Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reducing your right to own a high-capacity firing weapon does not restrict your civil rights. Why would anyone need a gun like that? And don't say to stave off droves of highly armed invaders of your home. I saw Biden state on the news that the White House tried to find even ONE instance in the U.S. of a home being invaded by multiple intruders with high-capacity weapons. They could not find even one.
Thanks for proven the entire point of the left.....
So, now WHY do you want to ban hi-cap magazines if they have ZERO to do with anything?
I'll tell ya why, because it's a talking point....a straw man, to prove a point....
they must have been looking for that story with blinders on, because one has already been listed. I wonder if we should send the story on to biden so he can correct himself on national tv.
Thanks for proven the entire point of the left.....
So, now WHY do you want to ban hi-cap magazines if they have ZERO to do with anything?
I'll tell ya why, because it's a talking point....a straw man, to prove a point....
Because according to the Justice Department when high-capacity magazines were banned the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010.
The research results are mixed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent the next Newtown.
Because according to the Justice Department when high-capacity magazines were banned the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010.
The research results are mixed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent the next Newtown.
Here is the important part of that section you keep overlooking. You keep posting the same nonsense, cherry picking one area that fits your agenda and skip everything else. Then when I call you on two pages ago you don't reply and then just post the same thing again. Your act is tired, you don't have a leg to stand on so you just keep reporting the same garbage, over and over again.
"In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."
Because according to the Justice Department when high-capacity magazines were banned the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010.
The research results are mixed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent the next Newtown.
Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that more guns happened to have large capacity magazines? How does this establish anything relevant?
If someone wants a large capacity magazine, they will get one. Whether they're legal, grandfathered, or banned completely and confiscated. Or they'll take the extra ~2 seconds to reload a couple of times.
Here is the important part of that section you keep overlooking. You keep posting the same nonsense, cherry picking one area that fits your agenda and skip everything else. Then when I call you on two pages ago you don't reply and then just post the same thing again. Your act is tired, you don't have a leg to stand on so you just keep reporting the same garbage, over and over again.
"In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."
Yes, that is what that particular memo states. The above paragraph is just the speculation of the Deputy Director who wrote the memo. He doesn't know if that would be the case, he's just speculating.
It doesn't change the fact that when high-capacity magazines were banned in 1999 the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined to its lowest level in 2004, and then doubled again between 2004 and 2010 after the ban expired.
The OP would freakout on my 15 yo. daughter. She has been dove hunting for 10 years straight. She got her Savage .410 pump when she was 5 yo.
On her 10th birthday, she got her .223 semi-auto and we scoped it out(wood stock, not the black scary one) She took her first deer that season. Yes she has the 30 round mag for it and a 50 rounder.
The day after last thanksgiving, she calls me at 7am to meet her in the barn, and she needed an ice chest.... Her and her cousin got up and went hunting, had the deer tagged, skinned and quartered.
This Christmas she got her a .38 police issue.
These guns are hers and they stay in her room, in her gun safe.
She told me her next gun is going to be a black powder musket. She wants to hunt with it. Her rifle is like going to the supermarket and she wants the challenge.
Yes, that is what that particular memo states. The above paragraph is just the speculation of the Deputy Director who wrote the memo. He doesn't know if that would be the case, he's just speculating.
It doesn't change the fact that when high-capacity magazines were banned in 1999 the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined to its lowest level in 2004, and then doubled again between 2004 and 2010 after the ban expired.
Hey! You there!?
This proves absolutely nothing except that fewer people had high capacity magazines. This does not change the fact that if someone wants one, they can get one. And people who intend to commit crimes that are made easier with high capacity magazines, might want high capacity magazines.
For any random shooting, where a guy just picks up whatever gun he can get his hands on, who gives a damn if they have a high capacity magazine if they only let off a couple of rounds?
If he wanted a high capacity magazine, he would get one.
Logic 101, come on now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
