NJ criminalizes 10+ round high capacity magazines today

[Pellinore]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

 

[rightwinger]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

 

[2aguy]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

Wrong....that isn't what happened at the giffords shooting.... he shot a guy in the head, but it only scratched him....but the guy fell, the shooter walked up and past that guy, that guy got back up and hit him with a chair.......

The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....

And what did the old lady do....

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading



She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.


no one rushed the guy as he was changing magazines....



And...oh yeah....the magazine apparently malfunctioned...which is why he was changing it....he didn't run out of ammo...had the magazine not failed he would have kept shooting too....

t

 

[2aguy]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

Sorry...you don't take bullets away from law abiding people who may need them to save themselves or their families for the rarest of rare crimes.......since the criminals won't be hurt by the ban, but normal people will...

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.

LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.


In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It all leads to the EXACT SAME PATH Venezuela took. If you think it's impossible that the USA could ever fall like that, look up "The Roman Empire".
Other than the Elitist and NWO evil, this country could be fantastic.

Not ever

That could actually be true.
As long as there are Stalinist / Marxist freedom killers like you still allowed to be here, I agree.
Your kind of waste product needs to be flushed from the bowels of this nation.

 

[rightwinger]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

Sorry...you don't take bullets away from law abiding people who may need them to save themselves or their families for the rarest of rare crimes.......since the criminals won't be hurt by the ban, but normal people will...

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.

LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.


In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

tl;dr

 

[rightwinger]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

 

[2aguy]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

 

[rightwinger]

Magazines have nothing to do with stopping mass shooters you dope......a shooter in Crimea used a 5 shot, pump action shotgun to murder 20 college students....the Parkland shooter with an AR-15 murdered 18....magazine capacity is simply another way gun grabbers ban guns without having to vote on a gun ban. That is all it is....

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

Modify the magazine

 

[2aguy]

On the other hand, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was tackled when he fumbled a reload. And the Parkland shooter could only carry ten-round magazines, which is why he had to change more often, possibly leading to the weapon malfunctioning. On the other hand, the guy at the Batman movie had a 100-round drum that jammed at some point, and the shooter in Pittsburgh went through *fifteen* thirty-round magazines. And, of course, some simply use shotguns.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but in my opinion even giving more opportunities for someone to stop a mass shooting under way would be worth it.

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

Modify the magazine

You can't.

 

[rightwinger]

The question is

Why should we make the job of a mass shooter easier?

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

Modify the magazine

You can't.

Of course you can
A clever craftsman is capable of making a 10 round magazine
Ain’t Rocket Science

 

[2aguy]

You shouldn't make the job of the law abiding citizen fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones harder...... a mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance, and as my link shows on magazines.....they can easily change magazines or use more than one gun. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, will only have his gun and the bullets he can carry.....so limiting him to a 10 round magazine takes 5-9 bullets away from him...that he might need to survive....and on top of that?

Magazine bans are only desired because they are back door gun bans. If you limit magazine bullets to 10, that means all the owners who have guns that hold 15-19 now have worthless pieces of metal, since they can no longer use them...

Notice that the law isn't "if you use a 10 round magazine for the commision of a crime," which, according to Caetano v Massachusetts would be legitmate action...they ban mere possession of the magazine, making millions upon millions of gun owners felons over night, without any benefit of stopping criminals or mass shooters......

Notice...they could have said you can only load 10 rounds in the magazine....which would allow people to keep their guns holding 15-19 rounds.....but no, they didn't do that, did they?

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

Modify the magazine

You can't.

Of course you can
A clever craftsman is capable of making a 10 round magazine
Ain’t Rocket Science

And you can't rely on those products....sorry, you don't get to tell people they have to risk their family on crappy magazines.

 

[rightwinger]

More slippery slope nonsense

No, they are not back door bans
When actual bans are implemented, you can bitch about that

If you use ten rounds in the commission of a crime is closing the barn door after the horse has left

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

Modify the magazine

You can't.

Of course you can
A clever craftsman is capable of making a 10 round magazine
Ain’t Rocket Science

And you can't rely on those products....sorry, you don't get to tell people they have to risk their family on crappy magazines.

Too funny...such paranoia

If the market is there, some entrepreneurs will fill it

But you should get rid of your guns just to be sure

 

[EverCurious]

What do you call it when you have a pistol that holds a 15-19 round magazine that is now illegal? You can't use that gun, it doesn't take a 10 round magazine. It is now useless to you.....it is a gun ban without having to pass it through the legislature.

Modify the magazine

You can't.

Of course you can
A clever craftsman is capable of making a 10 round magazine
Ain’t Rocket Science

And you can't rely on those products....sorry, you don't get to tell people they have to risk their family on crappy magazines.

Too funny...such paranoia

If the market is there, some entrepreneurs will fill it

But you should get rid of your guns just to be sure

Ouch, dat irony der...

 

[Jarlaxle]

New Jersey citizens who possess firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition will be violating state law starting Tuesday.

NJ criminalizes 10+ round 'high capacity' magazines today


Trendy loons would say " They aren't trying to take the guns" lmfao....... These idiots wouldn't know if their ass was being taken from them lol.

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Cops hit their target less than 30% of the time under stressful situations.
I gotta feeling you dont shoot.

I figure he'd crap his drawers if he actually touched a gun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

Sure as long as no one shows up with a gun to rob your stupid ass.

You can always hope he doesn't decide to shoot you in the head.

Safe indeed.

Lived here 40 years and haven’t needed a 10 round magazine

That's because you are in a mental ward and not allowed anything more dangerous than a spork.

 

[Jarlaxle]

NJ once again shows why they are a great state

Keeping us safe

Sure as long as no one shows up with a gun to rob your stupid ass.

You can always hope he doesn't decide to shoot you in the head.

Safe indeed.

Lived here 40 years and haven’t needed a 10 round magazine

I’ve lived in my current home for 23 years. I’ve never had a fire but I keep two working fire extinguishers on the premise at all times.

What was your point exactly?

He has none except on his head.

 

[danielpalos]

only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New Jersey citizens who possess firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition will be violating state law starting Tuesday.

NJ criminalizes 10+ round 'high capacity' magazines today


Trendy loons would say " They aren't trying to take the guns" lmfao....... These idiots wouldn't know if their ass was being taken from them lol.

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Cops hit their target less than 30% of the time under stressful situations.
I gotta feeling you dont shoot.

I figure he'd crap his drawers if he actually touched a gun.

I'd love to see him shoot the 458. Whin Mag.