Alcohol has been banned in the past, and the commercial and moral repercusions were not good. Banning a substance generally only drives it underground.

And to lower levels. I don't think you can really compare large clips to a substance that is both physiologically and psychologically addictive...

What part of taking about 1.5 seconds to put in a new clip did you not understand? This is an irrational fixation on the size of a clip. Fact is, if my information is correct, most people who know guns think going with such a large clip was the sign of an amateur. They apparently have a history of jamming. If someone really wanted to get a lot of fire power with less likelihood of jamming, they'd have gone with smaller clips and kept on shooting.

People upset about this have a natural inclination to want to do something about it. We all get that. Passing a law is sort of a knee jerk response to try to regulate, and control, a problem, but the big clip fixation is wrongheaded and grounded in ignorance. It sounds good but it doesn't really accomplish what some people want it to.

What part of taking about 1.5 seconds to put in a new clip did you not understand? This is an irrational fixation on the size of a clip. Fact is, if my information is correct, most people who know guns think going with such a large clip was the sign of an amateur. They apparently have a history of jamming. If someone really wanted to get a lot of fire power with less likelihood of jamming, they'd have gone with smaller clips and kept on shooting.

People upset about this have a natural inclination to want to do something about it. We all get that. Passing a law is sort of a knee jerk response to try to regulate, and control, a problem, but the big clip fixation is wrongheaded and grounded in ignorance. It sounds good but it doesn't really accomplish what some people want it to.

I would like to see a clip replaced in 1.5 seconds, that's just silly. It would take you something like four to seven seconds to even realize that the clip is empty. Maybe more with adrenaline. At least 10-20 seconds to find the other clip and another ten or so to release the old clip, place the new and get back in firing position. Minimum 20-25 seconds to replace and that would be flying. And he would have been vulnerable during that time, paying attention to the gun instead of the people around him.

The standard Clip for an AR-15 (which shouldn't be legal anyway) is 30 rounds which means it would have to be replaced three times to get to 100 rounds. This in a gun that can fire 50 rounds in 60 seconds.

I would like to see a clip replaced in 1.5 seconds, that's just silly. It would take you something like four to seven seconds to even realize that the clip is empty. Maybe more with adrenaline. At least 10-20 seconds to find the other clip and another ten or so to release the old clip, place the new and get back in firing position. Minimum 20-25 seconds to replace and that would be flying. And he would have been vulnerable during that time, paying attention to the gun instead of the people around him.

The standard Clip for an AR-15 (which shouldn't be legal anyway) is 30 rounds which means it would have to be replaced three times to get to 100 rounds. This in a gun that can fire 50 rounds in 60 seconds.

Clearly, you aren't trained for that kind of weapon so just stop embarassing yourself. And just to remind you, even if it took 5 seconds to swap out a clip, he wasn't in any real danger from an unarmed group of freaked out people cowering in a dark movie theatre. No one has suggested he was wandering the aisles at risk to get jumped - or that people were cooly watching him, just waiting for their chance to go all Jackie Chan on him.

Clearly, you aren't trained for that kind of weapon so just stop embarassing yourself. And just to remind you, even if it took 5 seconds to swap out a clip, he wasn't in any real danger from an unarmed group of freaked out people cowering in a dark movie theatre. No one has suggested he was wandering the aisles at risk to get jumped - or that people were cooly watching him, just waiting for their chance to go all Jackie Chan on him.


Oh please. Clearly you have watched too many movies. Rambo isn't reality. I have actually shot this gun on multiple occasions when I was younger. Have you ever even touched one? The only reason for this gun to exist is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. That's why it was a preferred war weapon for so long. Now that I am older I don't want this gun, or any gun like it to be out in the public. It should not be in private hands. It really shouldn't even be used by the police. It's too indiscriminate and deadly. This is a military weapon.

Exactly how trained with gun was this sick kid anyway? He didn't even load the drum correctly, it jammed after 40 shots.

Has anyone considered limiting the size of Ryder Truck rentals that are available?
(or how much fertilizer and diesel one person can buy?)

Are you equating prohibition and large clips as the same thing?

And to lower levels. I don't think you can really compare large clips to a substance that is both physiologically and psychologically addictive...
No, y'all are basically right. I just think that it's not always right to ban stuff. Due to other threads I've read on this board, I'm not sure it's right to outlaw Marijuana, but I'd certainly be in favor of keeping Meth and it's like illegal. Maybe the future of gun control is along that line. Tax the bahGEEzuz out of it. I don't know where I'd draw THAT line. Maybe you can have RH's levels (or some other arbitrary number) of fire-arms of certain types, but when you want an assault rifle, you will pay an assault rifle tax. Want a clip that goes above the manufacturer's issue for standard suburban combat, pay a super-size clip tax. The proceeds from the taxes will go to a fund that provides counseling to victims of Columbine, VA Tech, etc.

I'm not advocating more gun control but you also have to use some common sense. Restricting large clips or even assault weapons is not interfering with my 2nd Amendment.

Clearly, you aren't trained for that kind of weapon so just stop embarassing yourself. And just to remind you, even if it took 5 seconds to swap out a clip, he wasn't in any real danger from an unarmed group of freaked out people cowering in a dark movie theatre. No one has suggested he was wandering the aisles at risk to get jumped - or that people were cooly watching him, just waiting for their chance to go all Jackie Chan on him.

Loughner was tackled by a man in his 70's

Clearly, you aren't trained for that kind of weapon so just stop embarassing yourself. And just to remind you, even if it took 5 seconds to swap out a clip, he wasn't in any real danger from an unarmed group of freaked out people cowering in a dark movie theatre. No one has suggested he was wandering the aisles at risk to get jumped - or that people were cooly watching him, just waiting for their chance to go all Jackie Chan on him.

So tell us what would you have done in that situation? You must be highly trained for cases like this from the condescending tone of your post.

I would like to see a clip replaced in 1.5 seconds, that's just silly.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Just go look on Youtube, there are many examples of this you can browse at your leisure. Swapping clips in under two seconds is definitely doable and I'm not even that good at it. Even the slowest can do it in under 5. BTW, if it takes you 4 to 7 seconds to realize your gun is empty, then you aren't paying attention.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Just go look on Youtube, there are many examples of this you can browse at your leisure. Swapping clips in under two seconds is definitely doable and I'm not even that good at it. Even the slowest can do it in under 5. BTW, if it takes you 4 to 7 seconds to realize your gun is empty, then you aren't paying attention.

Find us one. Please.

Its like the gun and all the gun accessories under the sun advocates will say anything to justify keeping everything legal.

And no way in hell it only takes someone 1.5 secs from last shot of clip to release clip, grab another, insert, chamber a round and get back to firing. These are mentally troubled killers, not GI Joe.

Find us one. Please.

I'm not your personal Google butler. Go find it yourself if you really want to learn how its done.

Pro-tip - use terms like "fast mag change" and add on the name of the weapon for best results.

So tell us what would you have done in that situation? You must be highly trained for cases like this from the condescending tone of your post.

I'm fairly certain I would have been hiding and likely half catatonic. It is my hope I wouldn't be screaming because that would just draw his attention. But I won't say I wouldn't be doing it.

And to answer Swake2, I've got a CC and have practiced loading, clips, etc. I'm married to a pretty structured taskmasker. I've been around very proficient shooters and see what they can do.

Candidly, I figure the best thing I could do would be get out of their way and hand them my gun if they needed it. But I rarely carry and mainly only when I am going to and from our rural property and have stops on the way. I think I could keep from shooting myself but don't have a lot of confidence that I would be doing some Wonder Woman thing. I'd probably forget I had a gun, altogether. Unless, of course, they bothered my grandchild and then they better be prepared to meet their maker. I'd be in my spandex SUPER GRANDMA outfit before they could clear their holster. I figure the visual, alone, would strike them blind long enough for me and grandbaby to make our escape.

the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with personal defense or hunting -- these are natural rights -- the right expressed in the 2A is one's ability to defend against a tyrannical government. Based on this, there is a very justifiable reason to at least have a fighting shot if you had to go toe-to-toe with the government.



"defend against a tyrannical government" Really?

http://i.imgur.com/To96U.gif

I'm all willing to play the tally game as long as we can ban anything based on this.

Because, automobiles would have to go. They're much more lethal than cars in the US.
And swimming pools.

But first and foremost? Tough steaks. Choking is the number one cause of death.

Wait a sec... all kidding aside, I think I support banning tough steaks. Tough steaks should totally be illegal. All steaks, should, by law, be tender, melt in your mouth, perfect every time.

I think we can all move past worrying about guns, and come together to support the "ban tough steaks" amendment... can I get a hell yeah?

Your argument is ridiculous. It's not about whether people die in accidents from something, it's about someone using something to kill groups of people at a time. I can't take steaks into a crowded theater and kill 12 people.

But you can obviously function without a sense of humor... :P

touché.
(and swords, epeés and daggers should be banned too)

I can't take steaks into a crowded theater and kill 12 people.

Then you're just not very imaginative.

That would be The Hannibal Lector Defense.

Regarding The Talleyman Defense vis-a-vis Tyrants vs. Gun-Ownership.
"Why do you wear that garlic around your neck?"
"It keeps the vampyres away."
"You don't really believe that, do you?"
"Have you seen any vampyres around here lately?"

(P.S. to Midtowner: Actually, your quip was so clever that it deserved a response. n/j)

Police dashcam video of the shooting..... Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/us/2012/09/11/dnt-temple-shooting-dashcam.wisn)