Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-trafficking case in Charlotte may have exposed loopholes in gun laws (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, it doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

    And the evidence bears that out.  I'm unaware of these "several other problems" you mentioned.

    There's no selfishness here.  A seven round limit is three double taps and a single round.  So what?  You require gun owners to change magazines after engaging a single intruder?  In close quarters?  No, it's selfishness on the part of the gun control lobby, because its sole motivation is to spite gun owners.

    •  Maybe you shouldn't have referenced (0+ / 0-)

      VaTech then if you're unaware of the plethora other issues.

      Yes, there is. As a gun owner, you have a responsibility not to suck at guns. And if you can't fight off an intruder with 7 rounds, get another gun or learn how to change a clip really fast.

      7 was a stupid number; I think 8 would've required a lot less guns be modified.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:41:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe you should raise those other issues. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kentucky Kid

        As far as I'm concerned, I'm very well informed of the circumstances behind the VA Tech incident.

        If I can't fight off an intruder with 7 rounds, why should law enforcement get to carry standard mags and carry around spares?

        •  Because law enforcement has to be able (0+ / 0-)

          to engage multiple people at times.

          The VT incident exposed issues with campus security protocols, mental health as part of background checks, a failure of Tech to deal with an obviously disturbed individual on its campus, and you could also argue it brings up again whether or not public college campuses can or should ban firearms beyond what is currently allowed by state law. All of which we could get enough consensus on to help.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:57:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And civilians don't? (0+ / 0-)

            I hope I don't have to comment on the wisdom of planning for the best case scenario.

            Oh, I thought you were referring to mishaps that rendered moot Seung Hui Cho's limited magazine capacity.

            •  I don't believe civilians do, no. (0+ / 0-)

              There are many more civilians than police. So you're only talking about one-person vigilantism against an oppressive armed horde of ::insert badguys here::.

              I don't think it's a violation of the 2nd amendment, on the individual right to keep and bear arms, to not be able to shoot 20 people before changing the magazine.

              Cho had lots of guns and planned his attack so he could trap people.

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:06:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Cho had two pistols, and seventeen magazines. (0+ / 0-)

                And there's no indication that he planned anything other than acquiring weapons.  He went after targets of opportunity after his first victim.

                I'm still not following you on the ratio.

                Magazine limits may not be a violation of the Second Amendment.  That issue needs to be addressed by the courts.  But I'll say if the courts do find that the state has to tread carefully before impinging on a citizen's capacity to defend himself, then magazine limits--at least as you envision them--may truly be suspect.  A ban on 100 round drums may survive under any circumstances, though I would still consider their banning an immaterial and spiteful act unrelated to security and safety.

                Also, if you're not taking fire--as is too often the case with these monsters--what does it matter if you have to change magazines?  Seung Hui Cho did.  In any case, within a few years the issue of magazines will be moot.  Anyone who wants one will be able to DIY.

      •  and note (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton, lyvwyr101

        that cop's even with their extensive firearm training have a consistent 17% record of shooting criminals. Now ask yourself this - if a cop can't do much better than 17%, then how good would you be in an assault situation? Would you miss all of your shots and, in the process spray the walls, maybe  shoot through walls, maybe hit an innocent bystander, with your bullets? Are you so well trained that you can dive for cover and hit a moving target at the same time? So if you have an assault rifle, and extended magazine, etc., face this fact: All you are going to do is to risk killing innocent people, or destroying property, by having the ability it spray more bullets. You want a defensive weapon? get a pump shotgun.

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:16:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The extension of the right to outside the home (0+ / 0-)

          is the biggest reason I think we should take a strong look at clip and magazine sizes. If you want to blast your home to smithereens, be my guest, but not in public.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:34:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site