patrick.net

Yep. 357 seems ideal for home defense. No compressed springs issue. Easy to load and unload. No pulling slide. Robust and reliable. Jam free.

Call it Crazy says

OK, let's see where this fits.... Dianne Feinstein is proposing limiting high capacity 30 round magazines and says the maximum amount should be 10 rounds.

So, is this emotion or logic??

If you are shot with a 10 round magazine, are you only 1/3 dead compared to being shot with a 30 round mag.??

See, 100% Emotion and 0% Logic....

I agree, that was just dumb, to appease the liberal base. Now we all know a very easy way to get around this restriction, so criminals do it anyway (thought that may be a shock to the naive liberals out there), while honest people who use their firearms legally are stuck reloading every 10.

leo707 says

I see your point, but it is all about reload times. The ability to shoot 10 people or 30 people without having to reload.

Leo, criminals don't care if law says carry only 10 round mags. It does in CA, and I doubt criminals care. You and I might care, we have to, since we are law abiding. Criminals don't and won't.

Any inadequately enforce dlaw serves only to give criminals an advantage.

This applies to firearms, drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

Call it Crazy says

leo707 says

Even a practiced person can take a few seconds to reload, and that is enough time for them to be tackled or people to get away.

Looking at this past shooting, do you logically think that the few seconds it takes to change a magazine would have made any difference when this guy is standing in a doorway of a class room.

Multiple 10 round mags would have caused just as much death, as I doubt a 7 year old kid or a teacher would have tried to rush him between mag reloads.

We never will know, but shooters at mass shootings in the past have been tackled, and that is much easier to do during a reload.

FortWayne says

leo707 says

I see your point, but it is all about reload times. The ability to shoot 10 people or 30 people without having to reload.

Leo, criminals don't care if law says carry only 10 round mags. It does in CA, and I doubt criminals care. You and I might care, we have to, since we are law abiding. Criminals don't and won't.

Right, and that is why I say...
leo707 says

The problem is that there are soooo many high capacity magazines floating around now I doubt a ban would have any impact for decades.

I agree that even after the high capacity mags work their way out of the hands of law abiding citizens "common" criminals would still have access.

I think we need to remember though that the point of the high capacity ban is not to prevent your neighborhood mugger (who sometimes just use airsoft guns) from having a 15 round mag. The point is to put a dent in the damage that a mass shooter can do. The people who commit the mass shootings are generally not criminals in that they have connections to the criminal underworld. Often times the source of their guns is theft from a law abiding friend or relative. In a world where only criminals have high capacity magazines these mentally ill people just don't have the right connections to get them.

leo707 says

I agree that even after the high capacity mags work their way out of the hands of law abiding citizens "common" criminals would still have access.

Leo it is not because those are old magazines laying around, you can still make and sell high capacity magazines today. You just can't "use them", provided you want to obey the law.

leo707 says

In a world where only criminals have high capacity magazines these mentally ill people just don't have the right connections to get them.

Anyone can buy them today.

FortWayne says

while honest people who use their firearms legally are stuck reloading every 10.

What reasonable and legal use of a gun requires more than 10 rounds in one clip?

kunal says

FortWayne says

while honest people who use their firearms legally are stuck reloading every 10.

What reasonable and legal use of a gun requires more than 10 rounds in one clip?

What reasonable and legal use requires a car that can go faster than 65 MPH?

FortWayne says

leo707 says

I agree that even after the high capacity mags work their way out of the hands of law abiding citizens "common" criminals would still have access.

Leo it is not because those are old magazines laying around, you can still make and sell high capacity magazines today. You just can't "use them", provided you want to obey the law.

?
In California use is not banned, but all the other things you mentioned are.
?
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

FortWayne says

What reasonable and legal use requires a car that can go faster than 65 MPH?

Well, the highest legal speed limit in the US is 85...maybe another 5/mph after than for passing. I would say that there is no reasonable or legal use for a car to go over 90/mph.

CaptainShuddup says

One time use television off button, or commonly known as the Elvis remote.

lol

CaptainShuddup says

One time use television off button, or commonly known as the Elvis remote.

I thought that was the Homer Simpson remote.

leo707 says

I thought that was the Homer Simpson remote.

NO but he was the first to use a gun to open beer bottles.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

Common are you going to leave me hanging, that loophole is...?

You can sell them disassembled as rebuild kit for a pre-ban magazine already owned by buyer. This way the liability is shifted from seller to buyer: if latter does not in fact have pre-ban magazines he'll be assembling hi-cap mag, which is no-no.

Hmmmm...the assembly is still illegal. But it does seem to be a loophole in order to sell the high capacity mags. Somewhat useless for law abiding citizens. However, I suppose that if I had not already bought a bunch of mags before the ban I might get a couple kits to throw into the Cannibal Anarchy-day emergency kit.

leo707 says

Hmmmm...the assembly is still illegal. But it does seem to be a loophole in order to sell the high capacity mags. Somewhat useless for law abiding citizens. However, I suppose that if I had not already bought a bunch of mags before the ban I might get a couple kits to throw into the Cannibal Anarchy-day emergency kit.

Liberals, with good intentions of course, always do and will only disarm only law abiding citizens. And thank you for stating that in your own ways.

FortWayne says

What reasonable and legal use requires a car that can go faster than 65 MPH?

If you are caught going over the speed limit, in your e.g. 65 you get cited/ticketed etc.

Whats your point?

And my original question stands, when does one need more than 10 rounds in a clip?

FortWayne says

Liberals, with good intentions of course, always do and will only disarm only law abiding citizens. And thank you for stating that in your own ways.

A magazine capacity limit at 10 rounds is hardly disarming anyone.

Are you suggesting that we have zero regulation in terms of guns?

This is a thread about bad gun analogies, so to tie this comment into that I gotta say that I disagree that the car analogy is a "bad" one. I think that the car analogy for guns is right on. Cars are not "necessary"; they are extremely dangerous. It is silly that we ignore something as dangerous as cars (swimming pools to), and focus so much effort on guns if we are trying to maximize the prevention of deaths.

However, recognizing that cars are dangerous do we ban them? No, but we do restrict who can use cars (we have different licensing for different types of vehicles), we have regulation on how they are built, etc. All in order to try and reduce the death and misuse of cars.

Hell, people can be more scrutinized when adopting a dog than when buying a gun.

Are, guns not also dangerous?

kunal says

And my original question stands, when does one need more than 10 rounds in a clip?

I for one find my greater than 10-round clips very useful at the range. They allow me to maximize my shooting time without having to reload.

In very rare occasions they would be useful in self-defense situations.

Suburban Gal says

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed it or not, but the latter is a comment a lot of pro-firearm people people seem to like repeating over and over again in these kinds of debates with anti-gun people.

They seem to like pretending that they hold a logical position, even though most of it is based on a belief that they could prevail against the federal government in an armed uprising, something that has never happened in the entire history of the United States, and has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening in the future.

Homeboy says

They seem to like pretending that they hold a logical position, even though most of it is based on a belief that they could prevail against the federal government in an armed uprising,

What do you think the armed uprising in Syria started with? Kitchen knives and tire irons?

Homeboy says

something that has never happened in the entire history of the United States, and has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening in the future.

In the current state of things, sure, but the US is not some special magical place immune to human nature and failings; and with its sociopolitical status frozen in time, never to change.

leo707 says

Hell, people can be more scrutinized when adopting a dog than when buying a gun.

For that matter, where are the child bearing licenses?

IDDQD says

You forgetting a 800 lbs gorilla in the room: adopting a dog (driving a car, flying an airplane) are not rights per US Constitution. Owning guns is. Any analogy that tries to omit this fact will be lacking.

I disagree, just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

I think that any analogy thats logical conclusion is a ban is a bad analogy.

FortWayne says

kunal says

FortWayne says

while honest people who use their firearms legally are stuck reloading every 10.

What reasonable and legal use of a gun requires more than 10 rounds in one clip?

What reasonable and legal use requires a car that can go faster than 65 MPH?

That's one of the best bad gun analogies yet. Thanks for posting. :D

FortWayne says

Liberals, with good intentions of course, always do and will only disarm only law abiding citizens. And thank you for stating that in your own ways.

As far as I know, Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding citizen who legally purchased the high-capacity magazines that are currently allowed. How did that help her?

IDDQD says

You forgetting a 800 lbs gorilla in the room: adopting a dog (driving a car, flying an airplane) are not rights per US Constitution. Owning guns is. Any analogy that tries to omit this fact will be lacking.

Try exercising your First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room. See where that gets you.

leo707 says

I disagree, just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

This is why Liberals scare me.
While there are valid points to curb gun ownership, if we're going to trounce our constitutional rights in the process 'ala Ronald Regan, HW Bush and GW Bush, I'd rather take my chances with the fucking Adam Lanza's.
At least being killed by their bullshit is greater odds than being struck by lightening.
Using news events as an excuse to whittle down our constitutional rights, will make short work of all of our rights quickly guaranteed.

leo707 says

Well, the highest legal speed limit in the US is 85...maybe another 5/mph after than for passing. I would say that there is no reasonable or legal use for a car to go over 90/mph.

For a car to have a strong power curve at the maximum speed limit, it would have the unintended consequence of being able to go faster than that. A car that craps out at 66 mph wouldn't be much use, especially going up hills, and would probably me MORE dangerous than a car with sufficient power.

CaptainShuddup says

if we're going to trounce our constitutional rights in the process

You need to read my post right above yours, and then consider why you are wrong to believe constitutional rights are absolute in every situation.

CaptainShuddup says

leo707 says

I disagree, just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

This is why Liberals scare me.

I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying that as long as it is written into the constitution that anyone should be able to do it anytime anywhere?

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Well, the highest legal speed limit in the US is 85...maybe another 5/mph after than for passing. I would say that there is no reasonable or legal use for a car to go over 90/mph.

For a car to have a strong power curve at the maximum speed limit, it would have the unintended consequence of being able to go faster than that. A car that craps out at 66 mph wouldn't be much use, especially going up hills, and would probably me MORE dangerous than a car with sufficient power.

The car's computer should be able to manage the power while limiting your to 66/mph if that was the barrier, but I would still advocate for a 90/mph limit.

Homeboy says

You need to read my post right above yours, and then consider why you are wrong to believe constitutional rights are absolute in every situation.

OK will do...

Homeboy says

Try exercising your First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room. See where that gets you.

If there was indeed a Fire nothing would happen.
If there was NOT a Fire, then you would be liable for any damage or injuries your stunt may have caused.
Look I'd be the first one to make pranks just as serious as a crime as fraud. They have the same motive, illegally gaining something through shameless self promotions.

leo707 says

I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying that as long as it is written into the constitution that anyone should be able to do it anytime anywhere?

The Constitution isn't a blanket, people have the right to bare Arms.
Do I? NO I despise guns and don't want them anywhere around. My brother is required by his job description to be armed at all times. He's not allowed in my house, unless he breaks the rules. Which he's to much of a "by the book" straight shooter for that, so he's never been back to my house since I threw him out on Thanksgiving 2005.
How ever people do have the right to bare Arms, it's in our constitution.
They don't have the right to use their weapons how ever they want or bring those weapons every where they want.
It just means the Government can't knock on your door and tell you, "you can't have a gun".
It doesn't mean you get to shoot your gun anywhere or anyway you want.

The problems with the Constitution isn't what's written in it.
What is written is rules for the Government to play by.
That doesn't mean, that you as individual don't have your own constitutionality.
You don't have freedom of speech in my house. acceptable
You can't bring a gun in my house. acceptable
This is my house if you don't like the rules then get the Eph out(in regard to the to peruse happiness) acceptable
Where it gets ugly is when people want to rework the constitution to work they way they exercise their house rules to impose them on everyone.

In other words it's a free country, you can do what ever you want. Just not in my(your) house.

CaptainShuddup says

How ever people do have the right to bare Arms, it's in our constitution.

Yes.

CaptainShuddup says

It just means the Government can't knock on your door and tell you, "you can't have a gun".

My "scary" "liberal" comment did not say that.

CaptainShuddup says

They don't have the right to use their weapons how ever they want or bring those weapons every where they want...
It doesn't mean you get to shoot your gun anywhere or anyway you want.

Sounds like a scary liberal comment...

leo707 says

just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

CaptainShuddup says

What is written is rules for the Government to play by.
That doesn't mean, that you as individual don't have your own constitutionality.
You don't have freedom of speech in my house. acceptable
You can't bring a gun in my house. acceptable
This is my house if you don't like the rules then get the Eph out(in regard to the to peruse happiness) acceptable

Wow, you really have very little understanding of the constitution don't you. You do realize that when someone walks through your door you don't have carte blanche to violate their constitutional rights? right?

You're talking to the guy in the "Stand your ground" state.

CaptainShuddup says

You're talking to the guy in the "Stand your ground" state.

Oh, so if you find out that a guest of yours has a gun in your house. Then if they refuse to leave, they can legally shoot you if you try and force them out.

IDDQD says

You forgetting a 800 lbs gorilla in the room: adopting a dog (driving a car, flying an airplane) are not rights per US Constitution. Owning guns is. Any analogy that tries to omit this fact will be lacking.

No, its not. You are not part of any militia defending yourself against the federal government.

CaptainShuddup says

Homeboy says

Try exercising your First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room. See where that gets you.

If there was indeed a Fire nothing would happen.
If there was NOT a Fire, then you would be liable for any damage or injuries your stunt may have caused.
Look I'd be the first one to make pranks just as serious as a crime as fraud. They have the same motive, illegally gaining something through shameless self promotions.

You are missing the point by so much, that the light from the point would take 10,000 years to reach you.