Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines

posted at 12:55 pm on January 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

To be fair, former VP Dick Cheney finally points out that the real proximate cause of the Tucson massacre was the insanity of the gunman, but that won’t be the takeaway for gun-control advocates. Cheney joins some critics in at least considering a size limitation on magazines for semi-automatic pistols. Jared Lee Loughner used a larger magazine of 33 rounds in the pistol, which has given rise to a call to impose limits on clips magazines for personal use:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

However, Loughner had more magazines on him when arrested — including two standard 15-shot magazines:

Authorities in Tucson say the suspect in Saturday’s shooting had three more pistol magazines with him when he was tackled.

The Pima County sheriff’s office on Friday says an extended clip was found nearby and Jared Loughner had two more 15-round magazines in his pockets, though it doesn’t say if any of those were loaded.

Would a limitation on gun magazines have prevented the tragedy? Certainly Loughner would have fired the first 15 shots without any problem, and reloading may or may not have given him time to shoot another 15. Loughner prepared for a longer shooting spree, but was foiled when brave witnesses tackled and detained him. It’s difficult to determine whether Loughner had bullets in his gun at the time.

I don’t normally shoot semiautomatic pistols, so I have no personal insight on magazine size. Target shooting would be simplified with larger magazines, but for personal protection, fifteen bullets would suffice in most exigent circumstances. Certainly gun rights advocates will worry about slippery slopes in allowing magazine limitation laws to come into force, but Cheney notes that we have already had these with little impact on the practice of bearing guns. Would this be a common-sense reaction to the shootings in Tucson, or a useless measure that would limit law-abiding citizens and prevent nothing? I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Update: Several readers have objected to the use of the word “clip,” which I’ve changed to “magazine” throughout.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

And maybe we should limit heart transplants to the elderly…

steebo77 on January 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

NO.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Of course, those on the Left will say that Cheney is “an expert in shooting people” so he must know what he is talking about.

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

or a useless measure that would limit law-abiding citizens and prevent nothing? I’m inclined to believe the latter.

agree

cmsinaz on January 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM

And maybe we should limit heart transplants to the elderly…

steebo77 on January 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

That ship sailed with Obamacare.

/snark

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Good, and then we can cure obesity by limiting the size of spoons.

petefrt on January 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Strange new respect…

JimRich on January 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Useless measure. Philosophically it’s saying the people shot at by rounds 16-33 are more important than those shot at by rounds 1-15.

But more than that, there’s no evidence that such a ban has any practical effect on these things. In fact, for my regular carry regimen I can’t imagine toting a 30+ round *magazine* (not clip…please, don’t say clip) around for either my Glock or my HK.

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

He didn’t have any clips with him. He had magazines. There is a difference and, though pop culture often refers to magazines as clips, they are not the same thing and should not be reported as such.

dczombie on January 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The difference between 30 round magazine and 3 10 round magazines is only a few seconds.

Those few seconds only matter if your going to resist the attacker. If your going to resist the attacker you are better off using your own gun and hi-cap magazines.

mad saint jack on January 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM

My favorite “argument” against Cheney’s proposal:

What are they going to do: limit it two or three rounds. Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially if the police are not around and you need to be able to defend yourself against mobs.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM

If the only purpose of these magazines, according to some, is to murder as many people as you can as quickly as possible, why not make it a capital offense to use one in the commission of a violent crime?

Of course, that would never pass progressive muster – it places blame on the individual, not the tool.

Bruce MacMahon on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

But more than that, there’s no evidence that such a ban has any practical effect on these things.

Well, maybe if he’s had to stop to reload sooner, he would have been tackled sooner. Fewer people would be shot.

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Even here at Hot Air, we use the wrong terminology it seems.

They are not ‘clips’, they are magazines.

Also, it isn’t the governments or anyone else’s call on how many rounds I need to defend myself.

President Reagan was shot by a revolver. President Lincoln was shot by a two-shot derringer. John Lennon was shot by a revolver. Bobby Kennedy was shot by a revolver. MLK and President Kennedy were both shot by rifles with five or fewer shot capacity.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines

 
Yeah, overly wide magazines can be a problem. My wife’s smallish hands have a hard time maintaining a proper grasp on all of our non-compact Glocks.
 
Oh, wait.

rogerb on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Would you go hunting with this man ?

Sadly .another Republican advocating gun control !

Sandybourne on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Well, maybe if he’s had to stop to reload sooner, he would have been tackled sooner. Fewer people would be shot.

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Again…no evidence that a ban would have a practical effect. You’re offering an opinion based on theory, not evidence.

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

It would be an unconstitutional infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, as well as a purely symbolic/cosmetic step that will not accomplish a damn thing.

OhioCoastie on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Would a limitation on gun clips have prevented the tragedy?

It certainly would have lowered the body count, right? Loughner was tackled when he finally was forced to reload. Presumably, if he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Would a limitation on gun clips have prevented the tragedy?

Prevented, no. Made less deadly, possibly.

YYZ on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Pardon for what could be a stupid question. But do sport shooters use higher caliber guns? If they don’t couldn’t you make a law that says something like extended clips for 9mm, .40, .45 guns will be outlawed but for .22 they can still be made?

Zaggs on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

The larger magazine, and it’s increased difficulty in handling, is probably what gave witnesses time to stop him. Had he stuck with standard magazines he would have changed it in seconds.

Rocks on January 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Will the limit only apply to those who might harm people?

What has instilled this tendency to remove tools to save ourselves with?

Oh yeah, the constant anti-liberty drumbeat we’ve heard for a hundred years now.

When you’re threatened with a disease the first thing you reach for is better medicine to fight it with.

Speakup on January 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Loughner could just as easily brought two 8-round .357 Magnum revolvers with him and fired 16 much more powerful rounds in as little time with fewer survivors.

Sure, it would have cost more, but something tells me his credit card balance wasn’t a top concern of his.

To-do List:

1. Commit mass murder.
2. Look for part-time job to help pay Visa bill.

Bruce MacMahon on January 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM

So maybe I’m exposing my firearm ignorance here, but maybe some of the more up-to-snuff posters explain something to me.

OK. So a 15-shot magazine, and let’s use that as the “regulated” model that they’re going for – gives the user 15 shots before they have to reload.

And 33 is “too many for one magazine.”

OK. So if the shooter only took 15 shots and ended up killing fewer people before having to reload, is that really what we’re arguing about here?

I mean, I can see that if his has to stop to reload, that gives a window to take him down sooner – got it. But following this, would just making clips, say, 5 round, be even better? And if you’re going to go there, why not just 1?

Asking seriously here – frame it up for me.

Good Lt on January 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM

The only lesson to be learned from this incident is that the government doesn’t trust us with guns. A crazy person misused a gun, so therefore non-crazy people shouldn’t use guns.

JavelinaBomb on January 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM

It certainly would have lowered the body count, right? Loughner was tackled when he finally was forced to reload. Presumably, if he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

You have no way of knowing that. Reloading a regular-size pistol magazine is fairly easy. Reloading a 33-round magazine is cumbersome and difficult.

We have all the gun laws we need:

Murder by firearm is illegal.
Crimes committed with firearms earn an additional ten years in federal prison.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM

What about two guns with fifteen shot magazines? It is not the magazine size that killed those innocents in Tucson. It was a mentally ill man.

d1carter on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

You know…the federal Assault Weapons Ban had a ban of all magazines over 10 rounds, and yet the Columbine killers still managed.

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Loughner had two hands. He wasn’t being very efficient using one gun.

Electrongod on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Well, maybe if he’s had to stop to reload sooner, he would have been tackled sooner. Fewer people would be shot.

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

You have no way of knowing that, and there is no justification for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because “maybe” it will improve things.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I do not agree with banning guns or clips, but can somebody explain to me the purpose of having a handgun clip that has the ability to fire 33 bullets?

Personal protection doesn’t justify 33 bullet clips.

Again, I don’t think they should be banned, but it seems the purpose of this clip is to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.

Why make it?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

I guarantee you I could shoot and reload three times using three 10 round magazines in the times it would take to empty a 33 round magazine. But that’s me.

A person with little training could do it in about the same time, though maybe a bit slower.

Anyone ever thought that if a maniac bent on killing someone could just learn to shoot better to make their fewer, government mandated shots more accurate?

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

It certainly would have lowered the body count, right? Loughner was tackled when he finally was forced to reload. Presumably, if he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

This shows your utter lack of firearms experience.

You have no bloody idea how fast a well-trained shooter can swap in fresh magazines. A matter of one to two seconds, if he’s an expert.

Your theory holds no water, because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

You first…

… and please place a sign in front of your house letting all who pass by of your limited capacity.

Seven Percent Solution on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Well said.

What many people don’t realize (besides the ‘clip’ thing) is that revolvers are more reliable than semi-auto’s. If you put me in a room and gave me the option of either-or in a critical situation, I take the revolver every day and twice on Veterans Day.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Pointless. Bring two guns with 15 clip magazines and the same problem exists.

WashJeff on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Useless measure.

He could also have had a second gun.

rbj on January 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

ULTIMATE HEARTACHE!

classicaliberal on January 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

The left is always willing to incrementally achieve their agenda. They’ll accept getting part of it now and next time they’ll get another part.

So, no, I don’t think any additional gun control is acceptable. Not now, not ever.

Besides, why can’t law abiding citizens own the same high capacity clips that criminals own?

The left just wants us to bring a knife to a gun fight.

SlaveDog on January 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

NO.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

All that need be said. I second that “NO”.

JetBoy on January 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Let’s just go back to rapier duels. Take off your gloves, smack the offender in the face and say “I challenge you to a duel!”

search4truth on January 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If one practices even a small amount, it’s very quick to slap in a fresh magazine, hit the slide release, and continue to fire. Two seconds or less.

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Zaggs on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Define ‘Sport Shooting’.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM

So damn stupid.

blatantblue on January 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM

This shows your utter lack of firearms experience.

You have no bloody idea how fast a well-trained shooter can swap in fresh magazines. A matter of one to two seconds, if he’s an expert.

Your theory holds no water, because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Bingo. We also have no idea how quickly he was firing. Someone trained in firearms could possibly fire more rounds in the time he popped off that 33-round magazine. There’s another “maybe”. That doesn’t mean we legislate to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens because “maybe”.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Pardon for what could be a stupid question. But do sport shooters use higher caliber guns? If they don’t couldn’t you make a law that says something like extended clips for 9mm, .40, .45 guns will be outlawed but for .22 they can still be made?

Zaggs on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Sport shooters generally shoot a wide variety of calibers. I don’t know anyone who only shoots one caliber, one model, or one brand. Variety is part of the fun. And shooting lots of ammo quickly is part of the fun. High capacity magazines facilitate that fun by allowing more shooting with less reloading.

dczombie on January 19, 2011 at 1:12 PM

People who are too crazy to hold down minimum wage jobs should be committed.

Problem solved.

WisCon on January 19, 2011 at 1:12 PM

What many people don’t realize (besides the ‘clip’ thing) is that revolvers are more reliable than semi-auto’s. If you put me in a room and gave me the option of either-or in a critical situation, I take the revolver every day and twice on Veterans Day.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Solution: S&W 627 eight-round .357!

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Pardon for what could be a stupid question. But do sport shooters use higher caliber guns? If they don’t couldn’t you make a law that says something like extended clips for 9mm, .40, .45 guns will be outlawed but for .22 they can still be made?

Zaggs on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

“Sport shooters”, whatever that means, use a range of calibers. And why in the hell should only sport shooters be allow extended magazines? What about people who want to defend themselves? .22 is utterly useless for self-defense.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Three words: New York Reload

CTD on January 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I do not agree with banning guns or clips, but can somebody explain to me the purpose of having a handgun clip that has the ability to fire 33 bullets?

Personal protection doesn’t justify 33 bullet clips.

Again, I don’t think they should be banned, but it seems the purpose of this clip is to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.

Why make it?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

The 30+ round magazine exists, at least in the case of the Glock, because of the existence of the Glock 18 select-fire handgun. The G-18 can fire either semi- or full-auto. On full-auto a standard capacity magazine would be exhausted faster, so the larger magazine was created.

You’re right that for general carry a 30 round magazine is likely cumbersome, but that doesn’t mean a ban is a good idea. Some people don’t like to reload often when shooting at a range, for instance (I know when I got into .22 shooting I was not happy having to pause every 10 rounds to change magazines…).

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

If he had brought two 9mm handguns instead of one with a larger clip, the Left would be advocating limiting handgun ownership to one gun per person.

If high cap clips were illegal, it would have made no difference at all. Shooting people in the head is illegal, but somehow this didn’t save one life that day.

Asher on January 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Why make it?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Why not? To make money and meet a demand. Guns are products also. Why make nitrous for cars? They make them because people want them. If the underlying think is legal why should it be illegal to do more of it or faster? The burden here is not on the gun companies or owners. They need no reason. The reason’s start with “Why not?” Not Why.

Rocks on January 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Oh, and before our resident lefties ask ‘well, maybe civilians should be restricted to only owning revolvers, since they take a long time to reload”, I’ve got a word for you to learn.

Moonclips.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

He didn’t have any clips with him. He had magazines. There is a difference and, though pop culture often refers to magazines as clips, they are not the same thing and should not be reported as such.

dczombie on January 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

In talking about such things in normal society…it doesn’t really matter about clips and magazines.
If I walked into a gun store and wanted to buy 6 clips for my Ruger, the smart manager says “Sure here is our selection of clips for you”, the dumb manager says “I am sorry but we call them magazines, that is the proper terminology”.
I hunt with a bunch of buddies, quite versed and educated in this, and we laugh about this all the time. When I say “quick hand me a clip”, they don’t say “Sorry, I only have magazines”…pass me that gun…”I’m sorry, but I only see rifles”…The proper term is motorcycle, not “bike”, a bike is a two wheeled peddled device, this is a motorcycle…look out for that kid, I am sorry that is a child, a kid is a goat…if you know what they mean, and in normal everyday nomenclature everyone knows what it means to say a clip (military is different) it only matters to, well to most no one.

right2bright on January 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM

It might make sense if you were trying to limit damage in these particular kinds of shootings. However, they’re so rare that the difference to the bottom line (total murders) couldn’t be seen with a microscope.

And the practicalities of such a ban don’t make much sense. What would you do? Make simple possession a crime? Great, turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into instant federal criminals. And who’s going to go find them in people’s houses? So instead you grandfather in the existing magazines. But they have no serial numbers, no way to track them, no way to tell which are illegal and which aren’t.

Any of these would require a large amount of law enforcement resources which, if spent on other things (like, you know, actually catching prosecuting and imprisoning criminals?) would make a bigger impact on violent crime than a magazine limit ever would.

And it also reminds me of the “assault weapon” ban that expired, how it limited magazines to 10 rounds, and how Dianne Feinstein whined about the evil gun manufacturers that responded by developing smaller, lighter, more concealable pistols that fit the magazine limit. Those darned unintended consequences!

Socratease on January 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

The more ammo one has the less carefully he’ll aim. The less ammo, the more careful. So…

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

How about we make laws that keep insane people and criminals from buying guns? ….oh, wait.

Here’s an idea: I didn’t shoot 20 people. Leave me alone.

simon on January 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

“Sport shooters”, whatever that means, use a range of calibers. And why in the hell should only sport shooters be allow extended magazines? What about people who want to defend themselves? .22 is utterly useless for self-defense.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

My friend has a concealed carry permit for a little .22 he keeps in his left pocket.

I’ve done my damndest to try to get him to upgrade, but he swears by the .22 as the ideal deterrent round.

Sometimes, it makes my head hurt. O.X

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Well, maybe if he’s had to stop to reload sooner, he would have been tackled sooner. Fewer people would be shot.

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

You know what else would have stopped him sooner?

An armed crowd!

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Results are not typical, but this is what one man can do – granted who is highly trained – with a revolver.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Why make it?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Why not?

And it is perfectly useful for home defense. You may have multiple hostile intruders. Less reloading means less vulnerability. Some people defend themselves in their homes with rifles that have 30-round magazines. Why shouldn’t you have the same if you have a pistol?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Well, maybe if he’s had to stop to reload sooner, he would have been tackled sooner. Fewer people would be shot.

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

20+ hicap mags are notorious for malfunctioning. It probably malfunctioned and got jammed in the gun, allowing the heroes to tackle him.

Fewer people were shot than if he had stock mags.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Same guy who told us “deficits don’t matter.”

Caiwyn on January 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Cheney MAYBE needs to look at existing magazine bans and their failure to prevent anything of the sort already. Even the FBI figures prove it.

Educate yourself Cheney, before you speak.

tx2654 on January 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM

A nut broke the law!! Quick, take it out on law abiding citizens … that’ll fix it!!!

Random democrat/liberal

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

1. Semiautomatic weapons have magazines, not clips. A clip is what you load a magazine with.
2. My reload time dropping an 8 round magazine out of my 1911 (with a round left in the chamber to prevent having to cycle the action to recharge the weapon) and inserting a fully charged magazine is less than 4 seconds if I have the magazine in a pouch and half that if it is in my off hand.
3. Mr. Vice President…with all due respect…STFU. The weapon didn’t kill those people regardless of the number of rounds available…the NUT CASE carrying the weapon did. Lock up the mad man…prevent the crime. Imagine that?

TexasEngineer on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Oh, and before our resident lefties ask ‘well, maybe civilians should be restricted to only owning revolvers, since they take a long time to reload”, I’ve got a word for you to learn.

Moonclips.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I’m surprised they don’t limit us to muzzle loaders!

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Sometimes, it makes my head hurt. O.X

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Unfortunately, that’s also all a .22 is going to do against an assailant.

At the very least, try to get him to .32, preferably .380 if possible.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

A Suburban does more damage in an accident than a Honda Civic. By this logic we should ban Suburbans.

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Dick Cheney: He shoots friends in the face. Nice. //

thebrokenrattle on January 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Three words: New York Reload

CTD on January 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I’ve never before heard that term, but I like and approve of it!

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Instead of blaming the magazine size…

… why are Law Enforcement and Mental Health in Pima County that ever had contact with Mr. Loughner now in bunker mode?

Seven Percent Solution on January 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM

right2bright on January 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM

It may not make a difference in normal conversations between people who know what’s what. But it does make a difference when a journalist (MSM or otherwise) uses the wrong terminology. It demonstrates a lack of research into what they’re writing about.

Of course I’m happy to cut Ed some slack because he’s a good guy and whatnot. But being the good guy that he is, I think he’d appreciate knowing that he’s using wrong terminology.

Also, journalistic misuse only perpetuates a lack of understanding by people who don’t know much about guns.

dczombie on January 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Again, I don’t think they should be banned, but it seems the purpose of this clip is to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.
Why make it?
portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

That’s a good reason to make it.

You seem to fail to realize that whatever makes it deadlier in the hands of the criminal also makes it deadlier in the hands of the citizen trying to stop the criminal.

The armed citizen is this nations first line of defense against criminal activity, since police are (thankfully) not omnipotent or omnipresent.

apollyonbob on January 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM

It certainly would have lowered the body count, right? Loughner was tackled when he finally was forced to reload. Presumably, if he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

If abortion was illegal, it would have lowered the body count in the thread about the doctor who murdered all those babies.

Want to trade? I’ll lower magazine capacity from 33 down to 31 if you agree to ban abortion. Deal?

fossten on January 19, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Why discuss any law that would not have prevented the shooting in the first place? King’s stupid “no handguns withing a thousand feet of a congressman” law is just as dumb as banning extended magazines.

You can not legislate away crazy, no matter how clever you phrase a law.

Mord on January 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

You can’t prevent the next Loughner from pulling a gun on a crowd. However, if you make access to firearms easier for the public, and if you encourage the public to carry concealed firearms, you can greatly decrease the body count when the next Loughner starts shooting. He won’t have to be tackled while reloading because he’ll be shot dead by then.

OhioCoastie on January 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Ok, so we limit the clip size…

How many people should I be allowed to shoot before reloading? What’s the “acceptable” number?

That’s the debate we’re going to have if we start down this road isn’t it? How many people we’re willing to let me shoot in a psychotic rage without reloading?

And you know the gun control nuts are going to love this debate; where they get to say “shooting people is wrong, the number is zero” and continuously push the number down (since they’re arguing toward zero).

So we’re going to eventually legislate our way down to bolt-action pistols (assuming gun violence stays above 0 incidents per year)… or will only the “special people” shooting incidents be worth a revisit to this discussion?

Yeah, this is a losing proposition. I’m going to be opposed to any concept that limiting my ability to defend myself when the police response time is over the time it takes for me to be shot multiple times.

You find a way to get the police to my door on a 911 call before an assailant can shoot me; then you can limit my ability to personally defend myself… but until you’ve got teleporter technology working you can quit trying to take everyone’s guns.

Oh, if you can find a way to make criminals follow all the laws so they’d give up their guns; that’d work too. Of course if you can find a way to force criminals to obey all the laws we wouldn’t have shootings would we?

gekkobear on January 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

On second thought, there is such overwhelming evidence that draconian gun-control laws and laws against ‘assault accessories’ have worked where ever they have been tried…

wait…what?

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Quite often those using their handgun for home defense have a 30 round magazine. Wouldn’t YOU want to have as much ammo as possible when you don’t know the extent of the threat you are facing and are defending your family? I would. So do others.
Punishing the law abiding due the criminal actions of a nut, is just…crazy.

Hard Right on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

MAGAZINES, NOT CLIPS!

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I’m not that familier with the Glock, however I heard that with the extended magazine, you have to hit the release then physically pull the magazine out of the pistol, that it won’t drop clear on it’s own.

If this is correct, then it would have added at least 2 seconds to the reloading drill.

Note slide locked back.
Push magazine release.
Reach up with free hand and pull magazine from the pistol.
Drop the magazine.
Locate fresh magazine.
Orientate it to slide into the pistol.
Release locked back slide.

Now with a pistol where the magazine drops free on it’s own,
Note slide locked back.
Push magazine release. Magazine drops free.
Load new magazine.

Time? 1-3 seconds.

This doesn’t go into the problems of balance with that foot+ long thing hanging out of the pistol grip.

No, this is just more idiocy from the political elite and Cheney should know better.
(But then he prefers to shotgun people rather then use a pistol) ;)

evilned on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

it only matters to, well to most no one.

right2bright on January 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Wrong. It may not matter to YOU. Most people strive to be intelligent in life and use correct nomenclatures, grammar, etc. Heck, we had a huge thread the other day about whether or not to use two spaces after a period!

You can continue to be stupid, but don’t criticize people who don’t want to be.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I’m surprised they don’t limit us to muzzle loaders!

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I’m sure they’d like to. >.> The crazy contraptions we’d have to build to reload those in a hurry would be an engineering marvel.

Unfortunately, that’s also all a .22 is going to do against an assailant.

At the very least, try to get him to .32, preferably .380 if possible.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM

That’s pretty much what I told him, but it’s like talking to a horse. It’s a gun, and all guns are the same, blah blah blah.

You know what else would have stopped him sooner?

An armed crowd!

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Thread winner.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Blaming pencils for misspelling is a loser.

tarpon on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

And it is perfectly useful for home defense. You may have multiple hostile intruders. Less reloading means less vulnerability. Some people defend themselves in their homes with rifles that have 30-round magazines. Why shouldn’t you have the same if you have a pistol?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM

True. I have a .22 rifle with a larger magazine and a .22 pistol with a 10 round magazine, and a .38 revolver. I have been looking into purchasing a larger handgun for home protection, as I don’t think the .22 is quite up to snuff.

Any suggestions?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM

That’s pretty much what I told him, but it’s like talking to a horse. It’s a gun, and all guns are the same, blah blah blah.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Tell him to carry a BB gun, then.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Did Loughner shoot all 33 rounds????

Blake on January 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM

You know what else would have stopped him sooner?

An armed crowd!

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

If this Laughner quack had tried this in Texas, more would have died from the crossfire of armed crowd!/

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Cris Rock made a very funny point about gun control laws.

He says, guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Make bullets cost 5,000 dollars each and you wouldn’t have anymore drive-bys. If you saw someone who got shot you would think, Damn he musta done SOMETHING.

It makes as much sense as restricting magazine capacity.

Mord on January 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM

You know what else would have stopped him sooner?

An armed crowd!

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Basil Marceaux dot com 2012!!!

JetBoy on January 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Any suggestions?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM

I have some semi-autos (9mm), but I also have a .44 magnum for uh, … effect. If staring down the barrel of a .44 doesn’t make you stop, what comes out of it will.

You’d probably be happy with a .40 or .45.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM

If this Laughner quack had tried this in Texas, more would have died from the crossfire of armed crowd!/

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Speculation, my friend. Speculation. Considering that there wasn’t any armed security at all at Giffords’ event, I’d like to point out once again that I believe it was the Sheriff’s office of Pima County that dropped the ball the farthest.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM

True. I have a .22 rifle with a larger magazine and a .22 pistol with a 10 round magazine, and a .38 revolver. I have been looking into purchasing a larger handgun for home protection, as I don’t think the .22 is quite up to snuff.

Any suggestions?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Well, for home protecting, my suggestion would be a shotgun with buckshot. A Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 is priced right, has better spread, and better chance of stunning intruders.

For home defense, I would recommend any good 9MM handgun from Beretta, Browning, Bersa, Sig, Taurus, Springfield, Walther, or Glock. Don’t get a compact version for home, get a full-size, and make sure you get full-size/high-capacity magazines(usually 15 or 17 round) for it. As far as I know, Glock is the only manufacturer that has made 20+ round magazines for their weapons, and the rest are usually Promag junk(which is why they don’t work very well).

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM

*Cho used “standard” mags to kill 31 people at VA Tech. And he carried 19 magazines with him that day.

*RFK was killed (and 5 others wounded) with a 22 revolver.

*Reagan and two others were shot with a 22 revolver

*The Columbine massacre occurred during the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) where hi-cap mags were “banned.”

That being said, reports from the Tucson have been across the board, from a “magazine spring” failing to Loughner fumbling to load a new mag as the reasons why the shooter was stopped from further carnage.

New mag-capacity laws will do nothing to stem future violence. They will only serve to burden law-abiding citizens.

dugan on January 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Buying a handgun is a very personal experience. There are many variables, especially if your buying one for personal protection.

How big/tall are you? How big are your hands? How strong are you? How much time can you afford to spend training? Is there a place where you live where you can practice? How much will that cost? How much money do you have to spend – on a gun, on ammo? Where do you live in the country? What type of domicile do you live in? Do you have any previous firearms experience? If so, how much, what type? Etc.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Homicidal criminals will surely follow this sensible advice, right?

(Or just carry two pistols with 15 round magazines.)

profitsbeard on January 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

A .22 wound can be as nasty as you want it to be if you can aim.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4