to hold more bullets. I highly doubt engineers sat around and thought "hmmm, let's design a clip that can hold enough bullets to kill 30 people.
As for what purpose? Why not?
I see no difference if a whackadoo has 10,15 or 30 bullets and starts shooting since changing clips (if you're proficient) does not take very long at all and if your intent on killing the amount that's in one clip means little.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Hunter Wold

When guns are banned only criminals will have them

HW..

I haven't added up all the numbers but my hunch is with all the crazy shootings at schools, workplaces, and malls, and all the drunken shootings, and all the rage of the moment killings, and all of the negligent discharge killings, we'd be a lot better off IF only criminals had guns.

[JAinAZ]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

I haven't added up all the numbers but my hunch is with all the crazy shootings at schools, workplaces, and malls, and all the drunken shootings, and all the rage of the moment killings, and all of the negligent discharge killings, we'd be a lot better off IF only criminals had guns.

Maybe before posting something like this, you SHOULD add this number up. It is MUCH lower than you make it out to be. And have you even thought about what a society is like when only the criminals have guns?

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

Maybe before posting something like this, you SHOULD add this number up. It is MUCH lower than you make it out to be. And have you even thought about what a society is like when only the criminals have guns?

I think it would be like Europe or Canada where the murder and violence from guns rate is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it is in our country. It is utter BS that guns in the hands of everyone prevent or even deter crime. How much difference did they make in Tucson? In Virginia? The only valid comparison there is is with societies that closely restrict gun ownership. They are ALL much safer than ours. The US is the most violent society in the developed world. Either guns have a lot to do with that or we, as a people, are not responsible enough to own them. Either way, their ownership should be a privilege and not a right.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by observer53

That may be true, but they don't HAVE to have them, and sometimes laws have to impact law-abiding people, too.
.

Well, thus far, prohibitive possession laws just don't seem to function as designed. Yup, certainly has put a screeching halt on Marijuana use, and everyone knows just how effective the prohibition era was as deterring alcohol consumption. Dang, speed limits don't seem to be truly effective. The greater the number of lives a law will adversely impact the lesser the likelihood it will be effective. Laws "for their own good" don't work, we have clear historical reference for this--Yup fer dang sure it has absolutely stopped the sale and recreational use of Cocaine. What they do is create a new class of criminal and is often viewed as punishment for those who do not abuse----whatever it is you want to ban. Of course, we could, as a nation, institute firearm safety classes, to be taught in the High Schools just like Drivers' Ed. Since we do have this RIGHT to bear arms, perhaps a bit of education on the subject would not be a bad idea.

[Bondurant]

The Feds and the States will always use tragedy as a way to tighten their grip. Little by little our freedoms are dissolved. The dissolve has been happening since the day we won our nation.

[keninaz]

For those against guns consider this.
Making a bomb is pretty easy as is the information on how to do it today.
I worked with explosives both in the military and at a manufacturing plant after I got out for a short time so I have lots of knowledge in that area but it's just too easy to get information today.
The facts are that you don't have to be a rocket scientist today to make a deploy a bomb.
And they are much more effective than a handgun, period.
Just ask our troops that are overseas about them.

[BillR1]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

I haven't added up all the numbers but my hunch is with all the crazy shootings at schools, workplaces, and malls, and all the drunken shootings, and all the rage of the moment killings, and all of the negligent discharge killings, we'd be a lot better off IF only criminals had guns.

Just...wow... It's truly scary to think people like you actually VOTE!
The last count I read was around 270 MILLION guns in the US today. How many of them are involved in a crime on a given day? Want to discuss SMALL percentages??

[BillR1]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

Maybe before posting something like this, you SHOULD add this number up. It is MUCH lower than you make it out to be. And have you even thought about what a society is like when only the criminals have guns?

Exactly! How "civilized" would society be if the criminals KNEW they had a force monopoly. If they knew they had nothing to fear frome a citizen or homeowner, crime would skyrocket. The fact are there.
Do some research on Kennesaw, GA and their gun law...
Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Irish4evr

What lawful purpose would any individual "civilian" find the need to own an extended magazine...30 round magazines are designed with only one purpose and intent....

I'm sure I will hear from "sport" shooters as that might be the only valid reason.....

I fully support our 2nd Amendment rights, however, all one reasonable, thinking person has to do is attend a local gun show....observe the wide variety of characters walking out the doors with extended magazines, massive amounts of ammunition....semi-automatic weapons...(long and hand)....it is scary....!

I would be very interested to hear responses from those readers that feel they can justify the lawful need to own an extended mag....Save the "it's my right" line.....and if you claim personal protection....might I suggest you spend a little more time at the range....If it takes 31 rounds to neutralize your target...you need it........Hunting...not hardly !

So, you think that a 30 round magazine is designed with the single purpose and intent of killing 30 people... What do you want, limit magazines to 10 rounds so that you can have the single purpose and intent of killing 10 people? That's somehow better? Following that line of reasoning, why not restrict civilian firearms to one round? That way you'd be able to kill only one person. Anybody for restricting it to half a round?

Hey, the Constitution gives us the right to own firearms, but how about ammunition? I wonder if the gun control nuts have thought of that!

Let's get back to the Constitution and why we have the right to own firearms. In my opinion it was in recognition that the citizens might have to take back their government some day. Where would our War of Independence have gotten if the British had firearms and we didn't. (Noting also that back in the era of the Constitution firearms had a major role in putting food on the table.) Anyway, that's why we need 30 round magazines, it's part of our protection to empower us to take our government back if it becomes totalitarian. We need firearms to protect our liberty.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is deranged people, those with mental problems. The vast majority of us are perfectly able to safely and responsibly own firearms, even 30 round magazines.