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

HILLARY: HEALTH CARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Can you provide a better link? I can’t read that.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I don’t think I (or most thinking-people) would buy the argument that restricting lawful access to a good has absolutely no effect on the ability of people to obtain that good because they’d find a way if they really wanted it.

That argument has been debunked.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Yes, that’s why felons and repeat offenders never use guns when committing crimes … because it’s against the law for them to have any and it makes it sooooo hard to get them.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

…yeah. Well I think we both know that was pretty weak. I actually lol’d at the first and second examples.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You didn’t ask him for strong arguments, you asked for lawful ones.

Prediction: You are going to lose every case you ever litigate. If you become a litigator that is. I would suggest Patent Law for you actually.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

How about people who know nothing about the 2nd amendment or Constitutional law blathering on about their constitutional rights being violated? Because I think that’s pretty annoying. crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms” precedes the Bill of Rights.

I don’t need a Ruth Ginsberg to inform my ignorance on this matter.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Maybe we need to limit firearms for Vice Presidents that are prone to accidentally shooting people…

paulsur on January 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Jesus Christ. I’m saying just because you’re restricting firearms doesn’t mean you’re restricting the right to own firearms. Understand? Probably not, but I don’t really care at this point.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Oh … so what you’re saying is I may have the right to that gun but you won’t let me have it. Sounds … like lib logic.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM

There are few things I loathe more in politics than those who know nothing about firearms and even less about the effect of laws on firearms attempting to legislate both based on their ignorance.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:56 PM

They either assume they know everything they need to know or they act out of ignorance.

I would like to know what crr6 would do if she were alone in her apartment and heard someone breaking in. Would she want to be able to defend herself or wait 10 – 20 minutes (or a Lifetime) for the police to arrive.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

ediction: You are going to lose every case you ever litigate. If you become a litigator that is. I would suggest Patent Law for you actually.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

That’s assuming the University of Phoenix Law School even includes patent law in its online curriculum. :)

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Freedom does not require someone to make a list of how they intend to excercise it.

Scrappy on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Yes, that’s why felons and repeat offenders never use guns when committing crimes … because it’s against the law for them to have any and it makes it sooooo hard to get them.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

No one’s saying it would have a 100% deterrent effect. That’s almost as ludicrous as saying it’d have a 0% deterrent effect (which is Madcon’s argument).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Crr6, let me pose this for you:

I’m willing to yield the incremental argument and, for sake of discussion, leave the Constitutionality out of the magazine capacity issue. But given that 30 plus round mags already exist and are demonstrably used, what does restricting the capacity in the form of legislation do to someone willing to commit murder?

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

For those not familiar, here’s a pic that shows the distinction between a clip and magazine:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ClipMagazineLesson.jpg

toliver on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Hi-Caps….out of my cold. dead. hands.

pseudonominus on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

And once again, if a ban is passed and these clips become illegal to buy/own/whatever, who will obey those laws? Certainly not the bangers or anyone else who wishes to buy/own one illegally. Always the problem with gun control laws-they only control the law abiding.

Amendment X on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I’m tired of people determining what I “need”. I don’t remember the 2nd amendment having an “only if someone else determines you “need” it” clause.

remember..most of these laws are talking about NO GRANDFATHERING.

that means house-to-house turn them in or we send cops to kill you.

I suppose if you really WANTED to start a civil war, this would be the way to start.

no more free wacos. no more free katrinas.

allen
III

warhorse_03826 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Oh … so what you’re saying is I may have the right to that gun but you won’t let me have it. Sounds … like lib logic.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I’m willing to yield the incremental argument and, for sake of discussion, leave the Constitutionality out of the magazine capacity issue. But given that 30 plus round mags already exist and are demonstrably used, what does restricting the capacity in the form of legislation do to someone willing to commit murder?

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I don’t think I (or most thinking-people) would buy the argument that restricting lawful access to a good has absolutely no effect on the ability of people to obtain that good (presumably because they’d find a way if they really wanted it). It’s similar to the argument that restricting the ease with which people can commit suicide, has no effect on the suicide rate.

That argument has been debunked.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:09 PM

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

She doesn’t appear to understand how black markets work. Probably thinks there is another reason semitruckloads of dope flow north from Mexico each day.

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I’ve always respected you, Dick. Don’t go stupid on us now.

Extrafishy on January 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Amendment X on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

It can also be said again: Under the Clinton AWB, magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds. Yet Columbine still occurred.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I think the 33-round magazine is an after-market, low-quality product. Does anyone know if Glock makes 33-round magazines? The spring failed in the magazine, which gave his tacklers time to get to him. Had Loughner used a factory-made Glock magazine, he probably would have been able to reload and continue. So in this particular case, the low-quality after-market magazine was critical to stopping Loughner.

But a better response is to criticize the college district and sheriff’s department and let law enforcement and government officials know that we expect to catch the bad guys and leave us alone. And they knew Loughner was a bad guy.

InterestedObserver on January 19, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Jesus Christ. I’m saying just because you’re restricting firearms doesn’t mean you’re restricting the right to own firearms. Understand? Probably not, but I don’t really care at this point.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM

And yet, you’re still here. o.0 Facinating.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 2:11 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

How about restricting mag size to one round? Or no rounds?

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Oh … so what you’re saying is I may have the right to that gun but you won’t let me have it. Sounds … like lib logic.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

And when it infringes to the point of the gun being useless, do you still have that right?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:13 PM

No one’s saying it would have a 100% deterrent effect. That’s almost as ludicrous as saying it’d have a 0% deterrent effect (which is Madcon’s argument).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

From the Jerry Lee Center from Criminology (NOT a conservative group) concerning the 1994 assault weapons ban (which included hicap mags)

We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/kv8610023463x574/

Looks like 0% to me.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:13 PM

The problem, really, is that noe of this will do any good in the long run. That is because the problem is the cause of violence, and addressing the mechanics of violence does nothing to address the cause. This is like saying that to stop deaths caused by drunk drivers we are going to place limits on the size of a car’s gas tank.

MikeA on January 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I think this is why many liberals oppose virtually any restrictions on abortion rights. How do you feel about that?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I wonder if you’de be willing to set a limit on the number of abortions a woman could have?

Scrappy on January 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines Government

Wine_N_Dine on January 19, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Jerry Lee Center from OF Criminology

Whoops.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:15 PM

How about restricting mag size to one round? Or no rounds?

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 2:12 PM

That’d probably be a violation. It would eliminate a great deal (or all) of the lawful use of the weapon.

I think a lot of the confusion from you guys comes from a belief that Heller protects an unqualified right to gun ownership and use. That’s simply not the case. From Scalia’s majority opinion:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

It’s a very slippery slope. Sure, there have been limitations posed over the years with no major effect, but limiting magazine size would only be a continuance of past infringements.

It only takes one bullet to kill someone.

JetBoy on January 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM

InterestedObserver on January 19, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Yes Glock makes 33 rd mags. There are also many cheap copies.

mad saint jack on January 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

One of the definitions of infringe is to ‘encroach upon’ or ‘limit as to undermine’. I’d call that unconstitutional. Of course, the courts haven’t agreed with me on that. But, they think abortion is a constitutional right too, so…..

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:17 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Just who, and by what criteria, decides how many rounds in a magazine is “enough?” If someone uses a single-shot H&R Rifle to kill someone, is now one round too many for the unwashed masses to have?

For that matter, take this across the board. Just who, and by what criteria, decides what the ‘perfect’ temperature is for the globe, and then regulate everything to keep it there? Just who, and by what criteria, decides at what point you’ve “made enough money?”

We can continue this for nearly every arguement out there.

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

So granny buys a 9mm with a ten round magazine. Two armed guys break in and well, granny’s a poor shot, but she keeps them at bay while waiting for the police. Due to liberal policies of cutting the police department first due to the economic situation, the police arrive in 20 minutes.

Granny fires ten shots, and while fumbling to change magzines the two guys approach and shoot her in the head.

Earlier that year, Congress had limited the 9mm magazine to ten instead of the standard 17 rounds for the gun she bought.

Congress, or more specifically democrats thought they knew more about self defense than granny did. Now granny’s dead.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Darwin,

From your study:

The ban may have contributed to a reduction in gun homicides

and,

The findings should be treated cautiously due to the methodological difficulties of making a short-term assessment of the ban and because the ban’s long-term effects could differ from the short-term impacts revealed by this study.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Jesus Christ. I’m saying just because you’re restricting firearms doesn’t mean you’re restricting the right to own firearms. Understand? Probably not, but I don’t really care at this point.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some people are REALLY stuck on stupid!

dominigan on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Ah, apologies for missing that earlier. This thread is moving rather quickly for me. However, I’m not sure that quite answers my challenge. I haven’t finished reading that but I see it has to do with the specific problem of suicide. Given its nature, magazine capacity is an irrelevant issue concerning suicide.

My challenge is very broad and is applicable in other areas. If someone is willing to break a far more consequential law would other less significant laws prevent him from doing such?

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 2:19 PM

She doesn’t appear to understand how black markets work. Probably thinks there is another reason semitruckloads of dope flow north from Mexico each day.

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I suppose crr6 never heard of Al Capone … child of Prohibition.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:19 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM

What about that the fact that the previous AWB, which included a provision that limited magazine size, had no calculable effect on crime?

apollyonbob on January 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM

place limits on the size of a car’s gas tank.

MikeA on January 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

OOoooh, Mike, I like that one! I’m so going to steal that…

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Not my link. Someone else.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

You could alway buy 30 rd mag during the AWB. The ban said you could not make them.

mad saint jack on January 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Statistics show that Trained police officers can only hit their target 20% of the time in a violent confrontation.

crr6:
So let’s say you re in a violent confrontation with a criminal.

Would you want to have a mag with 15 rounds or 5 rounds given in the stress of the situation where most of your shots will miss?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Not my link. Someone else.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Woops, sorry.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM

No, you have right to gun ownership but the size of the magazine of your gun can be limited without infringing your right.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

And if the only magazine allowed was one with ZERO capacity? According to your logic, it still wouldn’t infringe even though it would render my right un-exercisable.

Since this is obviously ridiculous, it DEFINITELY infringes.

Thus you are wrong.

dominigan on January 19, 2011 at 2:22 PM

The findings should be treated cautiously due to the methodological difficulties of making a short-term assessment of the ban and because the ban’s long-term effects could differ from the short-term impacts revealed by this study.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

This proves nothing except they’re bummed out they couldn’t prove anything. That quote is wishful thinking for gun grabbers.

They admit that there is NO empirical evidence proving a reduction in gun crimes or murders. I hope you don’t charge much as a lawyer because your clients are gonna get throttled.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Would you want to have a mag with 15 rounds or 5 rounds given in the stress of the situation where most of your shots will miss?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Obviously a good liberal, crr6 would rather have the 5 shot.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:23 PM

InterestedObserver on January 19, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Glock does make the 33-round mag, but we don’t know what mag Sarah Palin used in AZ.

toliver on January 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM

That’d probably be a violation.

“Did you say “probably”? What a joke you are.

I think a lot of the confusion from you guys comes from a belief that Heller protects an unqualified right to gun ownership and use.
crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Heller has nothing to do with 99% of the comments here. The vast majority of people on this site have understood what their rights are for many, many years.

It has been said that Liberalism is a disease. ut Ithink Lawyerism is also a disease. It inhibits free thought to the point that they can form no argument that isn’t part of case law, etc.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Just wait until the dollar is dropped as the global standard.

Libs will be flocking to buy guns … if they’re allowed during martial law.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Just as an FYI, injecting some facts into the thread.

Assuming access to guns, the top ten types of guns involved in crime in the U.S. show a definite trend in favoring handguns over long guns. The top ten guns used in crime, as reported by the ATF in 1993, included the Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns; and the Tec DC-9.

These stats are old, but the trend continues. The most common type of gun confiscated by police is the .38 Special. Revolver.

Just as an FYI, to explain why limiting magazine size does almost nothing to crime rates. The other reason would be that extended magazines are extremely difficult to conceal, limiting their usefulness to the vast majority of criminals.

apollyonbob on January 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM

So let’s say you re in a violent confrontation with a criminal.

Would you want to have a mag with 15 rounds or 5 rounds given in the stress of the situation where most of your shots will miss?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Even if you hit, who says one shot will be enough to stop the perp?

As I’ve stated multiple times, in the 1986 Miami Shootout, Matix took 6 shots to take down and Platt took 12 rounds.

Those were shots from elite FBI agents.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Heller has nothing to do with 99% of the comments here. The vast majority of people on this site have understood what their rights are for many, many years.
BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Oh, so you’re all making normative arguments, rather than descriptive ones? I’m not particularly interested in that. I think it’s pretty obvious we have irreconcilable normative views regarding gun ownership and use.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

And if the only magazine allowed was one with ZERO capacity? According to your logic, it still wouldn’t infringe even though it would render my right un-exercisable.
dominigan on January 19, 2011 at 2:22 PM

No. Read all of my posts.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Hey, let’s ban an item that can be made in any decent machine shop and harass law abiding gun owners in the process. A gun clip is nothing more than a glorified Pez dispenser and criminals will easily get them if they want them.

But don’t stop there. Let’s ban Corvettes, Porches, Ferraris and any other auto that exceeds 100 MPH. Several times more people are killed in MVAa every year than with firearms and clearly no one “needs” a car that has no practical purpose other than to go fast. That’s what they say about most guns, right? They’re only designed to kill people?

And the Bill of Rights mentions nothing about the right to drive an auto, a horse or anything else regarding a right to transportation.

As it stands now, anyone can walk into a dealership and buy a 160+ MPH auto or motorcycle. No background check required. A person could have ten DUI’s and there’s nothing stopping them from buying a 3000 lb missile. We need these “common sense” restrictions now.

RadClown on January 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Oh, so you’re all making normative arguments, rather than descriptive ones? I’m not particularly interested in that. I think it’s pretty obvious we have irreconcilable normative views regarding gun ownership and use.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Thanks for proving my point about lawyers. I appreciate that.

Let me know what Patent office you go with.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM

I think it’s pretty obvious we have irreconcilable normative views regarding gun ownership and use.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

What if you want to buy a gun one day? What if future situations dictate you protect yourself? I think your views on gun ownership are going to change rather quickly.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Even if you hit, who says one shot will be enough to stop the perp?

As I’ve stated multiple times, in the 1986 Miami Shootout, Matix took 6 shots to take down and Platt took 12 rounds.

Those were shots from elite FBI agents.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Let me add to that with the question: Are you willing to bet your life that you would be able to swap mags in time?

This is all about incrementally taking away our right to self-defense. The Oppressive-left will use this serious crisis as much as they can to diminish our rights and then just sit back waiting for the next one to come along, knowing full well that their earlier efforts will not make anyone safer.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM

crr6

I would like to know what you would do if you were alone in your apartment and heard someone breaking in.

Would you want to be able to defend yourself or wait 10 – 20 minutes (or a Lifetime) for the police to arrive?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM

The Glock 33 round magazine is for the model 18 series MACHINE PISTOLS. These are capable of full automatic fire 1100+ rounds per minute. The model 18 is restricted to military and law enforcement use only.

By necessity the model 18 can use smaller capacity magazines and is often carried that way. A member of a SWAT Team on regular patrol can carry a model 18 set on semi automatic with a 17 round magazine. In the event of a SWAT team deployment the officer can change to the high capacity magazine

I have no problem if these machine gun parts are regulated as such and restricted to military and law enforcement use only

meci on January 19, 2011 at 2:40 PM

No. Read all of my posts.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:28 PM

No. Read the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say you’re allowed to own guns. It states that the Federal Government isn’t even allowed to infringe on ownership. In other words, it isn’t allowed to even come close to touching it.

A Glock 17 is a 9mm semi-automatic pistol with a standard 17 round magazine. If the Government passes a law stating that the maximum size magazine for a handgun is 15 rounds, then that means I can no longer purchase and use that firearm. Thus, the Government has infringed on my right to keep and bear (read: use) arms.

If you’re really a lawyer, you need to practice reading comprehension. These are simple sentences written for an agrarian culture in the 1700′s at an 8th grade reading level… and you STILL can’t seem to understand it!

dominigan on January 19, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Thanks for proving my point about lawyers. I appreciate that.

Er, ok BierMan.

Let me know what Patent office you go with.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM

FWIW I’m summering at V100 general practice firm this May, and I plan on spending most of my time in the litigation department. I’m not sure why you seem to think IP work is for dumb people though. Most of the smartest kids at my law school (EE and ME majors from Ivies or their peers) are working at IP boutiques or in IP departments at major firms.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

meci on January 19, 2011 at 2:40 PM

So are hicap mags for the AR15 “MACHINE GUN PARTS” for the M16?

The ATF disagrees with you.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Let me add to that with the question: Are you willing to bet your life that you would be able to swap mags in time?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I wouldn’t waste your breath. He wouldn’t know. Anyone who has been trained in handguns knows that it only takes a person 1.5 SECONDS to run 21 feet. From that distance, there’s barely enough time to make the decision to fire, and put ONE person down, let alone multiple targets. There is definitely not enough time to swap magazines.

dominigan on January 19, 2011 at 2:45 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

What you would do if you were alone in your apartment and heard someone breaking in.

Would you want to be able to defend yourself or wait 10 – 20 minutes (or a Lifetime) for the police to arrive?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:47 PM

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

The Aftermath
Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis’ .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state.

Note they report 22 hits, not 22 shots.

“Reasonable limits” should be determined by the individual citizen based on his or her requirements, period.

Kenosha Kid on January 19, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Maybe I missed it … but what exactly are they talking about limiting capacity to? 17? 10? 5?

It kind of makes a difference.

I don’t really care if they impose limits (although I’ll be joining the line to quietly get a bunch of high-capacity magazines before hand!).

Personally, I don’t see much need for large magazines for self-defense. I tend to carry a 5-shot .357 revolver or a 6-shot .380 semi in the summer. With an extra magazine magazine in my pocket.

Some of the folks up there talking about needing 30 shots in a self-defense situation? Yeah. No. Not happening. Not outside of Matrix movie. And if you really have that much trouble re-loading, you don’t have much business carrying a fire-arm to begin with.

But that’s the other side of the equation: exactly what good is the limit supposed to do? It really doesn’t take much time to change magazines. Didn’t the Columbine killers and the guy at Virginia Tech fire hundreds of rounds? I’m not sure how smaller magazines would have helped. Hell, the killers can just bring two guns.

Shorter version: go ahead and limit it – within reason – but its just a make-believe solution, a band-aid to appease the ignorant voting masses.

A far better solution would have been a couple people in that crowd in Arizona also armed and ready.

It wouldn’t have spared Giffords. The first victim or two are always going to go down, unless you’ve got folks actually sitting around with the guns in their hands, hypervigilant at all times. The bad guy always has the initial advantage.

But the crowd of innocents might have been spared. That little girl might still be alive.

I’m just glad to know that if God forbid it ever happens near me, I and my family will at least have the option to defend ourselves (of course, here in Tennessee, a dozen other people in the room will probably also be packing. I love this state.)

Professor Blather on January 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

This is all about incrementally taking away our right to self-defense. The Oppressive-left will use this serious crisis as much as they can to diminish our rights and then just sit back waiting for the next one to come along, knowing full well that their earlier efforts will not make anyone safer.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM

You assume liberals think about the logical consequences of their legislation. In general, I’d say they don’t. Liberals think that the police are there to protect us. But in reality, the police work to catch people AFTER they commit crime. Which means after you and your family are dead, police find the killer.

But libs don’t think down the point where their laws touch real world situations.

My guess is that Cheney would just use a shotgun for home defense, but I’m still surprised that he would favor limits on magazine sizes. After all, a crazed killer could just carry multiple loaded guns, and multiple clips – so what’s the point of the limit?

hawksruleva on January 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

I got rid of my flinch reaction with a 50 rnd. drum mag for my SA Thompson ‘pistol’. It’s a beast to heft, but once you have it up you learn all the basics of recoil reaction, how to pace your shots, learning to watch your shots go downrange and then seeing how your body is holding up with so much weight out there. Of course its not something you really put in a holster, either, but a standard 22lr target pistol from Ruger wasn’t doing it for me, although my accuracy was more than I could wish for, seeing those tiny projectiles go down-range was just… sigh. But a lumbering 45 ACP? That’s the ticket!

So what you learn with a large magazine?

First – weight training. If you aren’t prepared to lift and hold it steady with that amount of ammo, you need work on it.

Second – accuracy training. The Thompson is an incredibly unforgiving platform due to its mass and the round it uses, yet training yourself to punch out a 1.5″ square hole at 15 yards is an effort in concentration. By the time I was getting in the zone with a 10 round magazine, I had to break concentration… I am not up to any competition standards, but accuracy is a learning and concentration experience and the more rounds I have at the ready the longer I can go without breaking concentration. Yes you can learn the skill with less, but with more I can learn it faster.

Third – recoil training and stamina. You need both at high capacity, and after a 50 rnd. session I’m sweating like you wouldn’t believe.

Fourth – shorter magazine fire control is improved. Really, once you drop off 20 or 30 rnds. of 45 you have an entirely different experience because you are no longer worried about weight, stamina or accuracy.

If you aren’t training for the weapon, you are going to be untrained and unskilled with it. A decent high cap magazine teaches you the problems of the weapons system, not just the magazine side but the platform side. Plus keeping track of which ammo came from which manufacturer helps when you can put 50 rnds. in a single drum magazine. I’ve sworn off one or two manufacturers by doing that… someone else’s same weapon, make, model and even just the next serial number will have a different prefernce for some rounds over another. Just because it’s ‘spec’ doesn’t mean it will function. And its amazing how fast you can check out a couple of boxes from a manufacturer to see how they are going when its one box per magazine.

It isn’t the rounds in the magazine that matter.

It is the lack of cards in the deck of the shooter’s head that tells the story.

ajacksonian on January 19, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Anyone who has been trained in handguns knows that it only takes a person 1.5 SECONDS to run 21 feet. From that distance, there’s barely enough time to make the decision to fire, and put ONE person down, let alone multiple targets. There is definitely not enough time to swap magazines.

dominigan on January 19, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Yes, she readily shows her ignorance, because once you begin parceling out freedoms like this, it’s only a short time before they are all incrementally taken away.

It looks like it’s going to be very crowded the next time I go to a gun show.

Makes me proud to be an American.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I don’t really care if they impose limits (although I’ll be joining the line to quietly get a bunch of high-capacity magazines before hand!).

Professor Blather on January 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Great. A Fud.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Liberals think that the police are there to protect us. But in reality, the police work to catch people AFTER they commit crime. Which means after you and your family are dead, police find the killer.

But libs don’t think down the point where their laws touch real world situations.

My guess is that Cheney would just use a shotgun for home defense, but I’m still surprised that he would favor limits on magazine sizes. After all, a crazed killer could just carry multiple loaded guns, and multiple clips – so what’s the point of the limit?

hawksruleva on January 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Notice I haven’t gotten an answer to the question about some breaking into her home.

It makes you wonder if Leftists ever think of ‘what if’ scenarios like that.

A shotgun would be okay, but in confided spaces, that long barrel is going to be hard to maneuver. My preference is for a nice M1911 (A design 100 years young BTW)

That is,if I hadn’t lost it in a boating accident……….

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I’m not sure if it would’ve made any difference, but I don’t see the point in being able to purchase a 33 round magazine either. One really needs something like that for self-defense?

changer1701

I didn’t realize there was an official, fixed number of bullets guaranteed to cover any and every self-defense situation. Maybe we should limit magazines to one bullet. I mean, do you really need more than one bullet for self-defense?

You know how many bullets I want? As many as it takes, not some arbitrary number pulled out of the ass of some clueless bureaucrat in Washington.

xblade on January 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM

I didn’t read through every comment here, so I apologize if this link is redundant:

YouTube: Fast reloading (less than one second)

More fast reloading videos here.

Banning hi-cap magazines would be just as effective in preventing mass murder as banning “assault rifles” — meaning, completely ineffective. It’s attacking the wrong problem (the weapon). The true problem (the perp) will always figure a way around the laws.

Splashman on January 19, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Would you want to be able to defend yourself or wait 10 – 20 minutes (or a Lifetime) for the police to arrive?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:47 PM

The Government will save her.

DFCtomm on January 19, 2011 at 3:06 PM

We should save time and outlaw criminals. After that, we should replace bullets with candy…and, then, maybe increase magazine size.

BlueCollarAstronaut on January 19, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Personally, I don’t see much need for large magazines for self-defense. I tend to carry a 5-shot .357 revolver or a 6-shot .380 semi in the summer. With an extra magazine magazine in my pocket.

Professor Blather on January 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Professor, your .380 would be deficient in caliber and capacity for any working armed professional. While it may suffice for your personal needs, whatever they may be, arguing “not much need” for more ignores the prevailing standards and norms as established for example in most if not all police departments in the US.

Kenosha Kid on January 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

After all, a crazed killer could just carry multiple loaded guns, and multiple clips – so what’s the point of the limit?

hawksruleva

Or make his own extended magazine. It’s basically just a metal container with a spring. Not exactly a complex piece of machinery.

xblade on January 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Stupid ignorant politicians and the stupid ignorant people who actually believe that outlawing guns will somehow make them safer. They need look no further than South to our immediate border.

Mexico has some of the most stringent anti-gun and anti-gun accessories laws in the world. Yet, their country is awash in a sea of not just garden variety guns, but also fully automatic grenade launching 50-round+ magazine hi-powered you name it you can get it if you’re a criminal guns. It has been that way forever and despite every single feeble misguided gun control law they’ve enacted, and that every single criminal has ignored.

…and their entire law abiding citizenry throughout their entire country has no way to defend themselves, their families, or their livelihoods from a single one of them. Even if their police force from the Fed’s to the Municipals weren’t fully corrupted and useless they still can’t defend themselves from that instantaneous moment that a criminal visits any manner of violence upon them or their family.

Limiting the size of magazines is, in my opinion, not going to violate any rights. But if anyone thinks that I cannot eject a spent magazine and reinsert a fresh magazine in almost less time than it takes for you to fully process the fact that I’m doing so in any one of my guns, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona I’d love to sell you. Cheap too!

Restricting magazine size is an ignorant and useless proposal with no basis in reality if they think that will somehow effectively negate criminal acts or thwart some deranged lunatics attempt to carry out some evil plan.

FlatFoot on January 19, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Since homocidal lunatics always obey existing gun laws, it makes perfect sense to reduce the magazine size. There’s no way a psychopathic murderer would think of breaking the law by getting a larger magazine illegally. The same applies to bank robbers, muggers and gang members.

/<–for the sarcastically impaired

DrAllecon on January 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Or we could just shoot the bad guy before he fires his 16th shot.

Ronnie on January 19, 2011 at 3:20 PM

If an individual faces a home invasion by a gang of criminals then yes, there is a very good reason not to limit the sale of high capacity magazines. If a person hears a sound in their home at night and goes to investigate in just their PJs with gun in hand- a high-cap mag means he doesn’t have to carry any spares or risk fumbling a reload: under high stress fine motor skills are adversely affected making the simple act of reloading a much more difficult one to undertake.

The second, and perhaps more important point here, is that those arguing that you don’t need a magazine that carries more than- for example- 10 rounds are saying that 10 deaths are fine. They’re okay with that. 11, however, is too much. That’s what this boils down to at the end of the day. If they deny this, then the question needs to be asked- why limit the size to 10 rounds then?

Note too that the legislation, as it stands, apparently provides an exemption from the ban for law enforcement officers- and also for retired law enforcement officers.

If the purpose of high cap mags is only to kill large numbers of people, as the hoplophobes insist- why do cops and retired cops need them? Is there, perhaps, another valid use for them?

Jay Mac on January 19, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I don’t think I (or most thinking-people) would buy the argument that restricting lawful access to a good has absolutely no effect on the ability of people to obtain that good because they’d find a way if they really wanted it.

That argument has been debunked.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You’re 100% correct crr. Pot is illegal, and because it is illegal high school and college kids never smoke up.

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 3:23 PM

You’re 100% correct crr. Pot is illegal, and because it is illegal high school and college kids never smoke up.

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 3:23 PM

No one’s saying it would have a 100% deterrent effect. That’s almost as ludicrous as saying it’d have a 0% deterrent effect (which is Madcon’s argument).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM

No more gun laws. If anything we need more firearm freedom in this damn country. It is a constitutional right just like speech. No one says less speech would be better.

Inanemergencydial on January 19, 2011 at 3:27 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM

When I was in college I could obtain marijuana faster than I could get beer. And beer couldn’t be sold after 2am. But the local dealers delivered 24/7.

The fact that the drug was illegal had 0% effect on my ability to obtain it.

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 3:28 PM

97% of firearms used in shootings against LEOs were obtained illegally according to an FBI study.

Banning high capacity magazines isn’t going to prevent anything. Here in the UK we’ve banned all semi-auto long arms and all handguns.

Surprise, surprise, gun crime has risen since the ban and criminals have no problem in obtaining firearms on our small island which has a history of very limited gun ownership prior to the ban.

Gun bans succeed in one thing, and one thing only- the prevent the law-abiding from possessing the item banned. Criminals, for some reason, seem to have no problem in breaking the law.

Jay Mac on January 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM

When I was in college I could obtain marijuana faster than I could get beer. And beer couldn’t be sold after 2am. But the local dealers delivered 24/7.

The fact that the drug was illegal had 0% effect on my ability to obtain it.

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 3:28 PM
So you’re saying the fact that beer couldn’t be sold after 2am had a deterrent effect on your ability to obtain it? Doesn’t that kind of undermine your other point?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Sorry, crr6, you’ve exceeded your 1st amendment allowance for the day.

Merovign on January 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM

The problem, really, is that none of this will do any good in the long run. That is because the problem is the cause of violence, and addressing the mechanics of violence does nothing to address the cause.

MikeA on January 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

The reality of this is so painfully and patently obvious to even the most casual of observers, that one is left to ponder two scenarios:

1) There are those who, believe it or not, lack the basic cognitive skills that my Staffordshire Terrier possesses when delineating sources of danger to her family, or
2) There are those who consciously and deliberately ignore the reality to facilitate an end game that requires stealth.

The first should represent grounds for disallowing contribution rights to blogs and the second should represent grounds for internment.

Apparently however, both have become prerequisites for liberal/RINO elected officials.

oldfiveanddimer on January 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM

What you would do if you were alone in your apartment and heard someone breaking in.

Would you want to be able to defend yourself or wait 10 – 20 minutes (or a Lifetime) for the police to arrive?

Have you ever considered what you would do in that situation?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM

No one’s saying it would have a 100% deterrent effect. That’s almost as ludicrous as saying it’d have a 0% deterrent effect (which is Madcon’s argument).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM

That argument has been thoroughly debunked. There is absolutely NO evidence that gun crimes were reduced by even 1% by the AWB of 1994.

So MadCon’s argument is based in fact, while your speculation is… well speculation.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM

I think the 33-round magazine is an after-market, low-quality product. Does anyone know if Glock makes 33-round magazines? The spring failed in the magazine, which gave his tacklers time to get to him. Had Loughner used a factory-made Glock magazine, he probably would have been able to reload and continue. So in this particular case, the low-quality after-market magazine was critical to stopping Loughner.

But a better response is to criticize the college district and sheriff’s department and let law enforcement and government officials know that we expect to catch the bad guys and leave us alone. And they knew Loughner was a bad guy.

InterestedObserver on January 19, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I pretty sure they do. They make variants that can handle that capacity. I do think a 30 round mag is a bit excessive. The Military and Law Enforcement don’t issue handguns with a magazine that size, why should civilians have it?

So granny buys a 9mm with a ten round magazine. Two armed guys break in and well, granny’s a poor shot, but she keeps them at bay while waiting for the police. Due to liberal policies of cutting the police department first due to the economic situation, the police arrive in 20 minutes.

Granny fires ten shots, and while fumbling to change magzines the two guys approach and shoot her in the head.

Earlier that year, Congress had limited the 9mm magazine to ten instead of the standard 17 rounds for the gun she bought.

Congress, or more specifically democrats thought they knew more about self defense than granny did. Now granny’s dead.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM

10- 15 round mag is sufficient to take 2 people out, especially at close range. Besides, in the event of a break in, the best weapon to use to defend yourself is a shotgun. You don’t need to be a good shot and it’s guaranteed to put the bad guys on the ground.

Cr4sh Dummy on January 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM

What you would do if you were alone in your apartment and heard someone breaking in.

Call the police.

Would you want to be able to defend yourself or wait 10 – 20 minutes (or a Lifetime) for the police to arrive?

I live across the street from a police station.

Have you ever considered what you would do in that situation?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Yes.

If I didn’t live across the street from a police station, I suppose I could purchase a firearm with a 15-round magazine. I don’t think I’d ever need a 30-round magazine. Would you?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM

So you’re saying the fact that beer couldn’t be sold after 2am had a deterrent effect on your ability to obtain it? Doesn’t that kind of undermine your other point?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM

You assume that he would have preferred alcohol.

Ronnie on January 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM

That argument has been thoroughly debunked.

When was that?

There is absolutely NO evidence that gun crimes were reduced by even 1% by the AWB of 1994.

That’s not true.

So MadCon’s argument is based in fact,

What facts?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM

I don’t think I’d ever need a 30-round magazine. Would you?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM

If you act in real life like you do on the internet, you may want to invest in the 200-round model.

Ronnie on January 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Nice change of topic. Very lawyerly of you to go off on an unrelated tangent and ignore the point I made. Let’s try again…..

Marijuana is illegal. I could get marijuana faster than I could get beer which is legal. The prohibition of marijuana had a 0% effect on my ability to get it.

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

I don’t think I’d ever need a 30-round magazine. Would you?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM

I’ve never needed to buy tampons. Should we make those illegal as well?

angryed on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4