• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

With some rifles and shotguns, you can "top up" the magazine as you go, theoretically limiting your fire power to the number of rounds you can carry. The magazine may be a 3 or 5 round tube, but you can keep putting rounds into the magazine as you fire.

The magazine is really never empty, and the gun is always ready to fire a round.

Technically, you never have to reload in the traditional sense. The magazine stays full.
 
Nessie said:
There is a lot of good information coming out in this thread on how to do a massacre. Handy stuff for future maniacs.
Click to expand...

The problem is stupid Americans with their internet/computer culture.

Information exchange is not a right and must be controlled...
 
Nessie said:
There is a lot of good information coming out in this thread on how to do a massacre. Handy stuff for future maniacs.
Click to expand...

No, lots of factual rebuttals to the assertions that a simple banning of one style of gun (which accounts for very few crimes, no matter how sensational they may be) will prevent some radical reduction in gun violence.
 
I was referring to the conduct of criminals and how the ban would hardly affect them at all.

Ambrosia said:
I'll agree that circumventing a magazine limit is relatively easy. I'll agree that presently there are a great many magazines that would contravene any such new regulation, though this could be helped with a reasonable lead in time/amnesty on offending magazines were such a rule to be introduced.
Click to expand...
Criminals will probably not take advantage of amnesty programs, this would just result in loss of their banned weapons.

Ambrosia said:
I don't agree that there is "no rational reason to believe it would lower the death rate" Why would such a rule have no impact on the death rate? (assuming that enough time had passed so the vast majority of obsolete magazines were no longer in circulation)
Click to expand...
As far as I know the new proposed AWB will be a near copy of the old one passed in 1994, it will grandfather in the millions of guns/magazines that are owned now.

What makes you think that any magazine commonly in use today is going to become obselete any time soon? The magazines used in the AR-15/10, M-14's/M-1a's and AK have been around since the 1950's and show no signs on being given up for anything better.

Ambrosia said:
Also if an individual took steps to alter their magazine to increase it's capacity, have they not just demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to own a deadly weapon?
Click to expand...
Once again I am speaking of criminals who by their very nature are not responsible enough to own a weapon of any kind.

Ambrosia said:
If a person taped magazines together for convenience then that wouldn't break this supposed new rule, structurally altering a mag to increase capacity would.
Click to expand...
Yes, see above.

Ranb
 
Autolite said:
I believe it's the self-loading feature (chambering) of a semi-automatic firearm that qualifies it for that classification. The revolver you're talking about must have the rounds chambered by hand before use, does it not???
Click to expand...
Correct. I was merely saying that revolvers are not limited to six rounds nor do they all require a long heavy trigger pull to cock the hammer.

Ranb
 
joesixpack said:
No, lots of factual rebuttals to the assertions that a simple banning of one style of gun (which accounts for very few crimes, no matter how sensational they may be) will prevent some radical reduction in gun violence.
Click to expand...

In the UK the maximum number of shots that can be fired is two shotgun cartridges or three bullets before needing to reload. That does for all vermin, hunting, targets and sport. It is not so good for killing people, but we prefer it that way.

In the USA there is a mistaken belief that armed citizens protect the USA from tyranny and invasion (the armed forces do that) and it is a fantasy that guns with massive firepower are needed to fend off multiple attackers in the name of self defence, the only people who benefit from the multiple shot weapons so readily available are lone nuts out to murder.
 
Ranb said:
Correct. I was merely saying that revolvers are not limited to six rounds nor do they all require a long heavy trigger pull to cock the hammer.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Someone could make a 30 shot revolver, but it would be clumsy as all hell.

Lets make the rule simple. Ban civilian possession of any firearm or magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
 
Ranb said:
I was referring to the conduct of criminals and how the ban would hardly affect them at all.


Criminals will probably not take advantage of amnesty programs, this would just result in loss of their banned weapons.
Click to expand...

The criminal/non criminal dichotomy does not help you understand your situation. Many of the crimes are committed by people who had previously not been criminals.
 
Autolite said:
Perhaps I might be missing something. I can't seen to understand how banning or prohibiting a firearm because of what it looks like is going to deter those with criminal intent. Someone help me out here...
Click to expand...

If some impotent loser is having "blaze of glory" fantasies, they may usually include scary looking guns. A magic chicken bone, even if it was just as deadly, might not motivate him enough to act out. "Scary looking guns" in someone's hands might even spark such fantasies.

Pure speculation on my part, but it seems plausible.
 
Nessie said:
In the UK the maximum number of shots that can be fired is two shotgun cartridges or three bullets before needing to reload. That does for all vermin, hunting, targets and sport. It is not so good for killing people, but we prefer it that way.
Click to expand...

At one time, there was a similar sportsman culture in the US. Real hunters only needed one shot to bring down their prey. Now it's all about firepower.
 
Nessie said:
A society that looks to armed teachers, ballistic shields, gunman amok evasion exercises and debates is it better to run or hide needs to be a society that accepts it has failed and failed very badly.
Click to expand...
Our society is looking to armed teachers or ballistic shields. Exercises for threats like fire, earthquake, and gunmen amok just make our schoolchildren more alert and ready to learn.

When I see people lined up at the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand embassies clamoring for visas, then and only then will I wonder if we've reached the leading edge of failure.
 
zeggman said:
If some impotent loser is having "blaze of glory" fantasies, they may usually include scary looking guns. A magic chicken bone, even if it was just as deadly, might not motivate him enough to act out. "Scary looking guns" in someone's hands might even spark such fantasies.

Pure speculation on my part, but it seems plausible.
Click to expand...

Let's have a law that all semi-automatic firearms come only in multicolour pastel shades with happy-faces painted on the muzzle.

There's your deterrent. Seems plausible...
 
Kestrel said:
Someone could make a 30 shot revolver, but it would be clumsy as all hell.

Lets make the rule simple. Ban civilian possession of any firearm or magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...

Canada implemented similar laws many years ago. This year's most recent shootings in Toronto revealed that the gang-bangers still weren't complying.

What now? Try a three round limit with a 'we-really-mean-it-this-time' clause???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom