Can anyone provide a reason for more than 3 rounds?

[NashvilleLefty]

Honestly, when hunting if you miss with your first shot, then you probably won't get a second chance.

I can see no reason for magazines that hold more than 3 rounds, except for target shooting. I can see it for target shooting in a controlled environment, but in the Real World why would it ever be necessary?

I don't care what kind of weapon you have, as long as the size of your mag is restricted.

I say 3. I'll compromise at 5. Beyond that, you're just looking to kill innocents. OK, I'll accept 6 for revolvers only, but no more than 3 for shotguns.

If anyone is using their weapon for the reasons they claim they are, why would they need more?

[Brother Buzz]

1. Ranchers with bum eyes and iron sights pitted against wiley coyotes might want more

Edited because I can't speil for shit

[NashvilleLefty]

3. .

[safeinOhio]

39. You've never taken a shot at a coyote and missed.

If you blink after that shot, you'll never see em again.

[Agnosticsherbet]

110. Perhaps they should hunt Wiley Coyote with an Anvil or a Piano...

You only need one of those.

[Bucky]

199. You can have my piano when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers

or knuckles, if I'm playing chopsticks

[Agnosticsherbet]

203. Ok, we can kill him with an anvil.

I am a post conflict kind of guy.

[bhikkhu]

2. What I ask the guys around here on things like that -

one guy has a 30 round magazine for a handgun - what if 31 guys are coming at you? Or the guy who has stockpiled 2,000 rounds for his AR, for "home defense" - what if two thousand and one guys have got you hemmed in?

Its like so many things, and has little to do with reality or practicality. People want stuff just because its available, and its "more and better" than what they have already.

[NashvilleLefty]

5. That pretty much sums it up. nt

[LP2K12]

43. 30 round magazine...

plus 1 chambered equals 31.

Give me a 5 round magazine and I'll be able to chamber 1 and carry 6 rounds.

Give me 3 round magazine and I'll chamber 1 and carry 4.

It's stupid, but it's true. My father for example always has a round chambered in his pistol.

[reverend_tim]

107. I never have a round chambered

But then I do not do hand guns.
I am not a great shot, that is why I have a 12 gage.
I have found the sound of chambering a round can be very effective.
It may also be FOR ME more effective then blasting in your general direction.
Two more months and I get to move to a better neighborhood.
3 Tucson police cars spent most of the night before last, in the parking lot next door.

[LP2K12]

109. I agree with you.

I don't keep anything chambered in my firearms. I believe the sound could be enough to scare an intruder and since killing is not an easy thing I'd rather scare an intruder if they made it past my front door and up the stairs.

Just felt the need to point out that some do chamber and it defeats a set limit.

[Bandit]

108. What about three rounds only for shotguns

That has been a federal Law for half a century and no one seems to find it unbearable.....

[beevul]

148. What federal law? N/T

[PavePusher]

191. Citation?

It sounds like your refering to the federal migratory birds hunting law mandating 3 or fewer rounds in a shotgun. But that does not affect any other shotgun application at all. Many pump-action and semi-auto shotguns hold 8-10 rounds.

[Darque Wing]

123. Arms Race

Well, that would mean an arms race, in which people are being sold ever more deadly firearms in order to face down "bad guys" (who get their guns by stealing from the people who bought them legally, so, therefore, are using the same more deadly firearms). In order to maintain such an arms race, there would have to be someone constantly pushing it, either out of a desire to see more dead people, or perhaps for the sake of greater profits.

Like the NRA.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Four assailants?

It's a pretty rare occurrence, but I'm sure it's happened. More realistically, maybe one or two assailants and a missed shot or two...? Look at some of the stats on police shootings; you have three or four cops dumping like 60 round into one or two perp's. Clearly, even "highly trained" (lol) individuals miss the mark sometimes.

FYI, my new shotgun holds fifteen 12 gauge shots. Should be great for deer season.

[NashvilleLefty]

6. so, if "highly trained" shooters miss that much

why would you think you can do any better?

And you are really using 15 12-gauge shots for hunting deer? Seriously? All I know is that I don't want to go hunting with you.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Highly trained was in quotes because cops, by most observations,

appear to be terrible shots. Seriously, dig up some statistics comparing civilian CCW versus cop shootings. I shoot in handgun competitions recreationally. I always place towards the front 20% of the pack, so I guess you could say I'm better than average for a normal competitor. I would say a normal competitor is WAY better than just a average-recreational shooter though. Occasionally we get some state trooper or townie cop that shows up to a weekly match with their chest all puffed up... 'gonna show them civvies how its done'. They'll have on a duty utility belt or issue weapon & holster or something. Sometimes it's a army guy home on leave or something. Nevertheless, they typically get their asses handed to them filling one the last slots by the end of the night. Always good for a laugh when the regulars go out for a drink afterwards. Are there good shooting cops? Yes... but most aren't that good. Thing is, a "gun nut" probably shoots 300-1000+ rounds a month. Most beat/patrol cops shoot a few mags through their guns to qualify once or twice per year and it collects dust the rest of the time. 90%+ of a cops job has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with learning, knowing, and enforcing legal minutiae or other skills. Some cops go their entire career never drawing their weapon - not every cop is a SWAT tactical guru.

So do I think I could do any better? Yes. I would bet serious money that I can shoot better than the average beat cop or security guard at a police station. And I'm sure they do the other 90% of their job way way better than me.


Ohio has 3 round limit on deer hunting. I'll just put a plug in the mag tube(s) to limit the gun to 3 rounds if I'm out for deer on public hunting land. Shotguns are good for more than just hunting.

[Drahthaardogs]

40. 15 round 12 gauge?

Where do you come up with this stuff? I shot trap on our high school team and bird hunted for years. I know of only one shotgun that holds 15 rounds, and I know no one who owns it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. If you are thinking of a KSG,

you are correct, sir!

2 year waiting list... TWO YEARS. Well worth the wait. The only thing, as far as hunting goes, is whether an EOTech qualifies as a laser or light projecting sight. Can't hunt with anything that projects/emits light (law aimed at no-spotlighting). @ 24 inches, it should be a breeze carrying through brush - although a little chunky for sure.

[Drahthaardogs]

146. To be honest, I would rather spend $1000

on a nice Benelli semi-auto if I was going to drop a grand on a gun. Maybe a nice Ruger Red Label O/U.

[Major Nikon]

14. If you manage to drill one, do you think the other 3 are going to stick around for the reload?

You can't compare home defense to what cops do. Cops aren't on defense. Cops are on offense. As such they pursue bad guys who often don't particularly like getting caught. This isn't the same situation as making it worthwhile for the bad guy to go somewhere else.

If you really want to go down the road of being realistic, the reality is that owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe. If you want to be more safe, don't own a gun. Any argument for safety that includes a gun has failed right out of the gate.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Most of my guns are for recreation. Not really for home defense.

Although, over time I did start keeping one of them loaded in the nightstand. No bid deal, IMO. No young kids of my own yet and none visit.

[Major Nikon]

21. I have no issues with that

I shot skeet for many years and may again someday. I still have my Remington 3200 barrel set in the gun safe and my reloader in the garage. I'm not against the concept of owning guns, but I just don't buy the self defense argument for guns. I recognize that owning a gun makes me less safe, not more safe. If someone is truly that concerned about keeping themselves and their family safe, they shouldn't own a gun. There are far more effective ways to do it that aren't counterproductive.

[GreenStormCloud]

172. That study is deeply flawed.

It does not separate legal (Law abiding folks) and illegal (Criminals) gun owners into different groups, but instead treats them all as gun owners, and it includes the suicides. It is well known that criminals keep guns too, and are targeted by other criminals. Divide them into separate groups, and you will find that being a criminal is extremely dangerous. In the majority of homicides, the victim has a criminal record.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
SNIP
In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.
SNIP

How many of those dead criminals do you think had guns? Maybe almost all of them?

To try to make a claim about gun and the law-abiding on the basis of criminals and guns is ridiculous.


Do you really believe that a gun broadcasts a mind control field that says, "Kill yourself"? If a person has decided to commit suicide, not having a gun won't stop them.

[Major Nikon]

174. You obviously have a very poor understanding of how case controlled studies work

Case controlled studies exclude cases that are non-homogeneous. I'm just making up numbers to explain how it works, but let's say 90% of the cases were from victims with a criminal record, yet only 20% of the general population had a criminal record, then the study would be obviously flawed as you describe. That's why they correct for those types of situations by excluding or oversampling cases. It's pretty typical for a case controlled study to exclude more than half of the cases or even the vast majority of them before any statistical analysis is determined to control for exactly the types of situations you describe.

And no, I don't believe any such ridiculous notion that you are describing. I'm simply pointing to a case controlled study derived using empirical methods that were evaluated and approved by the CDC with the results published in a peer reviewed journal. If you think you can dismiss it that easily, be my guest, but I find your arguments wholly unconvincing.

[GreenStormCloud]

182. I understand case control very well. I also understand bias.

Show me a study (Must be free to see online) that specifically controls for criminality. Such control must be explicit, not merely implied. You are trying to imply causation by correlation, but there can be a different cause for each. Being a viiolent criminal, and living with a violent criminal, is very dangerous.

I don't have much trust in medical types that want to play criminologist. I would rather trust criminologist in those fields.

Notice that in the CDC web page for statistics, they do not have a category for "armed self defense". They call it "undetermined intent". Even police shootings are called, "legal intervention". http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

The medical studies, and gun controllers, make no effort to count lives saved by having guns. It is as if they don't exist. Yet, from personal experience I know that such cases do exist as my own wife is one such case. She is alive because she had a gun when she needed one. (I have posted the story multiple times.)

[Major Nikon]

185. There are numerous studies which show the same thing

So you are free to do your own research and find one that suits you (or not). I'm not going to keep posting studies simply for you to poke holes in them that make absolutely no sense. Furthermore it seems as if every pro-gun person has an anecdotal account of how a gun save their life or a life of a loved one. I don't really put much stock in anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources which can in no way be verified and from a public policy standpoint they would be of no value even if they could be verified. I have yet to see one single credible study that suggests guns make anyone safer.

[Bucky]

200. I lost track. Are you talking about criminals, coyotes, or deer with that question?

Of course you could be talking about shooting Oxford Journal writers. I'm sure they scatter when you shoot one of their pack, too.

[Major Nikon]

202. Yes

[Recursion]

20. Back in the Marine Corps...

... the estimate was 2% of rounds fired hit the target, and that is from the branch of service with the highest marksmanship requirements and most thorough rifle training. *shrug*

[Major Nikon]

22. I'll keep that in mind for the next time I go to war with the neighbors

[Straw Man]

179. Not exactly analogous.

Back in the Marine Corps...

... the estimate was 2% of rounds fired hit the target, and that is from the branch of service with the highest marksmanship requirements and most thorough rifle training. *shrug*

Those stats come from combat scenarios, where there is extensive use of suppressive fire. Filling the air with lead so that the enemy has to keep his head down isn't conducive to a high hit ratio, but it was never meant to be.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. "Pumping 60 rounds into one or two perps"

From which you conclude that they missed a lot, rather than they were having a psychotic break.

[Hugabear]

62. You just made the case for large capacity magazines

What if you have 20 assailants?

[doc03]

65. That thing would weigh a ton loaded. We have a 3 round limit in Ohio for deer n/t

[jberryhill]

7. Depends on who's buyin'

[krispos42]

8. Because it's not enough for pretty much any self-defense scenario that I can think of.

Contrary to action movies, bullets don't blast the bad guy through a wall, or drop them immediately and permanently to the ground. Barring a head shot, it takes time for a shot bad guy to become immobile. Time where a desperate attacker can still hurt you or your family.

This assumes a solid hit. Misses and flesh wounds are also a possibility, even a probability.

And this also assumes one attacker.


Lemme ask you a counter-question. Somebody's breaking into your house. Your spouse is on the phone with 911. You grab a gun. How many rounds do you want in that gun?

[NashvilleLefty]

10. I'm not grabbing a gun. I'm letting my dog take care of them.

A gun is discriminate, as you so well stated.

[Coyote_Tan]

42. Yeah, because no invader has ever shot a dog...

Oh wait, yes they have...

Gun beats dog...

[99Forever]

84. Hogwash.

1 gun hugger vs my 2 GSDs = 1 chew toy

[Coyote_Tan]

153. Big loud barking targets ...

[Berserker]

171. Not if he has

bullet proof dogs. Or maybe his bad guys don't carry guns.

[99Forever]

176. Snarling, biting, flesh...

.. ripping, VERY fast, VERY smart, VERY well trained, "moving targets" with but one mission in life.


"Are ya feeling lucky? Go ahead... "

[Xithras]

190. My dads dobie spent half its life blind after a robbery.

Dog went after the thieves, one of them nailed the dog in the head with some kind of metal bar (we think it was the crowbar they used on the door), and the dog ceased to be a problem. It ended up losing one eye, and was half blind in the other for the rest of its life. We were just thankful that the dog survived and that my dad wasn't home at the time.

People put way too much faith in a dogs ability to protect them. Dogs are just as vulnerable to physical injury as humans are.

[99Forever]

194. Really?

I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

Some things I know for an absolute certainty, my German Shepard Dogs will NEVER harm one of our family and we don't have to keep them locked up in a safe to keep them from being a menace to innocent people.

As I understand it, a gun purchased to "protect" a household, is 20x more likely to kill or maim family or friends than it ever is to thwart a "bad guy."

Next NRA bullshit talking point, please.

[FrodosPet]

13. Once, on one of those A&E Mafia shows

They had a story about a snitch, a big guy, who was shot 9 times. Apparently, after beating his two shooters to death he went home. After a while, he decided it would probably be a good idea to go to the hospital. He survived.

[Major Nikon]

15. Lemme ask you a counter-question

Do you think owning a gun makes you and your family more safe, or less safe?

There's only one right answer.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[krispos42]

88. That's overall.

Since I'm not depressive, abusive, or a career criminal, I bet I'm different than 'average".

[Fresh_Start]

104. I'm sure most of the people who had guns which were used to kill family members

also thought they weren't average.

Rejecting the facts....
isn't going to help anyone

[Major Nikon]

157. Everyone is subject to depression

Lose your job, significant other splits, have a personal or family medical tragedy, or lots of other things can trigger depression. Nobody is immune to it. I'm sure lots of other gun owners who killed themselves or family members or had family members kill themselves or had an accident thought they were better than average also.

Just sayin'

[krispos42]

162. True

But I'm divorced. I've had my heart ripped out by betrayal and infidelity. Never fell into depression, never considered suicide.

I think I'll be okay.

[Major Nikon]

164. You probably will be

Most gun owners have the odds in their favor as well. However, from a public policy standpoint that doesn't mean we have to wait until the odds shift past the halfway point to take action. Most drivers and passengers will never be killed in an auto accident. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to make roads safer.

[Confusious]

38. I think you need more guns and bullets

I foresee 1,342 attackers, so you need at least 44 assault rifles with 30 rounds apiece.

Better get spending!

[krispos42]

140. At that point, it's time for my nuclear hand grenade!

[Bake]

136. In that scenario I want 15 + 1 in the chamber.

And a second full magazine just in case.



Bake

[The Straight Story]

9. Who needs a sports car? Why not eliminate all things we don't think people need

They we will be a really happy society....

[NashvilleLefty]

12. Now you're just being ridicuolus.

Seriously?

[Major Nikon]

16. Why not let people buy RPGs, hand grenades, and cluster bombs?

If someone comes at me with a street sweeper, I'd like to have an RPG and a couple of grenades for good luck.

Then we will truly be a safe society.

[Recursion]

18. The RPG is just a metal tube; you can easily buy that today

The grenade itself isn't very useful against personnel, for the most part, which is probably why they've been heavily restricted since the 1930's.

[Major Nikon]

23. What do you think about claymores and flame throwers?

Tactical nukes?

[Atomsk]

26. Those are not firearms

They are explosives/incendiary devices that by their inherent nature are relatively incapable of being "discriminately" targeted. Claymores cannot be aimed at a specific target, they will hit anyone who happens to walk by. They dont even require an active operator. You place them and then walk away. They are an anti-personnel landmine, which as you should already know are technically banned by the Ottawa Treaty. Tactical nukes level entire cities, the reasons why that is a problem and could have no possible civilian use should be extremely obvious. And flamethrowers, while not readily available for purchase, are simply a device which shoots fire out of the end, a classification which many civilian devices that ARE legal would easily fall under.

[Major Nikon]

33. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say firearms

Just sayin'

[NutmegYankee]

53. We know it means firearms. We have the Federlist Papers and the Congressional Records...

... of the proposed bill of rights that passed Congress.

[Major Nikon]

60. Doesn't matter

Scalia says you have to go by the plain text.

For further reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_meaning

[NutmegYankee]

66. Citing the Federalist Papers is an example of Originalism. nt

[oldhippie]

69. And an NRA talking point. nt

nt

[NutmegYankee]

71. And common throughout the legal realm, used by many groups, both liberal and conservative.

The right to privacy relies heavily on Originalism argument. Especially in modern day with our social networks.

[Major Nikon]

73. So where does it say firearms?

A complete search of the Federalist Papers yields zip.

[NutmegYankee]

82. It uses arms, but the context makes it clear it was firearms.

We hadn't just fought a war with swords, pikes, and maces.

[jmg257]

83. Just refer to the 1st Militia act - intent is VERY easy to see.

And swords were included...and pistols, and accoutrements.

[NutmegYankee]

99. Understand your point.

I realize swords are also arms, but that wasn't what was being challenged.

[Major Nikon]

161. Which is completely irrelevant to Scalia's argument

And even if it weren't, if swords were included, then it's pretty obvious that it wasn't just firearms.

[99Forever]

86. It also says....

... WELL REGULATED MILITIA, but you gun huggers don't seem to even notice that, do ya?

[NutmegYankee]

87. Do you even know what it means?

[99Forever]

94. Yes I do...

... but then I don't have a gun fetish or an insane need to think I am Rambo or Dirty Harry.

[NutmegYankee]

98. I have neither of those.

[99Forever]

105. Of course you don't.

Not a single gun hugging, fetishist will EVER admit that embarrassing, inconvenient truth.

[NutmegYankee]

120. Because it's not true in most cases.

Not that someone with such a radical non-Democratic view would ever acknowledge that. Hell, you sling out name calling in every post just to ensure I realize you have nothing but contempt for anyone (anyone) who owns guns.

Democratic Party Platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

But you can't have that honest conversation can you?

[99Forever]

135. Blather on.

It's all over 'cept the shouting.

The worm has turded.

[PavePusher]

192. Yes. You have. n/t

[beevul]

149. Flame throwers are classified as agricultural devices. N/T

[orpupilofnature57]

27. Just Hummers that aren't in a war zone .

Or would that impede your feelings of Freedom or Democracy .

[Barack_America]

70. That's a mature argument.

[Dash87]

106. Has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

We're talking about limiting magazine size, not banning guns. Most states (if not all) already have magazine limits.

[Marinedem]

168. False.

Six do.

Mmmmmm, mmmmmm. High capacity facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29

[Recursion]

17. Feral pigs. Plus ten rounds has been pretty standard for over 100 years

Most shotguns with internal magazines hold five, and have for a while.

A lot of target courses go in multiples of five, so I don't think five would be a big problem for target shooters.

The bigger issue is what to do about the hundreds of millions of higher-capacity magazines already out there.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Canada required that they all be either disposed of or modified.

Seems to have been an easy problem for them.

[Recursion]

50. How many were disposed of or modified? (nt)

[laundry_queen]

180. Put it this way

law-abiding gun owners probably aren't going to want to get caught with one and face federal firearms offences. So they will dispose or modify them. The ones that are in criminal hands slowly get confiscated over time. With no new ones being sold, some crazy mass-shooter wanna-be can't order one up and over time has a harder time finding one second hand, unless he knews which criminals to go buy them from. Eventually, they get weeded out.

[Atomsk]

24. I dont follow your logic

So its ok for someone to be able to shoot 3 people, but not 4 or 5?

Guns arent used just for hunting. And yes, even trained shooters miss when filled with adrenaline. And if youre massacring unarmed people, reloading isnt an issue. Reloading is only an issue when youre under fire from someone else. So if two armed people attack you, and all you have is 3 bullets, you better hope youre the World's Best Marksman or youre probably going to be killed.

Magazine size restrictions do not, IN ANY WAY, address the issue of violent unhinged people choosing to kill in the first place. So no matter what restrictions you place on magazine sizes or barrel and stock lengths or whatever other meaningless ephemera the ATF uses (and which they have openly admitted is completely arbitrary and based on no factual or statistical evidence of any real-world effect), you are not addressing the problem, and you will still continue to have the exact same number of violent acts. Guns are used to kill, but they in no way motivate or inspire people TO kill. What motivates people to kill are mental illnesses, drugs (which creates artificially-induced mental illness), and the massive social and economic suffering caused by decades of right-wing policies, policies which im afraid will now continue unabated due to Democratic politicians yet again falling into the Gun Control trap Republicans laid of for them, squandering their election chances in 2014 and 2016, and handing what was shaping up to be a demographically-inevitable Permanent Democratic Majority right back to the GOP Tea Party. Dont forget we had an Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004. What good did it do us? Did the country get better or worse off? Did it prevent 9/11, which was allegedly done using box cutters? Did it prevent Americans from murdering millions of innocent foreigners? Did it prevent the millions of instances of economic violence visited upon the American people day after day after day?

Anyone who talks about disarming the civilian population, without also talking of disarming the police and the military, and the privately held security companies of the 1%, is nothing other than an agent of state power, seeking to create more upward asymmetry in the distribution of power. And isnt it funny how the "solutions" from those in power always involve taking away something the people already have, and never giving them more of what they need? I wonder why that is...


“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” - Karl Marx

[orpupilofnature57]

28. Notice Stalin didn't catch that nifty quote from Marx . Welcome to DU !

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. Indeed he didn't.

Ol' Joe was actually a pretty piss-poor communist. Dandy totalitarian dictator, though...

[orpupilofnature57]

152. +1000 !!!!

[Kolesar]

29. IIRC, you wanted a list of people you thought were "mental" so you could ghettoize them

Then sell more guns

[Robb]

51. Oh, please. The asymmetry between civilians and the state is absolute and insurmountable.

You do not have a helicopter. More saliently, you do not have 500 helicopters.

The planet where civilians can exercise an armed response to perceived slights is hundreds of years behind us. Ballot and soap box, that's it. Ammo box is pipe dream of children.

[SQUEE]

68. Then mere possibility of armed response by the people

is a check in the checks and balances of American government.
People really don't get how asymmetrical warfare works.
No one is going to go toe to toe with an Abrams or Apache, not at first at least, but MANPADS and ATW will be "lost" as sympathizers in the ranks leave with their kit. Syria ring a bell, how about Yugoslavia? or even Libya... If I recall we are cheering these people on. Also soldiers need to eat and tanks and aircraft are thirsty beasts. POL and Ammo depots are soft enough targets without factoring in sabotage by personal sympathetic to the "cause"..
As an aside, having been a grunt, the majority of the "tip of the spear" are conservative red staters, the possibility of mutiny, desertion and outright fratricide in the scenarios above are more likely than not.
I do not rely on the MIC for my safety, nor do I have any illusion on where the loyalties of the JCS and Pentagon lie.

[Robb]

74. Utter fantasy. And if you were a "grunt" you didn't pay attention.

This insane Hutatree fiction of soldiers breaking ranks to join your insurrection is too sad to be properly laughable; you raise arms against US troops and you will be cut down wholly, and without a moment's hesitation.

There is nothing more despicable to a soldier than a traitor. Had you served outside the Michigan Militia -- or the 101st Chairborne -- you would know that.

[SQUEE]

81. I paid attention well enough to notice a metric shit ton

Of "rebel flag" tats and hear a lot of Charlie Daniels playing in the barracks on a Saturday night. Face it, Junior ain't gonna shoot his pa and cousins, and as for my insurrection, yeah, OK. I can only talk about the people I served with and what the talk was back then.
Again you keep trusting the power interests of the .Gov and their masters on Wall Street.
Funny how many find the idea of patriotism and jingoistic nationalism juvenile and funny.. But are willing to bet their lives on it daily.

[oldhippie]

119. I wasn't a grunt, but I paid attention .....

.... and my 40 years with the US Army tells me you are way wrong.

How many years were you in? And when?

[oldhippie]

72. Col. Muammar Gaddafi will be glad to hear that ....

... he had tanks, troops, helicopters, missiles, and jet fighters .

Oh, wait .........

Mr. Assad has all the same plus chemical weapons to use against those pesky civilians, too. He will be glad to hear your assessment.

[Robb]

75. Because the Libyan army is just like the USMC.

I'm looking for a big enough facepalm and falling short.

[oldhippie]

118. You will refuse to get the point, so ......

.... Happy New Year.

[beevul]

150. Those helicopters didn't seem to be of much use against the beltway snipers.

/shrug

[PavePusher]

193. Syria did not get your memos.

Nor did Lybia, Viet Nam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Egypt, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, China, Russia, Spain....

All within the last 100 years. Many quite recent...

[Capt. Obvious]

25. I thought this was going to be about UFC

[Kolesar]

30. Or budget negotiations...eom

[2on2u]

31. There are those times when you are accosted by 4 muggers.... n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

35. If you are a self appointed community watch guard and you see a kid who is obviously black

in your neighborhood, that could be very scary, and after you chase him down it would be a real good idea to have 15 or 30 rounds ready to shoot him with so that only you have a story to tell.

[bowens43]

36. well suppose you have a big family or several coworkers......don't want to have to reload.

[ileus]

37. Trained officers have a 17% hit ratio.

In the real world in SD situations 3 rounds won't typically stop an attacker if it's a pistol round. The odds of getting three or 6 well placed rounds on target isn't even in the cards for trained LEO's and Military.


I'd be willing to accept a 15 round mag limit (with 30's GF'd in)

15 rounds is pretty typical mag capacity for your normal personal safety device for the home. Ten would be acceptable outside the home, but no less than 10. Shotguns I'd push the upper limit to 15 for SD units.

If anyone is using their firearm for it's intended purposes we'd not even need magazine limits.

[safeinOhio]

41. Real world?

Perhaps you can cite 4 or 5 "real world" cases where a civilian used 15 rounds in a self-defense situation. Those would be out of the thousands of real world self-defense cases.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. Beckwith fired 105 rounds defending his home & store.

Had an AR15, S&W M76 SMG, Shotgun and .44mag revolver.

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

[safeinOhio]

48. That's a nice armed security story about a high volume

gun store. You own one?
Now try for a normal home invasion or street robbery. I've never been able to find one where 10 rounds were needed.

[Yo_Mama]

63. In the real world

Massively outgunning the opposition is the best way to avoid having to kill them.

You want them to run off. You want to be able to let loose a spray of fire that sends them running.

Three rounds may let you put a bullet through the home invader's chest or head as they round the corner of the living room, but it certainly won't let you use a spray of fire to back them out of the house.

Regardless of your apparent belief system, those who have guns for the purposes of self-defense don't actually want to have to shoot someone. It's the nutcases who go out to murder who do.

The more undergunned you are, the more likely you are going to have to actually shoot someone. Maybe that's better than letting Granny or the kids run the risk, but it still sucks to high heaven.

You've probably never known anyone who actually had to shoot and kill in a home invasion. I have. He saved the lives of the girls involved, but he killed three people to do it, and it has always haunted him. That's something I would never wish on anyone. But it was a gang of five guys and all he had was a shotgun, and yes, they were armed. When they were just robbing the kids (this was an apartment of two young students and they were having a party, so there were girls there plus another guy, I believe), he didn't do anything. But when it became clear that it was going further, he acted.

The grand jury had no doubts as to the rightness of his action. He faced no legal liability, and indeed the others involved are sure that he saved all their lives. In his hometown he is considered something of a hero.

But all that doesn't make him feel better about it.

A shotgun is a great way to kill a person who has broken into your house. And anyone who knows weapons and sees one should think twice, but you'll have to expose yourself to the criminal generally in order to do that.

Life sucks - sometimes all your options are very bad.

[morningfog]

44. Treatment for erectile dysfunction.

[SQUEE]

46. ..And that explains my Fiance, or my sisters

Rifle and hand gun choices how exactly. So tiresome the sexist attacks on gun owners... odd that a progressive crowd would allow such gender specific bigotry to continue.

[morningfog]

52. Women need help sometimes, too.

My apologies for not being inclusive. I'm sick if gun fetishists obstructing gun reform and regulation, regardless of what they claim to be.

[NutmegYankee]

59. And what do we "claim" to be?

[morningfog]

64. I have no idea who you are or what you claim to be.

[cherokeeprogressive]

89. More penis obsession...

So old. So overdone.

[apocalypsehow]

177. +1,000. And the bogus alert on this failed, BTW - much whining about it in Meta.

[jmg257]

49. Yep - I like M1903s and they hold 5 rounds.

And M1 Garands - they hold 8 rnds. Ok - compromise at 8!

Hmmm...but a compromise at 10 rounds would allow 1941 Johnsons, and SKSs too.

Shoot - then there are M1 Carbines - their mags are typically 15.

Ok - 15 it is!

[guardian]

54. Why do I need more rounds?

Just because it pisses off the anti gunners. Makes me feel good.

[GoneOffShore]

58. There are things that would make you feel better.

But I guess that doesn't count.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Self defense, especially in the case of hand guns

I can see limiting the magazine to that which fits in the hand grip. That eliminates the extended sticks and snail drums.

[NutmegYankee]

56. And that's what I would propose as well. nt

[slackmaster]

57. Four zombies

[Chisox08]

156. After you fire your 3 shots you can always use the gun as a club

[geckosfeet]

61. There are several reasons. Link herein.

Many plinking and target pistols use 10 round magazines. The majority of the more expensive pistols have 5 round magazines.
Bullseye (shooting competition)

This is an interesting report on firearms discharges for the NYPD. It is a pdf.

NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge report

. . a single incident can significantly skew averages. For this reason, with small samples, the mode can be most revelatory [see Figure A.10]. The mode for the number of shots fired by police is one.

The chart is on page 8. In 27% of incidents 1 shot was fired. In 15% two shots were fired. But I can guarantee you - none of the officers involved in any of those incidents would have wanted to be carrying any less ammunition in their magazines. Neither would any private citizens who were forced to defend themselves.

There are some states (MA is one) that already restrict possession of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. I'd say look to those states. Evaluate the effectiveness of their firearms laws, and go from there rather than trying to get legislators to implement unproven proposals.

One of the things that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban attempted to do was ban high capacity magazines.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban.

When the law was being written, certain manufacturers ramped up production of magazines, knowing that if they were produced BEFORE the ban went into effect (pre-ban magazines) that these items could still be sold legally. The net result was that there are still an abundance of them available, even in states that adopted the ban on higher capacity magazines.

There are some states (MA is one) that already restrict possession of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. I'd say look to those states. Evaluate the effectiveness of their firearms laws, and go from there rather than trying to get legislators to implement unproven proposals.

[crazyjoe]

67. 4 armed intruders?

[Robb]

76. Which happens when?

If four guys enter your house with guns, they're probably police. Are you preparing to shoot at police now?

[Remmah2]

102. What happens when?

If five guys enter your house and they're paramilitary Soviet anarchist Amway salesmen armed with motorized assault machetes?

Maybe we should ban motorized machetes.

[crazyjoe]

147. ya, that's what i meant........

[backscatter712]

151. Generally, when four armed guys kick down your door...

You're screwed even when you're armed - you might get one or two of them, but you'll go down in a hail of bullets.

[Buzz Clik]

78. In a debate here at DU, I was told that you need an assault weapon for herds of wild hogs.

And grackles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Which are real, and very rare

Did they tell you the state where these happens? Florida.

[Buzz Clik]

112. In the same thread, an informed hunter...

... reminded the board that assault weapons are the same caliber as hunting rifles but have less power. As a result, they are a poor choice for hunting deer. For hunting hogs, with three times the body mass, you'd better fix your bayonettes.

Grackles, however, ....

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. If it wasn't tragic

For the record, the AR is terrible for hogs.

And to me the whole discussion has been beyond bizarre.

Yes, some knowledge matters for policy writing and trauma teams. But the nerdiest gun talk of this round or that round or this AR platform that...is truly unnecessary. Oh and as far as policy is concerned, some rounds do not belong in civilian hands either.

But knowing the basics pegs me, according to a poster, as an NRA member, which I found beyond comedic.

[oldhippie]

121. I'm curious, Nadin, how many hogs have you shot? ....

.... and with what cartridges? I'd like to take advantage of your experience.

One of my AR platform riflse uses the 300 AAC Blackout. Do you think that is adequate?

[Buzz Clik]

125. The cartridges may be totally adequate, but...

... anyone who would justify personal ownership of assault weapons for the hunting of hogs is working out other inadequacies.

[oldhippie]

142. I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but ....

.... I don't hunt. So that's not how I justify my rifles. (Not that I have to justify them to you.)

Just another example of the futility of an "adult conversation" with a gun-grabber.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. I gotta say

Thanks for the attempted distraction.

7.5 seconds to empty a 30 round magazine don't belong in the civilian word at 300 yards

Go ahead, call me gun grabber, from you will be an honor.

For the record, no a .223 is not enough for hogs. That is, since you want to discuss minutiae, is a certain class of MILGRADE ammo.

[oldhippie]

158. Actually, my dear Nadin, you know less than you think ...

... you know. The .223 Rem is NOT a Mil grade cartridge. In fact, the .222 Remington cartridge, from which it was derived, was developed as a civilian varmint cartridge. The .223 Rem is a variant that was derived around the time the original AR-15/M-16 was being developed to fit in its magazine. It is still an all time favorite varmint cartridge.

The MILITARY cartridge is the 5.56x45. Currently the US and most NATO countries use the M193 or the M855 versions. They are VERY similar to .223 Rem, but vary in pressure and the chambers have dimensional differences, primarily in the neck and throat. You shouldn't argue military minutiae with someone that has been working in the field of military weapons development (including small arms) for 40 years.

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington|

Now, enough minutiae, back to the original question. How many hogs have you killed, and with what cartridges?

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. What part of MILGRADE did you miss

[oldhippie]

163. None. How many hogs have you killed?

You are the expert on everything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. Gee kettle and all that.

Sorry if you have a problem.

Have a good life.

[oldhippie]

167. Fine. When you can't win an argument, ignore the issue ....

... and the person. Never admit defeat. Bye.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Gee...speaking off

...

[leveymg]

79. Bad shots and slow ducks.

[Purveyor]

80. Shotguns for decades have been made to carry 5 rounds. There was a time when duck hunting

that you were only allowed to load 3 rounds and you had to insert a, what my dad referred to as a 'duck plug', to be legal in the field.

Don't know if that still remains the law but I still have a wooden 'duck plug' for one of my 5 shot shotguns.

It would be nearly impossible to do away with the 5-shot. To many of them out here.

[oldhippydude]

85. Can anyone provide a reason for more than 3 rounds?

not if your driving..... see Crapo

[rrneck]

90. Can anyone provide a reason

we should let somebody thousands of miles away decide what we will need to defend ourselves who won't have to be responsible for that decision?

[Separation]

91. My 1st and last post on this whole gun issue

These are Koreans during the LA riots protecting their livelihood and their community.

[img][/]

[DrewFlorida]

95. Notice in your picture, no high capacity magazines, no assault rifles, no body armor

So you agree, that assault weapons with large capacity magazines and high velocity ammunition is NOT necessary for self defense!

[Hangingon]

113. Bottom right of pic

Weapon is a Ruger Mini 14

[DrewFlorida]

117. From that pic, you can't tell what model Mini 14 that is, or even if it is a mini 14 for sure.

Some mini 14s come with a bolt action.

[oldhippie]

122. Please show me a link to a bolt action Mini-14 ......

Thank you.

[DrewFlorida]

126. Here is a link with a picture of a mini 14 with bolt action, plenty more.

http://rugerforum.net/ruger-bolt-action/30114-my-ruger-gsr.html

[NickB79]

130. Uh, that is a Ruger 77 Scout rifle

A completely seperate beast from a Ruger Mini-14. I should know; I used to own a Ruger 77 (nice rifle BTW). What experience do you have with firearms to make that mistake?

The Ruger Mini-14 ONLY comes as a semi-automatic, and comes standard with a 10-rd magazine. It can accept up to 30-rd mags, though.

[Glassunion]

132. Actually it is the Ruger GSR

It is based on and has the same action as the 77.

The GSR however did not hit the market until 2010-11 ish.

[DrewFlorida]

138. My bad, that is a 77, however Mini 14 was made with a bolt action for the UK market.

This link shows a Ruger Mini 14 straight pull bolt action, for sale.

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Rifle/Ruger-Ranch-gun-for-sale-gs107065.aspx

[Hangingon]

188. No bolt action. This is the same Mini 14 action as sold here.

[NickB79]

198. Those are collector's items in the US

They're that rare; so few were actually made for sale here.

[DrewFlorida]

141. For someone who knows it all, here is your proof.

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Rifle/Ruger-Ranch-gun-for-sale-gs107065.aspx

[MicaelS]

131. Hello, that's a Scout Rifle

Did you even read the first line of that post?

Gunsite sent a rifle from the Ruger Scout Rifle gunwriters' review. This was one of the rifles tested, which I bought while I was there.

A Mini-14 by definition is a semi-automatic rifle firing a 5.56 NATO OR .223 Remington round. A Mini-14 is not a bolt action rifle. http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

Here's the rifle you're claiming to be a Mini-14. http://www.ruger.com/products/gunsiteScoutRifle/models.html

[DrewFlorida]

139. Here is the Mini 14 with straight pull bolt action, for those who still think it doesn't exist.

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Rifle/Ruger-Ranch-gun-for-sale-gs107065.aspx

[oldhippie]

143. That's quite a stretch, but I like it .....

That looks like merely a Mini-14 with a disabled or missing gas system. But I kinda like that. I can, according to your definition, call all my semi-autos bolt actions, since they all, in fact, have a bolt.

Thank you.

[DrewFlorida]

145. They were made for the UK market, but I guess you didn't know that.

[oldhippie]

154. Yeah, poor sods, ......

.... aren't allowed to have real guns. I have a friend in Jolly ol' England that really gets off on WWII bayonets. He can't have those, either.

[Straw Man]

178. UK Mini-14

They were made for the UK market, but I guess you didn't know that.

Mini-14 without a gas piston, rendering it a rather clunky straight-pull bolt action in order to conform to the UK's semi-auto ban. Introduced on the UK market in 2000. Clearly a Korean storeowner in Los Angeles in 1992 would have had access to one.

[DrewFlorida]

183. I said they were made for the UK market, are you telling me we don't get foreign

made arms in the U.S.?

[Straw Man]

184. No ...

I said they were made for the UK market, are you telling me we don't get foreign made arms in the U.S.?

I'm saying that we don't get US-made arms that were specifically modified for export to countries that have much harsher restrictions on the functioning of said arms than we do. No real demand for them here, you see.

Introduced on the UK market in 2000. Clearly a Korean storeowner in Los Angeles in 1992 would have had access to one.

Especially eight years before they were introduced.

[NickB79]

197. Are you under the impression straight pulls are slow to fire?

Here's someone firing a 1940's straight-pull K31 (with much more recoil than the UK-modified Mini-14). By my count they got off 5 shots in 9 seconds: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=straight+pull+rifle&view=detail&mid=7268444C3E1681528D017268444C3E1681528D01&first=0

I'd hazard a guess that someone could fire faster than that with that UK-Mini, especially considering it comes with a 20-rd magazine.

[Hangingon]

186. I can tell. And Ruger Arms lists no bolt action Mini 14s.

[PavePusher]

196. The shotgun (second gun/person from right) appears to be a Mossberg 500 series....

which is generally an 8-round tube magazine, +1 in the chamber, also has storage for 4 additional rounds, 2 on each side of the stock (see the red streak on the stock).

[DrewFlorida]

92. Magazine capacity is a very important issue but not the only issue.

High velocity rounds, hollow point rounds, military body armor, full automatic, gun registration, nationwide background checks which include history of violence, psych evaluation, and eliminating loopholes for private sales. These are all important issues regarding gun control, I realize we can expect to get 100% of everything but let's aim for improvements on more than just magazine capacity!

[Remmah2]

100. You forgot smart bullets.

nt

[Glassunion]

129. And the shoulderthingthatgoesup

[PavePusher]

195. "high velocity rounds"? You mean common hunting ammo, right? n/t

[Remmah2]

93. Is there a limit on the number of people invited to a home invasion?

What if 4 show up?

[DrewFlorida]

96. You've been watching too many movies!

[Glassunion]

128. It is not that uncommon for there to be multiple home invaders.

[Ter]

97. Suppose you have a shootout with an attacker

Hiding behind walls, peeking out, shooting, etc. Gonna need more than three man. If it were me, I would prefer 50 to 200.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Let's stick with the legal precedent

When hunting. Ten rounds is the limit in most states. Coincidentally, that is also a standard magazine.

Pistols come with up to 15, again what we have as standard magazines should be sufficient.

Look at states with some gun control, and lower dead rates, for real...see California. We could literally, ain't gonna happen, make this Federal standard. It closes the gun show loophole as well.

[Remmah2]

111. And to think some people have access to high capacity magazines and full automatic weapons.

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121229/CITYANDREGION/121229287

[madrchsod]

114. 5 rounds is tops on any hunting rifle

if a hunter can`t kill game after 5 shots they need to see an eye doctor. here in illinois it`s shot guns or arrows for deer. if a hunter wounds a deer with either they maybe in for a long walk.

[aikoaiko]

115. Self-defense.

[Zax2me]

124. More than one bad guy?

Many home invasions around this metro area are 3-4 guys.

[Jackpine Radical]

127. I've never hunted bear or had to defend myself against a wounded one, but

if I were to do so, I'd feel a lot better about a couple extra rounds in my '06.

[Historic NY]

133. Dangerous deer....

6 - 3 here in Ny I remember having a wooden plug for my shotgun

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/28182.html

[Jenoch]

134. What does hunting have to do with

anything? There are many gun owners who have never hunted game.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

137. Simple convenience n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

144. Deer run quickly

[X_Digger]

160. Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment, again?

Like 80% of gun owners, I don't hunt.

[JoeyT]

166. Your limits are close to what I think the limits should be.

I'd go with 5 for rifles, 3-4 for shotguns, 10 or not past the grip of the gun whichever is lower for handguns, and revolvers whatever it'll hold. Revolvers usually hold six, the ones that hold more are usually very small bullets that someone looking for a body count isn't going to want. (And I think the highest cap on one of those is ten or twelve)

We'll still have to restrict the ability to change magazines quickly, though.

[oneshooter]

173. 5 for a rifle? My Grandfathers M 92 Winchester

holds 15 rounds in a tube magazine under the barrel. So if the law passes I have to cut the mag tube down on a 101 year old rifle?

[JoeyT]

175. I meant detachable magazines,

not tubes or en bloc clips or whatever. My tube loaded .22 holds more than that, and takes forever to load.

[slackmaster]

187. A friend of mine came up with a clever solution to the problem of loading tube-magazine .22s

He had a supply of arrow shaft tubing, which turned out to be a good size to use as improvised speed loaders for his .22 rifle. He would pre-load several pieces of tubing with however many rounds his rifle held. To load, he'd simply remove the long brass magazine follower thing all the way and pour in the rounds.

[Sparky 1]

181. I like what Wanda Sykes said... (not exact quote) If you need 100 rounds to shoot a deer, remind me

not to let you pee in my bathroom!

[PavePusher]

189. Unless you can present some evidence to support your assertions...

I'll take them for the empty wind they are.

[Speck Tater]

201. A pack of wolves? Four grizly bears? Hell, 2 grizzlies would take more than 3 shots. nt

[MrScorpio]

205. In twenty years, there probably won't be anymore lions in the wild to shoot

Not to mention elephants as well.