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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Well of course, because a bunch of terrified little 1st graders would have gang tackled the savage while he was popping in a new speed loader on his Model 19, put him in a headlock and held on until the authorities arrived.
Bishop on December 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Yep they are under orders from obama and his cabal … today is a big anti-gun day …
‘Amid increasing death threats, NRA braces for D.C. anti-gun march led by left-wing CREDO Mobile’
Pork-Chop on December 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM
“More nonsense.”
Ha. This from the guy who suggests defenders tackle men with guns. Well done.
And why don’t you want your defensive standards applied to you and your family, eh?
Re:
“more nonsense” indeed. I’m guessing you have little to no exposure to physical sports/contact or you’d know how difficult tackling someone is. Especially if it’s a woman (like a teacher) trying to tackle a man.
This isn’t your Xbox. You get ONE opportunity. No extra lives, no do-overs.
Why would you ask anyone to risk their lives tackling someone when they could shoot them from a distance?
It’s almost like you haven’t thought this out at all.
rogerb on December 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM
If he wasn’t, the media would be blaming the tea party by now.
The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Except that in our own experience, that hasn’t been the case. Restrictions on gun ownership are here correlated with a decrease in violence. The timing of the assault weapons ban matches the large drop in the murder rate post 1994.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 1:58 PM
They’re issuing death threats and they wonder why we want our guns.
The ability of the liberal mind to disconnect itself from logic, reason, and reality astounds me.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Okay. Define “here.”
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 2:01 PM
The NRA has been besieged with death threats, anonymous callers threatening to shoot NRA bigwigs.
O_o
More logic and reason from the left: Accept our peaceful vision of the future or we will kill you.
Bishop on December 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
I could see the writing on the wall years ago. Especially during the Brady Bill debates and after the Brady Bill of lore — and California’s past failed attempts to outlaw guns and peripheral equipment. Years of gathering factory high-cap magazines for my semi-autos has left me with more of them than I’ll personally ever use. But at least I have them.
Thank you Arizona and Nevada.
Same goes for everything else in firearms equipment those reprobates want to outlaw in their self-serving feel good now vain attempts to crush our Constitutional rights.
I’m red’ to go.
SD Tom on December 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Violent crime has also gone down after the ban lapsed.
Violent crime has also gone down precipitously in areas where CCW has been allowed and guns are accessible to law-abiding citizens – while in neighboring areas crime has gone up.
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
The details you gave to back that up are fascinating.
The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
You’re a liar. You where a child when that ban went into affect and were likely unaware of its expiration until you read it somewhere on some leftwing anti-gun nutter website.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM
You also haven’t told us how many rounds a woman gets to fire at her attacker before she needs to re-load (when he’ll get to use your vaunted tackling maneuver).
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 2:04 PM
We should have gun free zones around all of our elected officials…including their security details. If it makes sense for schools why not our elected leaders..?
d1carter on December 17, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Where are you talking about? New York? If it is the “assault” weapon ban had nothing to do with the murder rate … Rudy Giuliani did.
darwin on December 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Ugh…. I really didn’t want to buy my first AR yet… guess I better put set some money aside in the cookie jar for it.
El_Terrible on December 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Leftists tyrants, explain to us why these crazy nuts who murderer people en masse never target police stations if your gun free zones work so well?
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Areas without CCW, like NYC, saw the most precipitous drop in homicides. Look, we’re essentially agreeing here. Measuring homicides next to gun laws never implies a causal link. Anyone advocating gun control can’t use that argument, but you can’t use the same argument to argue against gun control.
Since the shooting, I’ve come around to the conclusion that gun laws won’t do a damn thing to prevent spree shootings, that the availability and efficacy of the mental health system is the primary concern here.
That said, most of the guns laws currently on the books are valid and useful. We to some degree regulate the operation of all deadly machines. Guns are no different, and thus I don’t oppose gun control laws out of hand. The way I see it, it should be rather difficult to obtain weapons of war, but as a matter of self defense, guns ought to be allowed out of the house.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Wrong. The murder rate peaked at 10.2/100,000 in 1980 and was going down before the AWB. While there was some drop off after 1994, when the AWB was signed, the murder rate began to rise again in 1999, when it was still in effect. It has remained stable since even after the ban expired in 2004.
In 2005, the murder rate was at the same level that it was in the 1960s.
Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM
So are you saying we don’t need any *more* gun laws?
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Are you saying that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 wasn’t signed in 1994, or that homicides didn’t drop nationwide post-1994, or both? I’m not lying.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Ugh. Wrong tag.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM
If someone wanted to harm or kill you or your family, would you put a “gun-free zone” sign in front of your house? No, you wouldn’t because it would be an invitation for trouble. Yet, your idiotic liberal sensitivities tell you this logic works in public establishments.
With liberals, it’s never about the results – it’s all about what “feels right”. Never mind experience has shown that these mass murderers specifically target “gun-free” zones. Moron.
The Count on December 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Liar. Have you no shame?
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Yes. This and that current gun laws aren’t to be repealed or dismissed out of hand, unless they relate to the concealed carry of handguns.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Who is “jarder loughner”?
Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM
Just buy the receiver for now. It’s the only FFL required part, and you can build later. These guys will have theirs for $50 now and then:
http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/ar-15-05/lower-parts/lower-receivers.html
I’ve ordered quite a few in the past and have been very pleased. I’ll buy a few more when they’re back in stock.
rogerb on December 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM
I’m no fan of gun free zones, nor am I a fan of drug free zones. I just think it’s perfectly OK for background checks to be performed, for criminals to be denied access to firearms, and for the mentally unstable to be kept clear of guns. It turns out, though, that the NRA doesn’t agree.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM
Ernesto, why don’t mass shooters attack police departments if gun control and gun free zones work?
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM
There was a line of about 15 folks waiting outside my local gun store this morning (mostly women) … 30 minutes before opening time … I have never seen this before. It looks like it is going to be another record week/month/year for gun sellers. Get ‘em while you can!
Pork-Chop on December 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM
It is quite stunning, isn’t it? It’s like a gift.
kim roy on December 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM
I think he’s related to Jarjar Binks.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM
No wonder they’re always kissing up to Islamists.
CurtZHP on December 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM
2011 – SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN EXPIRED: New Report: U.S. Homicide Rate Falls to Lowest Rate in Four Decades
This week, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced that in 2010 the U.S. homicide rate fell to 4.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, the lowest U.S. homicide rate in four decades.
Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM
I imagine they don’t realize that, for example, during the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter reloaded twice during his rampage. A skilled shooter can get a reload down to a couple of seconds. Enough time to act? Maybe, if someone’s close by, and is able to realize the shooter has gone black on ammo, and is able to make a move in time. Most military I know wouldn’t make such a move, unarmed, against a shooter unless they were utterly desperate, and the ones who would are very highly trained.
And also that the recent Colorado shooting was curtailed because the shooter used a very-high capacity magazine in his pistol, which induced a malfunction in the weapon. Same thing in Oregon, where a person with a concealed carry weapon pursued the shooter until the shooter cleared the malfunction and used the weapon on himself.
So in three separate cases, high capacity magazines proved irrelevant or detrimental to the shooters. So obviously they’re the problem.
Sgt Steve on December 17, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Leftards, gun bans work so well that my wife gave me permission to buy another AR15. You’re the worlds best gun salesmen.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:18 PM
I remember seeing a crime scene photo of the rifle the aurora shooter used that the Dailey Mail published. It had a regular 30 round magazine it in. The drum jammed and he swapped it for a normal magazine in less than 2 seconds. The left bans things that look scary to make themselves feel good. Their outrage at guns is about them and their Feelings. Not these poor children.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM
So you’re against concealed carry?
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM
An excellent point.
It will be sad to ponder how the more reliable lower-capacity magazines could result in more deaths due to whatever semi-religious ban comes from this.
Unintended consequences at its finest.
rogerb on December 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Howzat workin’ out for ya? Not so well?
Keep pushing. I hear utopia’s just around the corner.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM
I don’t get the comparison between gun-free zones and drug-free zones. How does a “drug-free” zone sign adversely affect your safety? Are there places you can go shoot heroin within the constraints of the law?
When government bureaucrats tell us that things like “emotional stress” are qualifiers for SSDI or late-term abortions, surely you can see how the NRA would be dubious of mental health exams for the things those bureaucrats actually don’t want you to have.
The Count on December 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM
I had this conversation with Mr. K. this weekend:
Him: “Which one should I buy next?”
Me: “Whatever they’re going to ban first.”
Him: “We’d better get another AR for you, then.”
Romantic he ain’t, but I like the way he thinks.
mrsknightley on December 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM
So you’re convinced gun control laws don’t do anything to stop spree shootings. But we need more gun control laws – or at least to replicate the ones that do exist where we have the most gun violence in the places where we have the least?
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM
We’ve all seen what leftists do with definitions and “law”. Waivers for their lunatics and warped, demented definitions for the rest of the “law” they want to pervert. Barky doesn’t care about how any law is written. He just enforces whatever he wants and ignores whatever he doesn’t like. He hasn’t hidden this and his leftist supporters haven’t hiddent the fact that they don’t care if a leftist dictator perverts our law to serve their ends. They are just dying to define “conservativism” as a mental illness.
The leftists’ perversion of common sense is why we can’t lock up true lunatics – as we used to. Nothing is safe when the leftists have any discretion over its interpretation or enforcement. You idiots have already had “empathy” officially declared a legitimate main criterion in a judge or judicial decision, in direct opposition to the over three millenia history and foundation of Western jurisprudence. We know what whack-jobs you folks are and how you turn every law into something it was never intended to be. You are death to civilization and you use the law to do it – the most dangerous sort of ideology and why you share common cause with the arab/muslim terorrists and the Indonesian. Nothing is safe in your hands and we all know it – and you know it, too.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM
LOL, I said the same thing to my wife. I told her I was fine with the one I had but we can get one for her. I’m thinking maybe I should just get the 12 gauge Mossburg with that scary looking pistol grip and collapsable stock instead.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Heh.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM
You have already stated the conservatism is a mental defect. The left TRUMPETS statements like that.
I can’t imagine why we’d not agree to your terms.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM
Ooooooh, looky, a kookie right winger with a CCW permit stopped another would be shooter.
Notice how these copycats keep showing up after the leftists in the MSM sensationalize these mass shootings?
We need to start calling the media out on this. They’re more culpable than guns.
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Any second now there will be a “I refuse to acknowledge your straw man” post and then the thread will be abandoned.
Half of it may have already happened.
rogerb on December 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »