Likely first target of new gun-control push: High-capacity magazines
The White House is looking at various options, and the scope and details of the president’s approach aren’t clear. One possibility likely to be considered is a ban on high-capacity magazines, the devices attached to firearms that store large numbers of bullets and reload them rapidly.
A 1994 ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004 included a ban on ammunition magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Recent shootings, including the one Friday, have involved firearms with much more capacity, allowing a shooter to fire many more shots before having to reload, which could allow someone to intervene.
Assault weapons are a class of semiautomatic firearms, those that require a single pull of the trigger for each shot fired and then load the next round automatically. Under the 1994 law, there were 19 models of firearms and copies or duplicates of them that were banned, along with semiautomatic rifles that accepted detachable magazines and possessed at least two other characteristics, including a protruding pistol grip, flash suppressor or threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.
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 Next »
Perfect description of a revolver.
Akzed on December 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Leave these super smart liberals to their own devices and let them outlaw high capacity clips. Don’t use the word magazine around them, they might actually learn something through osmosis.
NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Like your typical double action revolver that’s been around forever? LOL.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Damn, Akzed! Now, I feel like a Johnny-come-lately
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Yes, because criminals should be allowed to continue firing while I have to reload.
CurtZHP on December 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM
Oh, for God’s sake.
Criminals don’t follow laws.
The end.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM
good.
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Oh, snap, Curt. Yours was better.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM
“Oh well get those soon enough, but not before we take way single action revolvers first! It’s bad enough that people have revolvers that require two actions, but revolvers that require only one action to fire?!? Monstrous!” – Typical liberal talking guns.
NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Stupid. The person would just carry more loaded magazines which take less than 2-3 seconds to change out.
A gunman isn’t going to load more rounds into an empty magazine.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Tyrants.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Outlawing high-capacity magazines will have no effect on someone wishing to kill a lot of people. Someone with a modicum of skill using a gun can change a 8-9 round clip and advance the first round into the chamber in three seconds or less. In other words, a gunman, using a weapon with multiple 9-round clips, could fire 30 shots in about a minute or so. Besides, that doesn’t even address the problem of the millions of the mags that are out there. Do you think crazy people with the proclivity for doing evil, will turn those mags in because they are illegal?
NoNails on December 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Who would have intervened in a “gun free zone”?
I think what really needs to happen after all of this is the following:
1. Principals need to go to the same pistol training that cops do, and keep a gun (locked) in their office.
2. If someone with known mental problems, a paper trail/altercations with police/whatever tries to buy a gun and is denied the cops should visit that person THAT DAY.
3. Schools should be redesigned so that if someone wants to go in they have to go through the administration offices (principal included) first.
Gatsu on December 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM
The House better stop any and every effort by these tyrants to further disarm us.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM
adam lanza would not have known.
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM
They’ll pass the assault weapons ban again. Then everyone will feel better because “something” was done, while the root causes of these shootings are ignored or dismissed.
changer1701 on December 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Yes, liberals think that. They actually think crazy people and criminals will abide by laws.
I think we should ban liberals. Everyone knows what they do when they disarm populations. At least 100 million people were killed by them in the last century.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Apparently, it never occurs to these morons that, if a gun is limited to 10 rounds before a reload, the crazed gunman will simply carry more than one loaded gun into the “gun free zone.*”
* read: sitting duck zone
CurtZHP on December 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM
How’s that going to help? This f***er shot through a window to get in. If the school had had this restriction, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have stopped to say, “Damn, I went the wrong way. Lemme go back and start over.”
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM
You know what else could allow someone to intervene? A gun. Just sayin’…
Shump on December 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Would not have known what?
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Yeah, Boehner’s all over that.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM
I’d rather support them than a gun fanatic like you. Who knows what you’re capable of?
lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Agree with your 2nd point, but my understanding is that he blasted his way through the doors of the school. A redesign like that wouldn’t accomplish much.
I want to know why he targeted the school. His mother was apparently not a teacher there, contrary to earlier reports.
changer1701 on December 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Who would have intervened while the most recent shooter was reloading? He had killed all of the victims before anyone was there to intervene. Emptying a magazine sure didn’t stop him from what he was doing. By accounts it was the approach of first responders that stopped him.
AScott on December 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Have I told you before you’re an idiot?
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:16 PM
LOLOL. I don’t become Adam Lanza just because you put a gun in my hands.
Liberal worldview = gross misunderstanding of human nature.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:16 PM
*not have been able to*
how many times are shooters tackled while they reload? jared loughner and colin ferguson were.
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:17 PM
You’re right. But liberals become Stalins when they disarm populations.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Hey, how about we just put a daily bag limit on school kids? I mean, if we think that it is about numbers and if we think the crazies will obey a new law, why will this not work as well as the magazine size limit?
MikeA on December 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM
@darwin – yes, that was one of Hitler’s first steps, if I recall my history correctly.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:18 PM
Yeah, try not to embarrass yourself. It’s obvious you don’t have a clue.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Then why are drugs banned? Why is it illegal for me to buy too much Pseudoephedrine? If criminals don’t follow laws, why have them?
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM
You’re blowing your lines! You’re supposed to hang your head in shame and wail with remorse for having the temerity to accept the 2nd Amendment at face value. That all part of lostmarbles’ plan to shame us into disarming ourselves in the face of her coming glorious 5-year plan to foment revolution.
CurtZHP on December 17, 2012 at 1:21 PM
Here in the States, Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my sidearm has.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM
We all know exactly what leftists are capable of. Nothing has committed more murder and mayhem than centralized collectivist governments. Nothing has even come close.
Meanwhile, you and your ilk are the ones who support the murderer Mumia and wanted poor, widdle gangbanger Tookie Williams to be treated with kid gloves, just to name a couple of pathetic examples. You can’t enough of “murderers of color”. They are celebrities in your demented world. You let rapists out onto the street to continue their depraved crimes and you support killing babies in the womb and then killing the ones that refuse to die during abortions and make it out. Enough with your phony moralizing. All the left wants is their opposition disarmed so they won’t have any roadblocks on the way to their usual nightmare utopia.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM
you recall it wrong. he disarmed the conquered populaces, as is the conquerors’ wont. he did not disarm germans.
it’s a nonsense reference anyway. your guns won’t protect you against the government longer that it takes the local swat team to disarm you.
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Why are you still here? I thought you were “leaving”.
wargamer6 on December 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM
As someone who thinks that more people should own a gun, this argument is oddly persuasive to me. I’ll tell you why and I’ll let you guys educate me.
90% of all gun related crime is committed with illegally obtained weapons. However, mass shootings tend to be done with legally obtained weapons (not so in the most recent case). Since the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, wouldn’t any law making weapons that don’t require a lot of reloading have to be modified or “surrendered” lessen significantly the potential for this specific type of spree-killing to be so devastating?
My resistance to additional gun-control is because I believe spree-killers would resort to more effective ways of killing large numbers of people such as explosives and arson. So I’m conflicted here. Obviously additional gun-regulation isn’t going to make spree-killers turn into puppy-dogs, but would modification lead to less death in this type of incident?
Also, would it lead to more death for lawful gun-owners across the board who are outgunned by criminals? Talk to me.
DeathtotheSwiss on December 17, 2012 at 1:23 PM
I guess that’s why there is no more shooting in Afghanistan, right?
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Lol so now all gun owners are potential spree killers?
wargamer6 on December 17, 2012 at 1:23 PM
I’m sure this nonsense mad some sort of perverted sense in your head before you posted it.
NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 1:23 PM
you’re the only one embarrassing yourself. what i wrote is fact. they were tackled while reloading. care to refute it?
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Lostbraincells thinks he is shaming people for believing in the right to self defense, and defense against a tyrannical government.
NotCoach on December 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM
If criminals don’t follow laws, why punish law-abiding citizens?
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM
are you stupid or what? the US never had the means or will to disarm the entire afghan people.
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Hitler disarmed Jews.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Lets apply this same logic to everything else.
It’s time to bring an end to war. Lets disarm our military. If only our soldiers would lay down their weapons, we’d have fewer conflicts.
If only the police would lay down their weapons, we’d have no more crime.
JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM
The shooter in Portland killed himself after he was confronted by a concealed weapon carrier.
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »