# Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon



## Big Don (Feb 7, 2011)

[SIZE=+2]*Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon*[/SIZE]
 [SIZE=-1] By Stephen Hunter
 Sunday, February 6, 2011; The Washington Post EXCERPT:
[/SIZE] 

 Sleek, its lines rakishly tilted to boost the ergonomics that index grip  placement to barrel, this automatic pistol has but one function: to  eliminate human beings easily. That sinister intent is expressed most  eloquently in the extended magazine that reaches far beneath the pistol  grip, easily tripling the amount of ammunition available to the killer. 
  It's the Colt Super .38 automatic pistol, customized into a machine  pistol by an underworld gunsmith so that Babyface Nelson could use it to  kill an FBI agent outside Little Bohemia, Wis., in 1934. Maybe you saw  the movie. 
  Even if you didn't, you can still see the point: There's nothing really  new when it comes to guns. To the contrary, the extended magazine that  Jared Loughner allegedly carried in his Glock 19 the day he is accused  of having fatally shot six people outside Tucson and wounding 13 others, and that President Obama is likely to suggest banning in an upcoming speech, may be traced way back. 
  <<<SNIP>>>
The Texas Ranger  Frank Hamer carried a Remington Model 8 with an extended magazine in his  hunt for Bonnie and Clyde in 1934. The Thompson submachine gun of World  War II and the M-16 of Vietnam were improved by extending their  magazine from 20 to 30 rounds. In 1957, the U.S. Army adopted the M-14  rifle, which was hardly more than an M-1 Garand rifle with an extended  magazine. And who wouldn't want our soldiers, Marines and law officers  to benefit from extended magazines? 
  Guns were the software of the 19th century; the most dynamic age of  development was roughly 1870 to 1900, when the modern forms were  perfected. Two primary operating systems emerged for handguns: the  revolver, usually holding six cartridges and manipulated by the muscle  energy of the hand, and the semiautomatic, harnessing the explosively  released energy of the burning powder to cock and reload itself. Since  then, design and engineering improvements have been not to lethality but  to ease of maintenance and manufacture, or weight reduction. 

<<<SNIP>>>

  What nobody has been able to improve on since the 1870s is the  cartridge. It is an extraordinary mechanism that safely stores volatile  chemical energy until needed. It is cheap to manufacture, easy to  transport and largely impervious to the elements. 
  What's often lost amid activists' carping is that the effect of the  notorious extended magazine does little to improve the pistol's  lethality except in extraordinary circumstances, such as Tucson. Neither  Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech mass murderer,  nor the alleged Fort Hood killer used extended magazines in their  rampages. America's first gun mass murder, when Howard Unruh killed 13  people in 1949, was committed with a Luger. 
  In fact, the extended magazine actually vitiates the pistol's usefulness  as a weapon for most needs, legitimate or illegitimate. The magazine  destroys the pistol's essence; it is no longer concealable. Loughner  allegedly wrapped the clumsy package in a coat for a short distance, but  he could not have worn it in a belt or concealed it for an extended  period. It had really ceased to be a pistol. 
  That's why extended magazines are rarely featured in crime - and that  awkwardness spells out the magazine's primary legitimate usage. It may  have some utility for competitive shooting by cutting down on reloading  time, or for tactical police officers on raids, but for those who are  not hard-core gun folks it's an ideal solution for home defense, which  is probably why hundreds of thousands of Glocks have been sold in this  country.
<<<SNIP>>>
Yes, they can use semiautomatic  rifles and shotguns, protected by the Second Amendment and unlikely to  be banned by local law, but women generally don't care to put in the  training needed to master them. Nor can the elderly handle them adeptly. 
  For them, the Glock with a 33-round magazine is the weapon of maximum  utility. You can load it on Sunday and shoot it all month. (Nobody wants  to reload a gun while being shot at.) It's light and easy to control.  You don't have to carry it or conceal it; it's under the bed or in the  drawer until needed. When the question arises of who needs an extended  magazine, the answer is: the most defenseless of the defenseless. 
  Those who would ban extended magazines, will say that although hundreds  of thousands are in circulation and thousands more will surely be sold  before a ban is enacted, it will be worth it if it saves just one life.  But the other half of that question must be asked, too: Is it worth it  if it costs just one life? 

END EXCERPT
Anyone can drop a magazine and insert a fresh one quickly with very little practice. It just isn't rocket science and doesn't really require the dexterity that brain surgery does...


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

OK, what am I reading?

The article does not make a lot of sense.

What does the Thompson have to do with 'The Killer' sticking an oversized mag into his pistol?

Somehow I am reading a sarcastic undercurrent...Armed Forces and Police is not on the same plane as a private shooter....

I do appreciate a larger magazine, if only for the reason that those things are a PITA to load. However, I do believe with little training anybody with normal apptitude can change a mag in a couple of seconds, without looking...


(and having said that, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why a private person needs a magazine that holds more than  - what's the current size - 13 or so bullets. If you need more in SD, you went wrong a long time before that, and at the range you have the time to reload...)


----------



## Big Don (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> (and having said that, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why a private person needs a magazine that holds more than  - what's the current size - 13 or so bullets. If you need more in SD, you went wrong a long time before that, and at the range you have the time to reload...)


Unless, you are scared/It is dark/there are more than one bad guys/you aren't Deadeye Dick or Annie Oakley personified/One round doesn't stop him/them/etc, etc.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Unless, you are scared/It is dark/there are more than one bad guys/you aren't Deadeye Dick or Annie Oakley personified/One round doesn't stop him/them/etc, etc.




Like i said, you took the wrong turn long before Albuquerque on that one....

Considering that more than one person equally armed have a far greater chance to turn me into the human version of Swiss cheese in that scenario...Nike-Do might be the better SD Art...


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2011)

Unless the bad guys count your shots, and at the 13th they charge you.  At that point, the extended magazine will give them a little surprise.  As long as you are not a criminal you could have a 4 ft. long magazine, with 100 rounds of ammo or more,  what is the problem?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

Big Don said:


> What nobody has been able to improve on since the 1870s is the cartridge. It is an extraordinary mechanism that safely stores volatile chemical energy until needed. It is cheap to manufacture, easy to transport and largely impervious to the elements.
> What's often lost amid activists' carping is that the effect of the notorious extended magazine does little to improve the pistol's lethality except in extraordinary circumstances, such as Tucson. Neither Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech mass murderer, *nor the alleged Fort Hood killer used extended magazines in their rampages.* America's first gun mass murder, when Howard Unruh killed 13 people in 1949, was committed with a Luger.
> In fact, the extended magazine actually vitiates the pistol's usefulness as a weapon for most needs, legitimate or illegitimate. The magazine destroys the pistol's essence; it is no longer concealable. Loughner allegedly wrapped the clumsy package in a coat for a short distance, but he could not have worn it in a belt or concealed it for an extended period. It had really ceased to be a pistol.
> That's why extended magazines are rarely featured in crime - and that awkwardness spells out the magazine's primary legitimate usage. It may have some utility for competitive shooting by cutting down on reloading time, or for tactical police officers on raids, but for those who are not hard-core gun folks it's an ideal solution for home defense, which is probably why hundreds of thousands of Glocks have been sold in this country.


 
The bolded point is not actually true.  Ironically, I had a de-brief regarding the Fort Hood shooting two weeks ago.  One of the points brought up was that Hasan bought and used a FN 5.7 pistol.  This pistol comes stock with 20 round magazines (magazines over 10 rounds are legal in Texas).  Now admittedly, these are not _extended_ magazines.  However, when he bought these magazines, he had the on-site gunsmith install a 10 round extension to each one, making the magazine capacity 30 rounds.  When he engaged in his shooting, Hasan had 10, 30 round magazines on him.

It is believed that Hasan brought the gun and magazine onto the base (soldiers are not allowed to have unauthorized firearms anywhere on base, including personally owned ones) by secreting it in his medical work bag.

Extended magazines actually make perfect sense for criminal activities, but it depends on what type of criminal enterprise you are engaged in.  If you are engaged in street level crime of opportunity, then having a weapon that is concealable makes perfect sense.  If you are going on a mass shooting spree of an open target, it makes perfect sense to have as large of a capacity magazine as possible.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> (and having said that, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why a private person needs a magazine that holds more than - what's the current size - 13 or so bullets. If you need more in SD, you went wrong a long time before that, and at the range you have the time to reload...)


 
It depends on the nature of the threat that you believe that you are likely to encounter.  I, for one, do not limit that threat to a common street thug, but also to mass murderers with fully automatic weapons where fire and movement may be a neccesity, and to an oppressive government bent on illegitimately taking away my freedom and rights.

But to each their own.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 7, 2011)

It's not how many rounds you have in your mag... it's how many rounds you can put into your opponent. 

If done right... one shot is all you'll need.


...err for each opponent you face.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Unless the bad guys count your shots, and at the 13th they charge you.  At that point, the extended magazine will give them a little surprise.  As long as you are not a criminal you could have a 4 ft. long magazine, with 100 rounds of ammo or more,  what is the problem?



:lfao: 

You watch too many bad movies!

Though, 'Magnum Force' _is _a classic.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It depends on the nature of the threat that you believe that you are likely to encounter.  I, for one, do not limit that threat to a common street thug, but also to mass murderers with fully automatic weapons where fire and movement may be a neccesity, and to an oppressive government bent on illegitimately taking away my freedom and rights.
> 
> But to each their own.




If you find yourself in that situation you have set the events in motion long before that.

Which is exactly my point, thank you very much: You find yourself in a mass shoot out you really made some bad choices along the way.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 7, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> It's not how many rounds you have in your mag... it's how many rounds you can put into your opponent.
> 
> If done right... one shot is all you'll need.
> 
> ...


Or, one shot in their faces...


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> If you find yourself in that situation you have set the events in motion long before that.
> 
> Which is exactly my point, thank you very much: You find yourself in a mass shoot out you really made some bad choices along the way.



I disagree.  It isn't uncommon for 4-6 'bangers to participate in a home invasion.  What was the bad choice there?  

Also, my FWIW, my range charges by the hour.  The time it takes to reload mags at the range could be better spent shooting, unless you want to A) Shoot Less, B) Shoot faster, C) Buy and extra hour.  

Lets face it... there is no Legitimate reason a Law Abiding citizen should not have access to extended magazines EXCEPT to placate the fears of people.  I'm also gonna tell you in no uncertain terms, If I were going to go on a criminal killing spree, I would care less what the law says about Hi Cap mags, (after all, Im already ignoring what it says about killing) and I'm gonna get Hi Cap mags.  Maybe it takes longer, or costs more, but if my purpose is set... you are ****ed either way. 

Although to be fair, if I ever do snap and go on a killing spree, I intend to do it with a teddy bear full of bricks, so I can sit back in prison and watch the Libs scream and whine about how we need to ban Plushies and Bricks... *rolls eyes*


----------



## David43515 (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> If you find yourself in that situation you have set the events in motion long before that.
> 
> Which is exactly my point, thank you very much: You find yourself in a mass shoot out you really made some bad choices along the way.


 

Yes but while some of those bad choices are avoidable, the alternative isn`t always appealing. Some of those "bad choices" might include 1) living long enough to grow too feeble to dive out a window and run away, 2) living with an invalid or a child whom you`re not prepared to abandon, 3)living in an area where the police response time is slower, 4) having a business where large amounts of cash change hands, 5) owning a drugstore, jewelry store, gun store, or other business with valuable easily transportable products, 6) dating someone before you find that they`re psycho, 7) dating someone before you find out their ex is a psycho. I could continue, but I think you get the point. Sometimes the tactical decisions we make aren`t the best, but they`re the only ones available to us at the time.

I remember reading a few years ago about a gunstore owner whose place was being robbed by a gang of drug dealers. He was able to hold off 8 armed menn in a protracted gun fight for  15-20 minutes until the police arrived (rural area) because he owned a full auto weapon with several high capacity magazines.You could argue that by deciding to have that business he made a big mistake. Or by living in a rural community he had commited a grave error. Personally I preffer to think that when the drug dealers decided to try to make a living by lawbreaking and violence, the error was thiers.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 7, 2011)

This is the dumbest post I have seen in a long time.
It matters not how many rounds you have .. I have thousands in my garage (rough number) sitting there doing what ammo does..nothing, until I load it up and shoot it.

See that? I as in me?
Until I take that ammo and do something bad with it, be it in a single shot rifle, or an auto loading pistol big deal..
I could do a lot more damage with my single shot target rifle and a bell tower than this guy did with his evil 30 round mags but I dont and will not because I AM NOT NUTS!!!
Should accurate firearms now be banned?  Single shot rifles maybe?
It is not the magazine, the number of rounds, the caliber, it is the wacked out guy at the trigger.

Why does your car go over 70 mph? (I think 55 is fast enough)
Why is your internet connection 1.4 mbps? (way to fast 56k is good enough)
Why is you fuel tank over 5 gallons? (There is always a gas station within 100 miles)
Hits a little closer to home when it starts applying to your interests..


This **** is stupid..
Dear God just think they make 50 round drums for the AK and we are worried about 30 9mm..


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

David43515 said:


> Yes but while some of those bad choices are avoidable, the alternative isn`t always appealing. Some of those "bad choices" might include 1) living long enough to grow too feeble to dive out a window and run away, 2) living with an invalid or a child whom you`re not prepared to abandon, 3)living in an area where the police response time is slower, 4) having a business where large amounts of cash change hands, 5) owning a drugstore, jewelry store, gun store, or other business with valuable easily transportable products, 6) dating someone before you find that they`re psycho, 7) dating someone before you find out their ex is a psycho. I could continue, but I think you get the point. Sometimes the tactical decisions we make aren`t the best, but they`re the only ones available to us at the time.
> 
> I remember reading a few years ago about a gunstore owner whose place was being robbed by a gang of drug dealers. He was able to hold off 8 armed menn in a protracted gun fight for  15-20 minutes until the police arrived (rural area) because he owned a full auto weapon with several high capacity magazines.You could argue that by deciding to have that business he made a big mistake. Or by living in a rural community he had commited a grave error. Personally I preffer to think that when the drug dealers decided to try to make a living by lawbreaking and violence, the error was thiers.




And you watched too much 'Gun Smoke' 

Unless you live in Tijuana, those scenarios are the stuff cheap Hollywood movies are made of.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 7, 2011)

I know that back home in the US lots of crimes are commited each year by people with cars. There are very fast sports cars that can go double the max speed limit on the highway. Who needs to drive faster than 65 mph? (Uhm, Sammy Hagar?) There are "high capacity" vans that can carry lots of extra passengers who are potential crimminals. Who really needs more than 5-6 seats? I know police officers who`ve lost 4x4s they were pursuing when the driver went cross country.Who needs a car they can sneak around off road with? It`s all very suspicious.....and yet no one suggests banning cars even though they`re used as weapons, for get-aways, and as burglar tools. Do you suppose that`s because we know that the vast majority of the owners of these dangerous machines are honest and law abiding? Is it because we have a right to own and use our property as we see fit so long as we don`t harm others? Or do you suppose it`s just because they generate so much tax revenue for the state?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> If you find yourself in that situation you have set the events in motion long before that.
> 
> Which is exactly my point, thank you very much: You find yourself in a mass shoot out you really made some bad choices along the way.


 
You mean like deciding to go to school (Columbine, Virginia Tech, University of Texas) or work (Edmond, OK postal shooting) or going to eat (San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre, Luby's Massacre)?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Also, my FWIW, my range charges by the hour. The time it takes to reload mags at the range could be better spent shooting, unless you want to A) Shoot Less, B) Shoot faster, C) Buy and extra hour.


 
When asked by the gun store owner as to why Hasan would need so many magazines, and extended ones as well, his answer was similar.

Hasan stated that he could only use the base range one day per week for an hour.  So he didn't want to spend his time reloading at the range and would use his time the night before to load all of his magazines.

Not saying that you're going to be a mass murderer....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> And you watched too much 'Gun Smoke'
> 
> Unless you live in Tijuana, those scenarios are the stuff cheap Hollywood movies are made of.


 
It happens more often then you think.

Besides, even if it didn't, you said that there is no reason for a civilian to have a high-cap magazine, which is usually defined as a magazine capacity over 10 round.  It is not unusual for said civilian to run out of a single magazine of ammunition during a SD situation.  Perhaps if they had 1, 5, or 7 more, they might actually be a little safer.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> When asked by the gun store owner as to why Hasan would need so many magazines, and extended ones as well, his answer was similar.
> 
> Hasan stated that he could only use the base range one day per week for an hour.  So he didn't want to spend his time reloading at the range and would use his time the night before to load all of his magazines.
> 
> Not saying that you're going to be a mass murderer....



Yeah, I haven't gone to Build a Bear yet and asked for the extended Brick model. 

I wasn't aware that was his reasoning, but it is legitimate.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 7, 2011)

> It is not unusual for said civilian to run out of a single magazine of ammunition during a SD situation.


 
While I generally agree with what you are saying and supporting we must make sure not to make up facts.
Most self defense situations are on average only 3 shots.
But this in no way should lead to banning high cap mags..


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2011)

No reason why a cars top speed shouldn't be 30 miles an hour, it would be safer, more fuel efficient and you can always use a plane to get somewhere, farther away, faster.  Also, there is no reason for all the food choices in the grocery store.  One type of vitamin enriched wheat bread,  oatmeal, and you are all set to go.  Drink water from the tap and you have just saved so much time and energy.  No reason to have so many clothing choices either.  Just one light brown work coverall should do everyone just fine.  Also, there is no reason for people to own their own homes, just assign each individual, at the age of 18, a room in a group apartment with access to public transportation and you can just get rid of cars altogether.  

See, that was easy.  next problem please.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 7, 2011)

jetboatdeath said:


> While I generally agree with what you are saying and supporting we must make sure not to make up facts.
> Most self defense situations are on average only 3 shots.
> But this in no way should lead to banning high cap mags..


 
I would be interested in seeing the stat to back up your allegation.  I looked up what I can only assume to be yours and I see that *criminals *average three shots when fired per incident.  This says nothing regarding the number used by people in self-defense.  Not only that, I will anecdotally say that I have personally seen situation where people have expended the entire magazine in self-defense, so.....


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> If you find yourself in that situation you have set the events in motion long before that.
> 
> Which is exactly my point, thank you very much: You find yourself in a mass shoot out you really made some bad choices along the way.


Not necessarily.  Vicky Armel & Michael Garbarino simply went to work on May afternoon in 2006.  The guy with the automatic weapons came to them, in the station lot.  

None of the students at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 had a mass shooting come to them, too.  School policies prohibited any of them from being prepared to deal with the situation more effectively.  (Yes, I know, he didn't have anything other than standard magazines.)  

At Columbine, again, trouble came calling.

Seeing a trend?  

While I'm not suggesting we should all trade the family grocery getter in for an Abrams and walk around with Tommy guns or full auto Glocks, it is a little naive to assume that the bad guys won't have anything better than a Saturday night special revolver or that trouble won't come looking...


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Not necessarily.  Vicky Armel & Michael Garbarino simply went to work on May afternoon in 2006.  The guy with the automatic weapons came to them, in the station lot.
> 
> None of the students at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 had a mass shooting come to them, too.  School policies prohibited any of them from being prepared to deal with the situation more effectively.  (Yes, I know, he didn't have anything other than standard magazines.)
> 
> ...




The trend is that every few years one person, maybe 2 out of over 300 million goes nuts. 
In the same time frame more people have been killed - unexpectently by car crashes.

If you are scared, in the dark waving a gun with 30 odd bullets around, bad things happen.

Those movie scenarios just don't wash it for me. If the Arizona gunman didn't have those oversized mags...lot less lead would have been in the air...


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would be interested in seeing the stat to back up your allegation.  I looked up what I can only assume to be yours and I see that *criminals *average three shots when fired per incident.  This says nothing regarding the number used by people in self-defense.  Not only that, I will anecdotally say that I have personally seen situation where people have expended the entire magazine in self-defense, so.....




intruiging.
What people do you see that shoot a full magazine in SD, and more important:
How much regular training do they have and how much did they hit.


----------



## Carol (Feb 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> The trend is that every few years one person, maybe 2 out of over 300 million goes nuts.
> In the same time frame more people have been killed - unexpectently by car crashes.
> 
> If you are scared, in the dark waving a gun with 30 odd bullets around, bad things happen.
> ...



But if a skilled shooter can change mags quickly that doesn't mean less lead would have been in the air.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2011)

Carol said:


> But if a skilled shooter can change mags quickly that doesn't mean less lead would have been in the air.



Still more of the 2 seconds of lead free air time...insignificant maybe, but a short break in the barrage.


----------



## Carol (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Still more of the 2 seconds of lead free air time...insignificant maybe, but a short break in the barrage.



Can't get behind punishing law-abiding gun owners for something insignificant.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Still more of the 2 seconds of lead free air time...insignificant maybe, but a short break in the barrage.



I'm sorry... how short a break in the Barrage?






Insignificant is correct.


----------



## Carol (Feb 8, 2011)

Why can't we punish criminals instead of law abiding citizens?  

Had the Comm. of Mass. not paroled Dominic Cinelli from his THREE concurrent life sentences, Officer Jack Maguire would still be alive today and looking forward to his retirement.



> About 10 times each year, Michigan prison parolees kill someone.



Then the lives of about 10 innocent Michiganders can be saved by keeping these perps behind bars.



> In the 10 years ending in 2003, at least 105 parolees -- one out of every 530  -- had returned to prison for homicide convictions. The relatively small band of  parolee killers is vexing to policymakers. It's an issue again because Patrick  Selepak is accused of three killings last month and prison authorities have  admitted that mistakes in the parole system kept him out of jail.



At least 105 lives could have been saved?  

http://www.capps-mi.org/material to put up/Despite tough parole laws, a few still kill.htm

How many lives would be saved if there was a minimum 25 year sentence for every gun crime?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 8, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> I disagree.  It isn't uncommon for 4-6 'bangers to participate in a home invasion.  What was the bad choice there?
> 
> Also, my FWIW, my range charges by the hour.  The time it takes to reload mags at the range could be better spent shooting, unless you want to A) Shoot Less, B) Shoot faster, C) Buy and extra hour.



I don't see how that logic works.
If you shoot for an hour, you will have to reload anyway.
So rather than having to refill a 30 bullet mag you will reload a 17 or so bullet mag.
In the end, you've put the same number of bullets into the magazine.

The only difference I see is that you need a couple more reload cycles.
I have only been to the range a couple of times, and I did notice that people do not shoot as fast as they can for a full hour. The weapon gets too hot, and their arm gets weary etc. The reload cycles are used to rest their arms and allow their weapon to cool off so it's not like the reload cycles have that much impact. Or at least that is what it looked like from my layman's point of view.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> The only difference I see is that you need a couple more reload cycles.
> I have only been to the range a couple of times, and I did notice that people do not shoot as fast as they can for a full hour. The weapon gets too hot, and their arm gets weary etc. The reload cycles are used to rest their arms and allow their weapon to cool off so it's not like the reload cycles have that much impact. Or at least that is what it looked like from my layman's point of view.



It depends on preference I suppose.  I would rather buy, lets say 100 rounds, load 3 hi cap mags at home, and focus on my shooting when I am at the range.  That way I have an hour to shoot, evaluate my target, compensate, etc... rather than taking the 20 minutes or so it might take to reload three 10 round mags 3 times.  That only leaves me 40 minutes to shoot, in which case I might feel rushed, especially if I am shooting more than one firearm, all those times go up exponentially and I have to shorten my shooting time even further with each weapon, or limit the number of rounds I put thru them.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 8, 2011)

Ok I can understand that, though that seems like an awful lot of time wasted just to put some bullets in a magazine. another question: does the added weight of 16 or so additional bullets not change the physical feedback of the gun?


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Carol said:


> Why can't we punish criminals instead of law abiding citizens?
> 
> Had the Comm. of Mass. not paroled Dominic Cinelli from his THREE concurrent life sentences, Officer Jack Maguire would still be alive today and looking forward to his retirement.
> 
> ...




That does not exactly go with the problem of why a civilian needs to have 33 rounds in his/her pistol. 

Unless of course those parolees were ganging up to kill those 10 citizens in a concerted effort.


However. 

Too often the laws crafted after specific incidents resemble knee jerk reactions. In the end you have people going away for life for stealing a candybar (or the felony aquivalent there of) because a well meaning legislature bowed to the demands of the public for a harsher stand on crime. (and no, a person serving 3 life terms should not be ellgible for parole....)

Points to ponder though:
Putting those large magazines into the hands of the general public also puts them in hands of the gun afisionado who might snap under stress at any time. Bad enough to have somebody go postal with the normal amount of rounds. (not to mention you can have a lot of those....if the aggressor shooter can quickly reload, the SD shooter should be able to as well, no?)


The average gun owner does not practice shooting. Not on a regular basis as one should when you deem a gun a valid means of SD. 

The distance between the shooter and the target can be closed rather quickly by the determined. I forgot the exact numbers, but they were astonishingly small. Add to that the miss rate of _trained_ shooters like cops....The chances of an amateur getting off 33 rounds and doing more than shooting holes into the air (and maybe bystanders) are on the remote side.

Then, should the unimaginable have happened and you have been separated from your gun you get to look down the barrel of a weapon you outfitted with many more bullets than is needed to kill you.

The logistics for the average person to keep a gun for SD purposes is staggering. Let alone a supersized one.

Now, I let you get back to your movie fantasies about standing in a hail of lead and dropping 20 bad guys with your trusty six shooter....


----------



## crushing (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Now, I let you get back to your movie fantasies about standing in a hail of lead and dropping 20 bad guys with your trusty six shooter....


 
Is that not the fantasy of people that think people should be able to defend themselves with very small magazines?

"You don't need 33 rounds!  You only need one round per bad guy.  Just shoot the gun out of their hand and they will beg for mercy.  Launch any more lead than that and someone could get hurt!"



granfire said:


> Too often the laws crafted after specific incidents resemble knee jerk reactions.


 
Yes, that is exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

crushing said:


> Is that not the fantasy of people that think people should be able to defend themselves with very small magazines?
> 
> "You don't need 33 rounds!  You only need one round per bad guy.  Just shoot the gun out of their hand and they will beg for mercy.  Launch any more lead than that and someone could get hurt!"
> 
> ...




More of a sarcastic recount of the common movie/TV scenario: bad guys spray the good guys with a hail of lead, while good guy, cool as a cucumber or the the other side of the pillow drops bad guy with one shot. Miami Vice had a few of those scenes if I recall...even considering the sub machine gun's inaccuracy.... :lfao:


----------



## crushing (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> More of a sarcastic recount of the common movie/TV scenario: bad guys spray the good guys with a hail of lead, while good guy, cool as a cucumber or the the other side of the pillow drops bad guy with one shot. Miami Vice had a few of those scenes if I recall...even considering the sub machine gun's inaccuracy.... :lfao:


 
Quite right!  On another forum there was a similar discussion regarding magazine capacity.  One participant used such scenes from TV and movies to justify cracking down on magazine sizes.  This person was sure that it should never take more than one or two rounds per criminal to defend one's self when attacked by armed criminals.  Talk about a fantasy world!


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

It's not so much that you _don't_ need it, more like _when you do_ need it, you have made some pretty poor decisions a long the road prior.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> It's not so much that you _don't_ need it, more like _when you do_ need it, you have made some pretty poor decisions a long the road prior.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> You mean like deciding to go to school  (Columbine, Virginia Tech, University of Texas) or work (Edmond, OK  postal shooting) or going to eat (San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre, Luby's  Massacre)?


Or, like going to the supermarket in Tucson...


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

By the way, a handgun is one of those things that if you need it, you REALLY need it. An unloaded handgun is a small, unwieldy, ineffectual metal club, almost as worthless as **** on a boar.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> By the way, a handgun is one of those things that if you need it, you REALLY need it. An unloaded handgun is a small, unwieldy, ineffectual metal club, almost as worthless as **** on a boar.




Well, an unloaded handgun is about, if not more, dangerous as a loaded one...


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Or, like going to the supermarket in Tucson...



well, we get into our cars every day, knowing there are thousands every year being killed in car crashes...no telling who could not make it to the store that day because they died on the way there...

But it is a silly argument pulling cases from several years, spread around the whole country to make an argument as to why the normal person (who should not own a water pistol in many cases) needs a supersized magazine. Dieing in a car crash or a house fire are probably much more real and pressing than being shot by the wayward crazy or even a stray bullet in a bad neighborhood! Heck, even a city of a population of roughly 1.2 million like Birmingham, Al, the states largest city only averages around below100 homicides every year.

Using the extreme cases to justify 'normal' is silly.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> But it is a silly argument pulling cases from several years, spread around the whole country to make an argument as to why the normal person (who should not own a water pistol in many cases) needs a supersized magazine. Dieing in a car crash or a house fire are probably much more real and pressing than being shot by the wayward crazy or even a stray bullet in a bad neighborhood! Heck, even a city of a population of roughly 1.2 million like Birmingham, Al, the states largest city only averages around below100 homicides every year.
> 
> Using the extreme cases to justify 'normal' is silly.



So why are you using it to justify taking Hi Cap Magazines from people?  If out of 1.2 million people, there are below 100 homicides every year, and most of those don't occur because of Hi Cap Magazines...

_*What is the problem with Hi Cap Mags? *_


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Ok I can understand that, though that seems like an awful lot of time wasted just to put some bullets in a magazine. another question: does the added weight of 16 or so additional bullets not change the physical feedback of the gun?



Yes.  But if you are shooting what is "normal" for you that is what you are shooting.  Think of it like saying "doesn't you taijutsu change because you have a 6 foot pole in your arms" well, yeah it's probably different than if you didn't have the 6 foot pole in your arms, UNLESS you do your Taijutsu with a 6 foot pole in your arms in which case Taijutsu is taijutsu, if that makes sense.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> So why are you using it to justify taking Hi Cap Magazines from people?  If out of 1.2 million people, there are below 100 homicides every year, and most of those don't occur because of Hi Cap Magazines...
> 
> _*What is the problem with Hi Cap Mags? *_




They are not needed? 
I mean, if you say you _want_ one, because it's like totally freakin awesome to pop 33 rounds into your target t the range, because you can, that's one argument. 
I can see that.
But - as you said - the hi cap mags don't figure in SD, on either side of the balance sheet. 

The scenarios in which one might find the need for one are straight out of the script of a bad Hollywood flic...

However, citing all the maniacs who go off shooting without a reason are exactly the reason why those things should NOT be in circulation.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> They are not needed?


Ipods aren't needed, BAN THEM.
Cell Phones aren't needed, BAN THEM.
Martial arts aren't needed, BAN THEM.
Oh, that guy, over there, the annoying one, he isn't needed, kill him...


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Ipods aren't needed, BAN THEM. *Check*
> Cell Phones aren't needed, BAN THEM. *Check*
> Martial arts aren't needed, BAN THEM. *weeeeeeelllllllll*
> Oh, that guy, over there, the annoying one, he isn't needed, kill him...*I see you met my deadbeat Brother-in-law....*



:lfao:

I think you forgot a few items that needs banning tho


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> However, citing all the maniacs who go off shooting without a reason are exactly the reason why those things should NOT be in circulation.



See, no.  Because that then Validates Big Don's claim which you said isn't valid.

You can either accept that a small random minority of events is catastrophic and needs to be dealt with, therefore the few Self Defense Scenarios Don put forth are Valid, or you can say a small  random minority of events is by no means indicative, in which case there is no reason to ban Hi Cap Mags.

I see no valid reason for you to have your cake and eat it too... sorry.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> well, we get into our cars every day, knowing there are thousands every year being killed in car crashes...no telling who could not make it to the store that day because they died on the way there...
> 
> But it is a silly argument pulling cases from several years, spread around the whole country to make an argument as to why the normal person (who should not own a water pistol in many cases) needs a supersized magazine. Dieing in a car crash or a house fire are probably much more real and pressing than being shot by the wayward crazy or even a stray bullet in a bad neighborhood! Heck, even a city of a population of roughly 1.2 million like Birmingham, Al, the states largest city only averages around below100 homicides every year.
> 
> Using the extreme cases to justify 'normal' is silly.


No, we get in the car and we do what we can to mitigate the risks.  We drive cars with modern safety features like crumple zones and airbags, and we keep the cars in good working order.  We wear our seat belts, and we drive defensively, mindful of the other drivers.  If we're smart, we don't text and we limit phone use while driving, etc.

In the same fashion, we may choose to carry various weapons, including firearms, in accord with the law and our constitutional rights, in order to be prepared for violence and to mitigate that risk.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> No, we get in the car and we do what we can to mitigate the risks.  We drive cars with modern safety features like crumple zones and airbags, and we keep the cars in good working order.  We wear our seat belts, and we drive defensively, mindful of the other drivers.  If we're smart, we don't text and we limit phone use while driving, etc.
> 
> In the same fashion, we may choose to carry various weapons, including firearms, in accord with the law and our constitutional rights, in order to be prepared for violence and to mitigate that risk.




Every year a small town is whiped out on the roads of the US...many more than killed by gun fire...even the war did not cost this many casualties...


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Every year a small town is whiped out on the roads of the US...many more than killed by gun fire...even the war did not cost this many casualties...


Yet no one is clamoring to ban cars, or for that manner, high capacity fuel tanks...


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 8, 2011)

Arguing gun right and bans with people who think banning anything they see as "useless" is to put it bluntly.. like trying to win a piss fight with a skunk...

They do not listen to logic, they can't because if they do stop and think their entire argument falls apart. That's why every logical attempt to show them that having hi-cap mags does nothing to promote crime is countered with the same old argument.. but..but I like my car..I am careful when I drive..and such.
I have dealt with it for years..it gets old, all you can do is shake your head and pray they never run for office. Just leave them alone thinking they somehow changed the world because you will never change their minds.

I am careful with my 30 round mags. I like my 30 round mags.

You saying I can not have them is like me saying you can't have a car.

Well kind of because owing a car is not a right and all, I know that silly Constitution again, just remember it is the same one you run to when someone says God within 20 feet of a school...

It is that simple...really..
Sorry to burst your simple little bubble..


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

jetboatdeath said:


> Arguing gun right and bans with people who think banning anything they see as "useless" is to put it bluntly.. like trying to win a piss fight with a skunk...
> 
> They do not listen to logic, they can't because if they do stop and think their entire argument falls apart. That's why every logical attempt to show them that having hi-cap mags does nothing to promote crime is countered with the same old argument.. but..but I like my car..I am careful when I drive..and such.
> I have dealt with it for years..it gets old, all you can do is shake your head and pray they never run for office. Just leave them alone thinking they somehow changed the world because you will never change their minds.
> ...



Ah, no.

They don't do nothing, neither for nor against crime. But they are - with the exception of army and maybe cops simply not needed.

Having them and enjoying them is a different matter, as long as you empty them on an inanimate target.

However...
bad poop happens...


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Yet no one is clamoring to ban cars, or for that manner, high capacity fuel tanks...




Well, thank you, I suppose, though you are turning this argument on me.

But there you have it. You can't live your life with the 'what if's' be that gun man or accident, though the latter is more likely to affect you in your life time.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 8, 2011)

> Ah, no.
> 
> They don't do nothing, neither for nor against crime. But they are -  with the exception of army and maybe cops simply not needed.



All that is needed to complete that well thought out argument is this added line at the end of your post.

BECAUSE I SAID SO..

You have to make it big like that or it lacks all merit.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> But it is a silly argument pulling cases from several years, spread around the whole country to make an argument as to why the normal person (who should not own a water pistol in many cases) needs a supersized magazine. Dieing in a car crash or a house fire are probably much more real and pressing than being shot by the wayward crazy or even a stray bullet in a bad neighborhood! Heck, even a city of a population of roughly 1.2 million like Birmingham, Al, the states largest city only averages around below100 homicides every year.
> 
> Using the extreme cases to justify 'normal' is silly.


 
Get your arguments straight.  

My bringing up of mass casualty incidents directly related to your comment that if a person finds themselves in on, then they made some prior poor decisions.  The only thing those people did "wrong" was go about their everyday normal routine, such as going to school, work, and eat.  It had nothing to do with hi-cap magazines at all, but your statement regarding decisions.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Points to ponder though:
> Putting those large magazines into the hands of the general public also puts them in hands of the gun afisionado who might snap under stress at any time. Bad enough to have somebody go postal with the normal amount of rounds. (not to mention you can have a lot of those....if the aggressor shooter can quickly reload, the SD shooter should be able to as well, no?)


 
It also puts them into the hands of law abiding citizens who may need all of those rounds to stop an assailant.

Some questions though:  What is the "normal amount of rounds"?  At what capacity would you limit magazine capacity? 



> The average gun owner does not practice shooting. Not on a regular basis as one should when you deem a gun a valid means of SD.


 
What's your point?  

Actually, I would tell you that "practicing shooting" does little to prepare you for combat, which is what a gunfight is.  Add stress, adrenaline, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of bowel control and you have a really f'd up day.  

They may actually need those rounds to defend themselves.



> The distance between the shooter and the target can be closed rather quickly by the determined. I forgot the exact numbers, but they were astonishingly small. Add to that the miss rate of _trained_ shooters like cops....The chances of an amateur getting off 33 rounds and doing more than shooting holes into the air (and maybe bystanders) are on the remote side.


 
You don't know that.  In fact, I would ventrue to argue that most "shooters" have more practice and accuracy ability then most cops.  Go to an IPSC match and see for yourself.



> Then, should the unimaginable have happened and you have been separated from your gun you get to look down the barrel of a weapon you outfitted with many more bullets than is needed to kill you.


 
Then, you utilize the capacity of your magazine to take out the bad guy.  We can play what if's all day.  



> The logistics for the average person to keep a gun for SD purposes is staggering. Let alone a supersized one.


 
Glock: $580 (comes with two magazines)
Ammunition: $20 for a box of 50 9mm, more for larger calibers  
Gun lock (a legal requirement in california) $15 

I'm not seeing the staggering logistical cost here. 



> Now, I let you get back to your movie fantasies about standing in a hail of lead and dropping 20 bad guys with your trusty six shooter....


 
Have you been involved in a shooting or shooting investigation?  If not, by what basis do you make any statment regarding actual shootings?


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Get your arguments straight.
> 
> My bringing up of mass casualty incidents directly related to your comment that if a person finds themselves in on, then they made some prior poor decisions.  The only thing those people did "wrong" was go about their everyday normal routine, such as going to school, work, and eat.  It had nothing to do with hi-cap magazines at all, but your statement regarding decisions.




Well, going about your normal routine is the point, no?

So if you follow that trail, you are many times more likely to be killed in a car wreck than some random shoot out. size of the magazine not withstanding...

So, as per your argument one case every few years trumps a small town every year...(yep, pretty steady, plus minus a few thousand, the casualties of traffic accidents are around the 30k every year...not counting the injured ones)


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Ah, no.
> 
> They don't do nothing, neither for nor against crime. But they are - with the exception of army and maybe cops simply not needed.
> 
> ...


 
Here's a question:  Are you for the banning of hi-cap gun magazines?


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Here's a question:  Are you for the banning of hi-cap gun magazines?




I think there is not need for them.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think there is not need for them.


 
That didn't answer the question, unless you are answering by omisson?


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That didn't answer the question, unless you are answering by omisson?




They are like little red sports cars.
Compensating for something, utterly useless and fun to have.


Let me rephrase that: not needed...

Other than that. <shrug>

I just don't see the argument that if civilians had those things for SD so and so would not have happened. I think guns as SD are a myth. Only a small percentage of the population (again, NOT in the armed forces or cops) have a marginal need for them. 
Guns are dangerous. Not because they go boom and kill stuff, but because the image they project.
There is no such thing as a safe gun.
You have a loaded gun you can shoot yourself in the foot, you have an unloaded one you might get shot by some scaredy cat.
You carry one with you you feel protected, even if you are not trained or qualified. That might lead you to doing things you would not do if you didn't count on the 'protective' qualities of your gun.

The Arizona shooter should serve as an inspiration to rethink if our preconcieved notions are actually correct. Should he be made the poster boy for outlawing those mags? No. But he is the example of why those things really have no business in the hands of regular people. 

So if you really want to have one (or two, or many) of these things, register for them like you do for owning a gun. And even that does not prevent the crazies from snapping. 

Do I think they need to be outlawed you asked.
Ok, I tell you: I honestly seriously don't care.
but it does not keep me from laughing my behind off reading those silly arguments for them. Right out of the scripts of bad movies and NRA pamphlets.

(a side note: I don't mind the negative rep, but at least who ever you are, have the guts to sign it, considering this is an MA forum I have never seen this many cowards.)


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 9, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Yes.  But if you are shooting what is "normal" for you that is what you are shooting.  Think of it like saying "doesn't you taijutsu change because you have a 6 foot pole in your arms" well, yeah it's probably different than if you didn't have the 6 foot pole in your arms, UNLESS you do your Taijutsu with a 6 foot pole in your arms in which case Taijutsu is taijutsu, if that makes sense.



Yes, I see. If you are always using a 30 bullet magazine, then it is not an issue.

Isn't such a long magazine hard to carry concealed?
I was told that a concealed weapon should be actually concealed (not readily apparent).
Carrying it on you with that added stump sticking out is going to be hard to hide I guess.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 9, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Yes, I see. If you are always using a 30 bullet magazine, then it is not an issue.
> 
> Isn't such a long magazine hard to carry concealed?
> I was told that a concealed weapon should be actually concealed (not readily apparent).
> Carrying it on you with that added stump sticking out is going to be hard to hide I guess.


Very. Somewhere up the thread it was mentioned that the Tucson shooter had bundled something around it.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 9, 2011)

> Right out of the scripts of bad movies and NRA pamphlets.


 
LOL if you only knew what I think of the NRA...
Or what they think of me for that matter..

You still seem to be among the people who don't understand that a hi cap mag is not going to make you go nuts.
It is the same thing as a pen, in fact put a pen and a hi cap mag on the desk next to each other and see what one jumps up and kills you first..don't hold your breath however..
I could kill someone just fine with a 16oz claw hammer, so we must outlaw 20oz claw hammers?
That is your line of logic here.

As I said before and it has been proven by the dodging of the questions asked of you this is pointless you can not see simple logic...


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2011)

jetboatdeath said:


> LOL if you only knew what I think of the NRA...
> Or what they think of me for that matter..
> 
> You still seem to be among the people who don't understand that a hi cap mag is not going to make you go nuts.
> ...




Ignorance is bliss, but it should hurt as well...

Try hammering a nail in with a gun...

yes, you can be a serial killer with a claw hammer, but I don't think you can off 6 people in a public space with it.

And as far as I see it, there is NO logic to this question because the arguments on both sides of the issue are pointless and stupid.

(FWIW, when I was in middle school we had a very popular student teacher who killed a girl our age with a hammer...)


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think there is not need for them.


 Youd be wrong then.  During a shooting situation with the stress involved even highly trained shooters can only expect a 30% hit rate.  Now lets look at a shooting situation Ive been in.  I shot a small man about 5'6 135 pounds in his 40's not high only slightly drunk.  I shot him 5 times all 5 hit center mass in his heart.  He still was able to drop his gun stare at me for about 5 seconds turn and walk from his kitchen into his living room before he fell dead.  Had he not dropped the gun I would have fired more then 5 rounds but thats all I needed to end the threat. Had he decided to keep fighting he had 15 to 20 seconds of fight time in him from my first shot alot of bad stuff can happen to me in that time.  I also shoot monthly at a minimum and sometimes weekly so I was 100% in that shooting but I was also only 7 to 9 feet away.  I as an officer carry 46 rounds on me on my belt and in my gun and another 200 in my car.  
    So now put the gun in my wifes hands in our home and an armed intruder enters our house.  She had a standard 15 round mag she shoots and out of 15 rounds only hits the guy 2 or 4 times now hes pissed and still coming.  Now she need to try to find another mag and reload and shoot somemore or if she had 15 more rounds in the gun she can just keep shooting until he gets the point and dies or runs away. I see a HUGE need for 30+ round mags for home defense.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> * I think guns as SD are a myth. Only a small percentage of the population (again, NOT in the armed forces or cops) have a marginal need for them*.
> Guns are dangerous. Not because they go boom and kill stuff, but because the image they project.
> There is no such thing as a safe gun.


 
I realize that the main topic of this thread is high capacity magazines, not firearms themselves. So let me appologize for taking a small aside here. And if you think I`m taking what you say too far out of context please let me know. 

I would modify what you said to "there is no such thing as a *100%* safe gun". Just like there`s no such thing as a 100% safe car, swimming pool, power tool or BBQ grill. They are all very dangerous if used irresponsibly.

But are you aware that it`s been shown time and time again that in the USA firearms are used far more often to stop a crime in progress than to commit crimes? Or that medical records show you`re far more likely to survive being shot with a handgun than you are to survive being stabbed with a knife?

I suppose I can see your point (if I understand it correctly) that a gun can 'project an image' to the person carrying it, making them over confident and causing them to take risks they otherwise wouldn`t. But your comment about images also reminds me of the time I took a small pen knife out of my pocket in class to open a box of textbooks at my first Japanese JR high. The kids freaked out about the 2" blade and said "You could kill someone with that". When I asked them how many of thier mothers had a kitchen knife 10" or longer at home every one of them raise thier hands. None of them were afraid of their mothers, but what I saw as a tool for opening boxes, cutting tape and slicing fruit had an image to them as a gangster`s weapon. Objects are just that. They have no feelings, or intentions for either good or evil.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 9, 2011)

As I get older I find myself becoming more and more a Libertarian. It really annoys me when someone tries to tell me what I should be allowed to have based on my needs. Nobody "needs" top of the line digital stereo equipment, cars that go over the posted speed limits, or Hi Def TVs. They don`t interest me in the least, but if other people want them I say go for it. I would never pay 4-5$ for a cup of coffee or try to force anyone else to do so., but I wouldn`t try to outlaw them because I don`t see the need for them either. Just stikes me as an odd type of mind that would feel they had to.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 9, 2011)

> Try hammering a nail in with a gun...



Try shooting something with a hammer...
Again you keep proving my point...


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> Try hammering a nail in with a gun...


 
Use an M-1 for that sometimes....hehehe.




granfire said:


> yes, you can be a serial killer with a claw hammer, but I don't think you can off 6 people in a public space with it.


 
Probably just a little bit slower than he did with a pistol, if they're just standing there like that, anyway.....

What really gets me is how the price of those "happy sticks" went up as soon as the shooting occured. They're really hard to get, now, for fear of the government banning them,...

Never mind that my XD holds 21 rounds of 9mm.Or that my .45s hold 15 rounds.Or that if it weren't such a silly piece of ****, I could get a MAC-10 that holds 30 rounds of .45 ammo. We must get rid of 30 round magazines, because they're simply unreasonable.....:lfao:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 10, 2011)

granfire said:


> > They are like little red sports cars.
> > Compensating for something, utterly useless and fun to have.
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## Carol (Feb 10, 2011)

David43515 said:


> As I get older I find myself becoming more and more a Libertarian. It really annoys me when someone tries to tell me what I should be allowed to have based on my needs. Nobody "needs" top of the line digital stereo equipment, cars that go over the posted speed limits, or Hi Def TVs. They don`t interest me in the least, but if other people want them I say go for it. I would never pay 4-5$ for a cup of coffee or try to force anyone else to do so., but I wouldn`t try to outlaw them because I don`t see the need for them either. Just stikes me as an odd type of mind that would feel they had to.



But its a fairly common sentiment, isn't it?    You don't NEED an SUV. You don't NEED to get a tattoo.  You don't NEED to eat meat.  You don't NEED those medications.  Its a combative form of speech, designed to elicit a response.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 10, 2011)

There are many situations out there where you may very well NEED a gun. Thats the thing the grabbers like to ignore.

I still find it interesting that the cops are arguing FOR gun ownership and its need against non-LE here. I thought that WE were the gun grabbing...only WE deserve guns...jackboots in the room.


----------



## Carol (Feb 10, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> There are many situations out there where you may very well NEED a gun. Thats the thing the grabbers like to ignore.
> 
> I still find it interesting that the cops are arguing FOR gun ownership and its need against non-LE here. I thought that WE were the gun grabbing...only WE deserve guns...jackboots in the room.



You folks in LE are among the biggest allies we non-LE have.  Your ability to get -- and keep! -- a job depends on your ability to obtain and then maintain a license to carry, does it not?  I've heard stories the City of Boston (right is essentially denied) that make me cringe.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> There are many situations out there where you may very well NEED a gun. Thats the thing the grabbers like to ignore.
> 
> I still find it interesting that the cops are arguing FOR gun ownership and its need against non-LE here. I thought that WE were the gun grabbing...only WE deserve guns...jackboots in the room.


 Its because WE know 9 out of 10 times WE show up too late to help THEM when they need us, so they better be ready to help THEMSELVES. But dont worry non-gun owners I will do my best to be compassionate when I deliver the notification to your family and ill try really hard to catch the person that did it to YOU.
Im for everyone to have guns, Im for everyone to carry guns in public, I dont even want them concealed, wear them open and proud so the bad guys know which people not to attack.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2011)

Carol said:


> You folks in LE are among the biggest allies we non-LE have. Your ability to get -- and keep! -- a job depends on your ability to obtain and then maintain a license to carry, does it not? I've heard stories the City of Boston (right is essentially denied) that make me cringe.


 Thats whats kinda funny in some anti-gun states there are less requirements to become a cop then to apply for a concealed carry permit.


----------



## Carol (Feb 10, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats whats kinda funny in some anti-gun states there are less requirements to become a cop then to apply for a concealed carry permit.



Its even stranger when Mayor Menino wrings his hands in lament of the the continued exodus of the middle class from the city.  Give ordinary folks enough reason to not live there and...


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2011)

Carol said:


> Its even stranger when Mayor Menino wrings his hands in lament of the the continued exodus of the middle class from the city. Give ordinary folks enough reason to not live there and...


 Its sad I have not been to Boston in years but I always thought it was a cool city


----------



## Carol (Feb 10, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Its sad I have not been to Boston in years but I always thought it was a cool city



Its a cool city...lived there for 7 years. Great area overall, and north of the border (NH) is quite friendly to self-defense interests.  We just repealed our knife carry laws.  Carry whatever you want, however you want to carry it...but if a person is stupid about what they do with them, they could rack up enough felony charges for the DA to try 'em high and let 'em fry.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 11, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Yes, I see. If you are always using a 30 bullet magazine, then it is not an issue.
> 
> Isn't such a long magazine hard to carry concealed?
> I was told that a concealed weapon should be actually concealed (not readily apparent).
> Carrying it on you with that added stump sticking out is going to be hard to hide I guess.



Yep.  But Illinois doesn't allow any carry so it isn't an issue for me.  For Home defense I'd use a shotgun anyhow, and it also has a hi-cap mag, so...


----------



## elder999 (Feb 12, 2011)

*Glock 18 (33 Round Capacity) Magazine*



OneSource Price: *SOLD OUT *

*OUT OF STOCK - CALL FOR AVAILABILITY*
Item Number: GLK-18-MAG

*Glock 18, 33 Round High Capacity Magazine**. This is the IN-famous 33 round magazine. **Fits and functions in all Glock 9mm pistols. We call them "Happy Sticks" and find them essential for home/business defense. One is not enough, stock up now. Not only that, but the mere act of owning one will totally upset any liberal around you. **Order now before the price unavoidably goes up and vendors run out of magazines.* 

*Factory Glock Magazine with no LE markings*

(BTW, I'd have no problem concealing a Glock-_or two_-with these, especially this time of year, even in Tuscon.)


----------



## Big Don (Feb 12, 2011)

elder999 said:


> *Glock 18 (33 Round Capacity) Magazine*
> 
> 
> 
> * Not only that, but the mere act of owning one will totally upset any liberal around you. *


*Hahahaha!*


> (BTW, I'd have no problem concealing a Glock-_or two_-with these, especially this time of year, even in Tuscon.)


But, could you do that in August?


----------



## granfire (Feb 13, 2011)

The women would jump him!
:lfao:


----------



## Big Don (Feb 13, 2011)

granfire said:


> The women would jump him!
> :lfao:


Not because of his weapon...


----------

