That's your opinion. I have 3 hand guns that serve all different purposes. I have one rifle but could easily have a few more for different proposes as well.

You just love being owned an controlled by the government hub?

I sure am glad the gun nuts aren't reacting emotionally to recent tragedies by proposing completely bat**** insane legislation.

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/20/ho...-school-staff/

I think you may have missed his point.

Answer honestly: Why would you buy a, say, 12 round mag instead of a 6 round mag.

Well, if you say so. I've never known you to be wrong before.

There are lots of additional suggestions in this thread, besides limiting assault rifles and magazine sizes.

lololol

Pro gun guy Hendricks arguing against mag size limits because it saves 8-10 people out of a possible 30 and not all of them has to be the weirdest twist in the thread so far.

lolwat

Do you realize how many different species are hunted in the USA?

If one hunted every animal legally and humanely without wanton waste, I'm not sure you could pare it down to 5-6 different rifles.

The Gabby Giffords shooter was taken down when he had emptied his 30 round mag and was reloading - it is just clearly wrong a limit of mag size would have no effect.

I'm here for the gangban

No answer will satisfy your question. Antis think all you need is 1 round at a time.

30 round mags are less useful for these guys as well. In the school they have no opposition and can change mags and reload at leisure and continue their rampage. If I use my gun I am going to be fighting for my life, possibly against one of these wackos and bigger magazine is better.

So there is no inconvenience too great (acquiring 3 times as many magazines, becoming experts at changing clips in lightning fast times, carrying 2-3 times as many guns, breaking any number of additional laws, going to any lengths to acquire weapons) that would dissuade even one criminal from committing a crime with a gun, but a suicidal lunatic intent on shooting up a mall is dissuaded by (possibly) spotting a man with a handgun. Lol, good stuff, guys. Top notch work.

Don't worry about satisfying me.

Let's just run through a scenario:

Hedricks433 buys a new handgun, for some reason a mag didn't come with it, so you've got to pick one out. You go to the gun store. They've got two mags that fit your gun, a 6 round mag, and a 16 round mag. They're identical in every other way including cost. You're a strapping young lad, so the extra weight of 10 bullets is no big deal.

Which one do you purchase and why?

31,000 firearms related deaths in 2007 and only 13,000 DUI related deaths... Seems hardly worth the infringement on my rights for a mere 13,000 lives.

And I mean, some people are satisfied with only 2 or 3 drinks but who the **** are they to tell me I can't have 15?

Dangit, I hand crafted that life-like scenario and totally missed that you now understand the advantages of a 30 round mag. "Of course!" you probably shouted. "I can fire 30 bullets with one gun that's already in my hand, instead of 30 bullets using 3 guns!"

I'm glad we took this journey together.

I have a few random questions for the people itt who know more about gun technology than I do:

The other night Rachel Maddow talked about a law, passed during the Reagan admin, and still on the books, that basically prohibited the manufacture and sale of guns that were completely composed of non-metalic materials (basically, they wanted all guns to have enough metal in them to set of an x-ray machine or a metal detector).

So, I guess my questions are:

- are entirely non-metalic guns widely available today and, if not, is the lack of availability attributable to the law, or is there some technological reason why a completely plastic or other polymer-based gun isn't available

- is it relatively easy tom modify existing guns to take out the metal, and, if so, do lots of people seem to do this, or do most just leave the guns as sold.

Obviously, this law is already on the books, but she presented it as one example of ways that gun laws could be passed that kept people safe without really compromising the rights of most gun owners who don't want to use their guns for evil purposes, and posited that similar types of laws might be able to be passed now. I found her argument pretty compelling.. Obviously, she is coming from a pro gun control perspective, so I was wondering if the pro gun folks (or, just people who know more about guns than I do), might be able to shed some critical light on her argument.

John malkovich made one in In The Line Of Fire. So it's probably doable, but not widely available.

Well earlier someone said that even if there was a person with a gun at least one person would still be killed before the good guy killed the bad guy so it wouldn't prevent anything. That's a 29 person difference. So it's pretty close between those two.

There are no "no-metal" guns available, AFAIK. The reason is that firing a bullet is too stressful for most non-metal materials.

Unless the good guy gets shot too.

It's not clear to me what is "bat**** insane" about this legislation. Could you explain? More than 15% of pilots are now cleared to carry firearms on board, and many of the crew on planes can also carry. Can you explain what is fundamentally different about schools, that something similar isn't a good idea?

Michael J. Fox used a time machine in Back to the Future, so it's probably doable, but not widely available.

There are near complete polymer lowers for AR-15's. The springs and the hammer (weight issue) are what would prevent it from being a complete polymer lower. That is only the bottom half. I think it would be near impossible to make a truly functioning polymer gun. The issue is chamber pressures make it near impossible to be completely made of any reasonably acquired polymer. Glock Pistols have polymer frames, the bottom half basically, and a split casing on a bullet (meaning gas pressure escapes through the split) causes parts of it to blow out of the gun, sometimes crack.

I think technology is the biggest road block. I'm sure you could build something out of plastic that would fire one round but be useless right after.



You can make guns out of paper though!

Hendricks' "Sure it might save 10 lives, but think about me and my [no reason given]!!!" defense of hi cap magazines is just amazing. How do these people wield so much political power?

Not to start an enormous thing because I realize bringing you guys into the 20th century needs to be piece-by-piece, but you do know that a lot of people consider hunting as pretty much just legalized animal cruelty, right?

Personally, making sure that you can kill enough stuff on the weekend to make the weird feelings you get from watching Glee go away ranks wayyyyyyy below "saving a few lives" in my policy calculus.

Has this been addressed yet (probably): One problem with arming everyone at all times (teachers, dentists, college students, Ziggy who sells free newspapers near the Ballston metro stop) as a solution is that, yes, maybe you get more spree killers being gunned down before they rack up fatalities, but what happens to the number of impulse shootings, where every human who suffers an unfortunate lapse in temper can compound it horribly by moving his arm a few inches to grab a holstered weapon?

I didn't take you for this ignorant about the properties of materials and the max 2 usage he wanted the gun to fire. You're not helping your side of the argument with idiotic similies