10 round clip controversy

[sjansen]

With the congress trying to pass a ban on all clips with 10 rounds or more what is your stance?

Do people only need 10 rounds to protect themselves?

If so, do think that police officers should have to do the same in their guns.

Should Obama make his Secret Service Officers use 10 round mags?

If police officers and Secret Service need more than 10 rounds, why don't people who can't afford personal protection and want to protect themselves be held to a different standard?

The ban has exceptions for both police and federal officers. Why is it necessary for LEOs to have more than 10 rounds if people who are checked with the FBI can't?

Why shouldn't LEOs and those who have the same checks on them to carry a concealed weapon be held to the same 10 round clip standard or should all those who have the right to carry a gun for personal protection be able to carry any type clip capacity they want?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Ignoring the idelogical argument here, it is at least arguable that congress has the right to do so. The right to bear arms is not infringed. They are limiting clip capacity. this does in no way change anything to the fact that you are carrying the same weapon you did before.

You may not agree, but without knowing case law and constitutional precedents, I would say they have the right to legislate (purely theoretical).

IF we operate on that premise for the moment, then your whole 'why shouldn't LEO and the secret service be limited' argument becomes moot. Congress can legislate, so they can also set the specific however they like, and include or exclude whomever they like, just like they do with other laws (like tax laws for example)

 

[clfsean]

I remember when the original capacity issue came up. I was a bit peeved since I was carrying pistols that were made for double stacked magazines. No worries though, I had plenty.

Then I moved to pistols with single stacked magazines. The one thing I noticed is my focus on the target & shot place got much better.

So I don't worry. More doesn't always mean better.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With the congress trying to pass a ban on all clips with 10 rounds or more what is your stance?

First, let's correct some terms. The word is 'magazine' and not 'clip'. A 'clip' is a very different thing. In this sense, it is being used as an emotional buzzword, like 'spray' instead of 'fire multiple rounds'.

A box designed to hold multiple rounds is a magazine.

Do people only need 10 rounds to protect themselves?

It's the wrong question. "Need" is beside the point.

How fast do you "need" to have your car go? The question implies that there is a limit, beyond which no one has a legitimate need, and that therefore it is reasonable to ban a car that goes faster than that, or a magazine which holds more rounds than that.

It also leads to a slippery slope. Let us say that today '10 rounds' is a reasonable maximum, so we ban any magazines which hold more rounds. Tomorrow, some idiot commits an atrocity with a 10-round magazine, and we begin again with '8-rounds' or '5-rounds' and so on. There is never an end to 'reasonable gun control'.

It was determined a long time ago by a group called 'Handgun Control, Inc.," that a 'Divide and Conquer' strategy worked best. Americans will not stand for an outright handgun ban. So the strategy - the *official strategy* of the gun control advocates - is to chip away at gun rights, bit by bit, 'reasonable restriction' by 'reasonable restriction'.

Anyone who thinks anything else has been misled.

However, take hope. There will be no ban. It's just noise. There is no support for more gun control laws in Congress at the present time.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ignoring the idelogical argument here, it is at least arguable that congress has the right to do so. The right to bear arms is not infringed. They are limiting clip capacity. this does in no way change anything to the fact that you are carrying the same weapon you did before.

It is not a 'clip'.

You may not agree, but without knowing case law and constitutional precedents, I would say they have the right to legislate (purely theoretical).

IF we operate on that premise for the moment, then your whole 'why shouldn't LEO and the secret service be limited' argument becomes moot. Congress can legislate, so they can also set the specific however they like, and include or exclude whomever they like, just like they do with other laws (like tax laws for example)

I have little doubt that it would be legal for the Congress to limit magazine capacity; they did it before in the (now-expired) 'Assault weapons ban'. I do not think there is any support for it, so I'm not too worried. It is important for certain members of Congress to make noises and 'harrumph' for the benefit of their gun-grabbing constituents.

 

[punisher73]

First, let's correct some terms. The word is 'magazine' and not 'clip'. A 'clip' is a very different thing. In this sense, it is being used as an emotional buzzword, like 'spray' instead of 'fire multiple rounds'.

A box designed to hold multiple rounds is a magazine.

A peeve of mine drilled into me during the police academy. If you were found saying "clip" to refer to your magazine it was push ups galore. But, I think it is one of those slang things that many people use.

A clip is a metal guide that loads bullets into an INTERNAL magazine, for example, the old M-1 rifles. Anything that is put into the gun with ammunition and is removed is a magazine. So an AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 has a magazine and not a clip, even though popular slang calls the high capacity magzines "banana clips".

 

[punisher73]

As to the 10 round capacity issue. I feel that it is a knee jerk reaction to the situation. It is just a political band-aid to ease people's minds about the tragedy. People want some assurance that this type of thing won't/can't happen again so they pass a law that makes it LOOL like something is being done even though in reality nothing has changed.

Much like the Brady Bill of the past and it's ban on "high capacity" magazines, the law did not ban or make illegal magazines holding more than 10 rounds that were made before the ban. So people could still buy a 17/15 round magazine for their Glock, they just paid a bit more for it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A peeve of mine drilled into me during the police academy. If you were found saying "clip" to refer to your magazine it was push ups galore. But, I think it is one of those slang things that many people use.

A clip is a metal guide that loads bullets into an INTERNAL magazine, for example, the old M-1 rifles. Anything that is put into the gun with ammunition and is removed is a magazine. So an AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 has a magazine and not a clip, even though popular slang calls the high capacity magzines "banana clips".

Words mean things. People use the terms that give emotional support to the ideals they support. A man doesn't fire multiple times, he 'sprays the room'. The words are important.

I correct my anti-gun friends every time they say it. I have to. If we're not going to use the correct words, we cannot have a discussion.

 

[Grenadier]

"Clips" can also be flat metal disc-like objects that can hold rounds of rimless ammunition in a revolver. For example, the Smith and Wesson 625 is a revolver that is chambered for a rimmed version of the .45 ACP. If you tried to use .45 ACP ammunition in it as-is, then the rounds would simply not be held in place properly.

Using a "half moon" or "full moon" clip allows you to attach rounds of standard .45 ACP rimless ammo to it, and then you put the entire assembly (moon clip + cartridges) into the cylinder of the revolver, and it allows the rounds to be firmly held in place for proper ignition.



As for the ban, it's just plain silly. Reducing magazine capacity for the law-abiding will do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes. Criminals will find ways to overcome this, either by carrying more guns, using explosives, etc.

Furthermore, it's really nobody's stinking business as to *why* I want to carry a magazine that holds more than the magical "non-lethal" 10 round limit. I don't commit crimes, I don't cause trouble. Go after the criminal element, and you'll solve your problems.

After all, you don't *need* to drive a car that has more than an 8 gallon gas tank, since you can simply re-fuel more often, can't you? What do you need that extra fuel capacity for? Do you plan on running from the police? Do you plan on using your car as a large petrol bomb? Wouldn't it be a nice thing for you to give up on fuel capacity, in order to save just one child's life?

The silliness of the car example was intentionally done, in order to show how silly the magazine ban is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Furthermore, it's really nobody's stinking business as to *why* I want to carry a magazine that holds more than the magical "non-lethal" 10 round limit. I don't commit crimes, I don't cause trouble. Go after the criminal element, and you'll solve your problems.

After all, you don't *need* to drive a car that has more than an 8 gallon gas tank, since you can simply re-fuel more often, can't you? What do you need that extra fuel capacity for? Do you plan on running from the police? Do you plan on using your car as a large petrol bomb? Wouldn't it be a nice thing for you to give up on fuel capacity, in order to save just one child's life?

The silliness of the car example was intentionally done, in order to show how silly the magazine ban is.

I agree. The question itself 'what do you need X for' is invalid. I refuse to answer questions like that about magazine capacity or caliber size or the shape of the firearm ('assault rifle') or whatever. I simply point out, as you did, that the question itself is meaningless. It's designed, like most anti-gun arguments, to appeal to emotion.

I ask my anti-gun friends the same question in return. I counted at least 15 cases of homeowners using guns to defend themselves from armed invaders since the beginning of 2011. Which of them would they prefer to have died because they were unarmed? Please tell me which ones and why. They can't answer. They can never answer. Emotion for emotion. Anti-gunners wring their hands and whimper about magazine capacity or caliber size and how we 'have to do something' and I reply by asking them which citizens who defended themselves legally with a gun they would prefer to be dead, raped, or crippled.

 

[Steve]

While I'm still not sure that 30 round magazines are anything we need, what changed my position on this is Grenadier's simple observation that a crazy person could simply carry two pistols.

I think we need to better regulate weapons. I still believe that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance and that the entire thing should be reviewed and overhauled. But, much like the security theater we have going on in airports, I've been convinced that this wouldn't actually make things safer. It would only make things feel safer.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

While I'm still not sure that 30 round magazines are anything we need, what changed my position on this is Grenadier's simple observation that a crazy person could simply carry two pistols.

"Need" is unfortunately a wedge-word (some call it a 'weasel word'). To even have the argument, one must accept the premise that a person's 'need' (as defined by others) is a valid reason for restriction - of anything. What a person 'needs' is not generally accepted as a valid means for restricting any legal behavior or private property. How big a house do you 'need'? How many calories do you 'need'?

I think we need to better regulate weapons. I still believe that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance and that the entire thing should be reviewed and overhauled. But, much like the security theater we have going on in airports, I've been convinced that this wouldn't actually make things safer. It would only make things feel safer.

With most things that are inherently dangerous, we regulate behavior, not the items themselves per se. We have had periodic attempts to pass laws that would require cars to come equipped with DUI breath-analyzers so that people don't drive drunk. Such attempts are usually defeated without much further debate in Congress; making life more difficult for all to stop a few (maybe) is generally seen as the wrong way to address a problem.

I think we need to work on better ways of detecting and intervening when people become mentally unstable. In very few cases that I can recall has a person just 'snapped' for no reason and no one saw it coming (it has happened, I acknowledge). It seems that often people are interviewed after the fact and say "I saw it on TV and I just knew it was Joe."

The liability insurance thing is interesting, but I think a non-starter. There are two issues there. The first is the mandatory purchase of a good or service in order to exercise a constitutional right; not sure that would fly. The second is that this would essentially act as a restriction on the right of the poor to own guns to defend themselves. The third thing I can think of is that as always, criminals are not going to buy the insurance. Very few illegal shootings are done by previously law-abiding citizens; most are performed by people who are already criminals (and not allowed to own guns legally anyway). It's not a terrible idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented in reality.

 

[Cruentus]

Some good responses here; Mr. Maddocks and Grenadier summed it up rather nicely. As to the issue raised in this thread, in a free society, it is not OK legally or otherwise to legislate ownership based on what we think other people should or shouldn't have. If it were OK, then get ready fatties, I propose a food rationing bill based on the 1950s height/weight standard because obesity is an epidemic. Since it's not OK, we can all breath a sigh or relief at dinner tonight. I summed up these arguements in greater detail in a recent thread here (titled 'more anti-gun stupidity' or something like that). I recommend checking it out; I am not going to duplicate all of that here, but the thread is a good read for those interested.

As to terminology; words people use can be quite telling. I personally don't beat people up too bad for terminology mistakes, then again I've been known to debate Sunni's in 3rd world countries on heated topics where there are language barriers, so I'm used to not getting too wrapped up in semantics. But for your personal development, you need to get on board with the correct terms when discussing these issues. Because someone who uses a term like "clip" to mean "mag" (for example) dimes themselves out as being uneducated on the topic. It tells people that you have not done a whole lot of reading or research on firearms or the gun control issue, and therefore your opinions likely undeveloped and are needed to be taken with a grain of salt. I could tell people that I am pretty well versed in theoretical physics, for example, but when mathmaticians start discussing theories and proofs, it would be quite telling if I didn't know some basic terms or the mathmatics behind the theories. So my suggestion to some of you is that you sincerely do some research and read some sources on the topic from both sides, and educate yourselves a little bit on this issue. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I am not saying "your stupid" or your opinions aren't valid. But with any topic, opinions develop as we become more educated. The unfortunate tendancy is to take a hard stance with an opinion 1st, then do research later to try to back it up. A better way, of course, is to keep an open mind and try to see both sides of the arguement and research before taking a hard stance. Plus, the topic is important because it goes beyond guns; philisophically it brings up issues as to what it means to live in a free society. Years ago, I used to be a "reasonable legislation" guy before I did more research myself; thankfully I was willing to keep an open mind and look at all evidence before taking a hard stance. More research and reading might disuade people from arguing things like, "Gun owners need to be required to have liability insurance." or "don't worry, you'll become more accurate if your required to carry less rounds, so no big deal, more isn't always better." And really, no offense to you guys, but even a totally anti-gun person who is well researched on the topic isn't going to make these arguments.

Lastly, check out this site: http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ They track situations where armed citizens thwart crime, and they have a new incident almost daily.

 

[Bruno@MT]

@Bill, I was only pointing out the inconsistency in the argument of the OP, not taking a position regarding the porposal. I don't think this proposal has any effect on killings at all.

Now, regarding clip vs magazine...
The meaning of words change all the time, and words get accepted by the general population to have a certain meaning. From what I see, the word 'clip' is commonly accepted without negative connotations. You are arguing the purists point of view. You are right from a theoretical pov, but you do the same thing with other words everyday.

You may disagree of course, but people are using the word clip where you would use magazine. By the same token, you are no longer going to the 'lavatory', you are not having a 'gay' old time, and you are not putting 'gas' in your car.

You can argue that calling a magazine a clip is a sign of ignorance. And that is correct. The general population who drives the use of words is not expert.
I myself are a straight razor nut. What the general population calls 'razor' is something I call a shaving cartridge.
The goo that comes out of a can is definitely not cream or soap.
And there are many more examples I could name, of which I am sure that you yourself violate at least some of them.
Would it change anything if I got upset or annoyed because of that? Or would it only make me look a bit pedantic?

Language is a living thing.

 

[Steve]

"Need" is unfortunately a wedge-word (some call it a 'weasel word'). To even have the argument, one must accept the premise that a person's 'need' (as defined by others) is a valid reason for restriction - of anything. What a person 'needs' is not generally accepted as a valid means for restricting any legal behavior or private property. How big a house do you 'need'? How many calories do you 'need'?

I tried to be clear about the use of the term "need." Personally, as I wonder whether anyone "needs" a 30 round cli... I mean magazine, I also wonder why anyone "needs" a lot of things. The simple distinction I was trying to make clear is that, whether someone "needs" something or not has no bearing on whether it should be legal or not. I don't think most people need to drive a Hummer, but I'm not in favor of making them illegal.

I think we need to work on better ways of detecting and intervening when people become mentally unstable. In very few cases that I can recall has a person just 'snapped' for no reason and no one saw it coming (it has happened, I acknowledge). It seems that often people are interviewed after the fact and say "I saw it on TV and I just knew it was Joe."

Didn't the guy in Arizona purchase his pistol within a very short period of time prior to the shootings?

I agree, but I'm not sure how that can be done. We have had waiting periods and background checks, but how effective are these? Are we looking for the right things? My impression (and I'd welcome correction if I'm wrong) is that the background checks are largely token and riddled with loopholes.

The liability insurance thing is interesting, but I think a non-starter. There are two issues there. The first is the mandatory purchase of a good or service in order to exercise a constitutional right; not sure that would fly. The second is that this would essentially act as a restriction on the right of the poor to own guns to defend themselves. The third thing I can think of is that as always, criminals are not going to buy the insurance. Very few illegal shootings are done by previously law-abiding citizens; most are performed by people who are already criminals (and not allowed to own guns legally anyway). It's not a terrible idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented in reality.

Like cars, you don't have to own a gun. The distinction between cars and health insurance is that you don't have to buy a car, so you're not being compelled to buy auto insurance. Compulsory liability insurance for gun owners would be as constitutional as compulsory liability insurance for automobiles.

Regarding insurance, I probably shouldn't have brought it up as it's a tangent. I'll try to explain a little better what I meant. Legally purchased weapons are involved in just about every accidental firearm injury or death. Hunting accidents, when a kid shoots his friend on accident showing off his dad's pistol, when a kid takes his dad's gun to school and accidentally shoots a couple people (as happened just a few days ago). These are all situations where mandatory liability insurance would be helpful to the victims' and their families.

According to the CDC, there were 18,610 non-fatal, unintentional gunshot injuries in 2009. In 2007 (the last year available for mortality statistics), there were 613 unintentional, firearm fatalities.

Liability insurance wouldn't keep crazy people from doing the things like what happened in Arizona. But it would help compensate families for their loss in cases where they are injured. The parents of the deceased child may not have life insurance for their 9 year old who was shot in AZ. Now they're looking at funeral bills along with other legitimate expenses (as a quick example). The people who survived are looking at physical and mental health care bills, possibly lost work and other related expenses.

Will it ever get passed? Of course not. I think it's a reasonable idea, but the gun lobby is strong and while this would in no way infringe upon anyone's right to bear arms, it smacks of "gun control."

Cruentus, you kind of came off as both unconstructive and insulting in your post. Maybe I just don't get it, but the only thing I really got from your post is you believe that because your own opinion has evolved over time, anyone who doesn't share your opinion is uninformed.

 

[zDom]

Regarding language used by the media when reporting arrests or shootings:

Now that I am better educated about firearms, I am often amused by reports of a couple hundred rounds of ammo being described as a "large cache of ammunition" and other subjective terms being used, IMO, improperly such as "large caliber" (really? a .40 cal is a LARGE caliber? I guess compared to a .22 ... but the .45 and .50 cal folk surely don't think so ...) or "high powered."

 

[Cruentus]

Bruno,

I am a descriptivist as well when it comes to language, and I am more interested in content rather then semantics.

However, it would be expected that a person educated on a topic would know some basic info, and use some basic terms. I've had people tell me that they build AR's before, but returned a very confused look when I asked, "Cool... what lower do you prefer?" I wasn't trying to sharp shoot; that is a common question that someone who builds AR's (as in AR-15's) would know. I had a guy at the bar once tell me that he was a combat diver in Iraq with a special operations unit. He couldn't name what FOB he worked out of. He didn't know the difference between an ORPORD or a WARNO. He claimed to be an engineer (demo), but didn't know the difference between low yeild or high yeild det cord.

These are basic, common knowledge stuff for people who are actually educated on these topics; and they would talk about these things and use the terms like they were second nature.

People who are educated on firearms generally won't use the term 'clip' to mean 'mag.' A person in the military will know what an OPORD is, and will freely use the term. A person who builds Ar's will freely use words like "lower" and "upper" and "bolt carrier" and "star chamber." If they say "star cluster" to mean "star chamber," for example, then that is telling as to what they know or don't know about AR's. If they look at me like I have a penis between my ears when I ask what the barrel twist is on the Ar they built, then I know they don't know what they are doing.

Simple terminology can be telling. People can choose to not follow my advise and educate themselves a little on the topic, and correct their verbage if they make a small error. But then they shouldn't have any expectation to be taken seriously with these arguments.

 

[Cruentus]

Cruentus, you kind of came off as both unconstructive and insulting in your post. Maybe I just don't get it, but the only thing I really got from your post is you believe that because your own opinion has evolved over time, anyone who doesn't share your opinion is uninformed.

I'm sorry if I come accross that way. But make no mistake, I am not saying that if you don't share my opinion then you are uninformed. I am saying that if you are uninformed, then you are uninformed, and therefore you should remedy that. It is obvious that some people are uneducated on the topic, and it is very easy to tell when people don't understand or use some basic principles or terms. My suggestion is that before formulating a strong opinion, to do some more research. Someone who is uninformed should be probably be asking more questions rather then asserting strong arguements.

Someone who has done research, but shares a different opinion will be on the same level of education on the topic so that we can at least have a more productive discussion.

It seems insulting because people don't like to be told that they are uneducated on a topic. They feel that it is insulting to their intelligence. There is nothing I can do about that.

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry if I come accross that way. But make no mistake, I am not saying that if you don't share my opinion then you are uninformed. I am saying that if you are uninformed, then you are uninformed, and therefore you should remedy that. It is obvious that some people are uneducated on the topic, and it is very easy to tell when people don't understand or use some basic principles or terms. My suggestion is that before formulating a strong opinion, to do some more research. Someone who is uninformed should be probably be asking more questions rather then asserting strong arguements.

Someone who has done research, but shares a different opinion will be on the same level of education on the topic so that we can at least have a more productive discussion.

It seems insulting because people don't like to be told that they are uneducated on a topic. They feel that it is insulting to their intelligence. There is nothing I can do about that.

LOL. Okay. I'll study hard and maybe someday I'll have an opinion that you consider worthy.

If I can make one suggestion, it would be to try contributing in a constructive manner to the topic at hand. You've got three posts now in this thread. You've related a couple of anecdotes, dropped a lot of vocabulary and told us all how smart you are (and how ignorant some of us are), but have yet to share any of your assuredly well developed and deeply knowledgeable opinions on the subject at hand.

 

[lklawson]

A peeve of mine drilled into me during the police academy. If you were found saying "clip" to refer to your magazine it was push ups galore. But, I think it is one of those slang things that many people use.

A clip is a metal guide that loads bullets into an INTERNAL magazine, for example, the old M-1 rifles. Anything that is put into the gun with ammunition and is removed is a magazine. So an AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 has a magazine and not a clip, even though popular slang calls the high capacity magzines "banana clips".

Personally, I have NO heartburn over "clip/magazine" whatsoever. Old timers coming home from WWII were calling magazines a "clip" and no one saw fit to harass them about it.

My position is that everyone darn well knows what you mean so it's not a big deal. One of my personal pet peeves is the non-word "irregardless." Bugs the padiddle out of me but I don't worry about correcting folks because I know darn well what they mean.

No offense to Bill, of course. I didn't respond to his clip/mag correction either because, to each his own.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk