Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[Ranb]

High capacity magazines have only one purpose.....They have no use in any sporting sport.

You do not seem to be familar with shooting sports. Maybe you should learn a bit about them, or even attend a shooting event to learn how much a standard or high capacity (7-20 rounds) magazine can benefit the contestant compared to something only holding 5-6 rounds.

Post this fact you have made up on http://www.thehighroad.org or another gun forum. I don't think there will any shortage of people there who will laugh at you.

Ranb

 

[applecorped]

Laughing at people is very helpful.

 

[Cicero]

Gee, more people practicing for the upcoming zombie invasion.

Having the shooters sit on a toilet before starting should give you a clue that this is not a serious sport.

I see. You acknowledge it is a sport, just not serious enough for your refined tastes. Still, no dead bodies littered around the shooters.

No doubt you won't retract your benighted comment about high capacity magazines, because of you did, you would loose credibility with the hysterical anti-firearm contingent. Keep up the good work.

 

[Cicero]

Laughing at people is very helpful.

But posting crap about how firearm accessories are evil is constructive? Kestrel's "zoombie invasion" retort speaks volumes about his state of mind.

 

[luchog]

I'm forced to choose Planet X, since there isn't an option for those who don't identify with either the Liberal or Conservative crowds.

 

[Cicero]

I'm forced to choose Planet X, since there isn't an option for those who don't identify with either the Liberal or Conservative crowds.

So what's your pleasure?

Anarchist Pogo Party
Communist Party
Christian Centre Party
Citizens Make Politics
Civil Rights Movement Solidarity
Ecological Democratic Party
Labour Party
Green Party
Sinn Féin
Progressive Democrats
Independents
Socialist Party
Workers Party
Free Voters
Marxist Leninist Party
Social Equality Party
Royalists

 

[applecorped]

So what's your pleasure?

Anarchist Pogo Party
Communist Party
Christian Centre Party
Citizens Make Politics
Civil Rights Movement Solidarity
Ecological Democratic Party
Labour Party
Green Party
Sinn Féin
Progressive Democrats
Independents
Socialist Party
Workers Party
Free Voters
Marxist Leninist Party
Social Equality Party
Royalists

I love you.

 

[Ranb]

Laughing at people is very helpful.

It could be. Kestrel is not stupid, but he made the decision to make an obviously untrue statement on this forum which is too easy to disprove. If he repeats the same claim on a gun forum, then it is possible that he will be called a liar or a bigot. Or maybe someone will think he is merely ignorant and try to educate him by directing him to this link; http://www.ipsc.org/ . Or maybe they would just laugh at him. If Kestrel knows he is being foolish for trying to pass off an obvious untruth, then he might be motivated to be more careful in the future.

Ranb

 

[gdnp]

Gee, more people practicing for the upcoming zombie invasion.

Having the shooters sit on a toilet before starting should give you a clue that this is not a serious sport.

Looks like the redneck olympics.

 

[gdnp]

No doubt you won't retract your benighted comment about high capacity magazines, because of you did, you would loose credibility with the hysterical anti-firearm contingent. Keep up the good work.

I'm not sure which is more dangerous: Cicero with a gun, or Cicero with a thesaurus.

 

[Kestrel]

You do not seem to be familar with shooting sports. Maybe you should learn a bit about them, or even attend a shooting event to learn how much a standard or high capacity (7-20 rounds) magazine can benefit the contestant compared to something only holding 5-6 rounds.

Post this fact you have made up on http://www.thehighroad.org or another gun forum. I don't think there will any shortage of people there who will laugh at you.

Ranb

Were the "sporting events" that require high capacity magazines created before or after the US government put restrictions on high capacity magazines. Was the goal to enhance the sport, or to invent a sporting use for the magazines after the fact?

 

[Ranb]

Were the "sporting events" that require high capacity magazines created before or after the US government put restrictions on high capacity magazines. Was the goal to enhance the sport, or to invent a sporting use for the magazines after the fact?

IPSC has been around since the 70's. The manufacture of new mags for civilian use that held more than ten rounds was banned in the USA from 1994 to 2004. You really think people waited to make so-called high capacity mags until they became a political issue? The browning HP (mag held 13 rounds) was marketed back in the 1930's, long before the "high capacity" hysteria surfaced.

I bet you think the shooting sports aren't really sporting unless those nuts are shooting in the Olympics.

Ranb

 

[Kestrel]

IPSC has been around since the 70's. The manufacture of new mags for civilian use that held more than ten rounds was banned in the USA from 1994 to 2004. You really think people waited to make so-called high capacity mags until they became a political issue? The browning HP (mag held 13 rounds) was marketed back in the 1930's, long before the "high capacity" hysteria surfaced.

I bet you think the shooting sports aren't really sporting unless those nuts are shooting in the Olympics.

Ranb

It appears we have a different definition of what it is to be a sportsman. Do you feel unfairly restricted because the game warden will not let you hunt deer with a 20 round magazine in your rifle?

I am looking for a specific example of a sport shooting event that predates the restrictions on high capacity magazines but required high capacity magazines. Point out an actual example where the 194 change in the law impacted sportsmen.

 

[Kestrel]

It could be. Kestrel is not stupid, but he made the decision to make an obviously untrue statement on this forum which is too easy to disprove. If he repeats the same claim on a gun forum, then it is possible that he will be called a liar or a bigot. Or maybe someone will think he is merely ignorant and try to educate him by directing him to this link; http://www.ipsc.org/ . Or maybe they would just laugh at him. If Kestrel knows he is being foolish for trying to pass off an obvious untruth, then he might be motivated to be more careful in the future.

Ranb

I would have thought you knew something about the rules of evidence inn a debate. A link to a gun forum doesn't constitute evidence. It's as invalid as pointing to an encyclopedia and claiming the answer is there.

It is true that on a gun forum I am likely to be called a liar, a bigot or a long list of terms that are against the forum rules on JREF. Certain segments of the American gun culture seem to think that argument by insult is acceptable.

 

[Ranb]

It appears we have a different definition of what it is to be a sportsman. Do you feel unfairly restricted because the game warden will not let you hunt deer with a 20 round magazine in your rifle?

I am looking for a specific example of a sport shooting event that predates the restrictions on high capacity magazines but required high capacity magazines. Point out an actual example where the 194 change in the law impacted sportsmen.

I appears you have a very narrow view of what constitutes a sportsman. I use a broad definition; a person who is active in sports. Target shooting is a sport. No need to make it so narrow as to avoid the inclusion of anything you feel is not worthy based on your own personal prejudices. I do not feel unfairly restricted because of game warden restrictions on 20 round magazines. There aren't any for big game where I live either.

I already gave you an example, IPSC shooting. While there is no required magazine capacity, except in those events that limited mag capacity, magazines with a large capacity gave the shooters an advantage where allowed. Whether or not you believe me, that sport exists. Can it hurt to do just a bit of research on your own before declaring that "they have no use in any sporting event"?

Here is an actual example. I was prohibited from buying a standard capacity magazine after 1992 in Hawaii after they banned any mag for a pistol greater than ten rounds. In 1994, the feds followed with their own ban on newly manufactured mags of greater than ten round capacity. This made it impossible for me to legally own any new pistol mag greater than ten rounds for IPSC shooting.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I would have thought you knew something about the rules of evidence inn a debate. A link to a gun forum doesn't constitute evidence. It's as invalid as pointing to an encyclopedia and claiming the answer is there.

It is true that on a gun forum I am likely to be called a liar, a bigot or a long list of terms that are against the forum rules on JREF. Certain segments of the American gun culture seem to think that argument by insult is acceptable.

The link I provided to IPSC is much more than a forum. I guess you did not actually look at it. You can also search for info on shooting sports on Wikipedia for example. Did you have a problem finding any information about the Browning HP? Do you need someone to provide a link about that firearm too? Are you so helpless?

So if you are not a liar or a bigot, then what are you? You have shown us that you are making no attempt to do the smallest amount of research to support your “no sporting use” claims. Certain segments of the public such as yourself think it is ok to make ridiculous claims without any supporting evidence at all. Go cry me a river, then come back and post some more insults.

Ranb

 

[Kestrel]

The link I provided to IPSC is much more than a forum. I guess you did not actually look at it. You can also search for info on shooting sports on Wikipedia for example. Did you have a problem finding any information about the Browning HP? Do you need someone to provide a link about that firearm too? Are you so helpless?

So if you are not a liar or a bigot, then what are you? You have shown us that you are making no attempt to do the smallest amount of research to support your “no sporting use” claims. Certain segments of the public such as yourself think it is ok to make ridiculous claims without any supporting evidence at all. Go cry me a river, then come back and post some more insults.

Ranb

I can't prove there is no bear in the woods and so far you haven't really provided firm evidence that the bear exists. You also don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence, anecdotes don't count.

 

[gdnp]

The "no sporting use" argument is a non-starter as a sporting use can be created for just about anything. Cafeteria trays have been used for sledding, headless goats can be used to play polo, people can roll down hills after cheeses. Hell, my brother-in-law played on the US national underwater hockey team.

I think a far more cogent argument is that the effect on legitimate sporting activities caused by restrictions on magazine sizes are trivial compared to the public safety benefits. If you want to, you can argue that restrictions on nuclear technology restrict your right to start a nuclear-powered auto racing circuit. I am willing to make that minor sacrifice.

 

[Ranb]

I can't prove there is no bear in the woods and so far you haven't really provided firm evidence that the bear exists. You also don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence, anecdotes don't count.

I guess you do not know the meaning of the word irony. You claimed that high capacity magazines have no use in any sporting sport, but you have refused to show any evidence to support this absurd notion. I tried to help you by referring you to the IPSC website, giving you an example of a mass produced 1930's pistol with a large capacity magazine and my own personal experience. But you refuse to learn, you apparently refuse to do any research to support or disprove your claim. I know you can not prove that something does not exist. But why try to do that when it is so easy to prove it does exist? You are trying to deny something that it is so common that it should be plain as day that it is actually there.

I'm not trying to prove that high capacity magazines, as you call them, are suitable for sporting use, almost everyone already knows this. I am trying to educate you on shooting sports, but I am failing to teach you anything because you refuse to learn.

I have taken the time to answer the questions you asked of me. Will you do the same or continue to avoid them?

Ranb

 

[Kestrel]

The "no sporting use" argument is a non-starter as a sporting use can be created for just about anything. Cafeteria trays have been used for sledding, headless goats can be used to play polo, people can roll down hills after cheeses. Hell, my brother-in-law played on the US national underwater hockey team.

I think a far more cogent argument is that the effect on legitimate sporting activities caused by restrictions on magazine sizes are trivial compared to the public safety benefits. If you want to, you can argue that restrictions on nuclear technology restrict your right to start a nuclear-powered auto racing circuit. I am willing to make that minor sacrifice.

Good point. So the question comes down to did banning sales of new large capacity magazines result in any major impact to sport shooting?

It certainly didn't impact hunting. It didn't impact shooting sports at the international or Olympic level. None of these appear to allow large capacity magazines. It probably didn't impact the silly event Cicero posted earlier, since special permits were already needed to own the fully automatic firearms used.

We should also question if a pistol event that gives a big advantage to a participant with 13 round magazine over a 7 round magazine is a well thought out sport. Restricting all participants to the same limits should result in a better competition.