Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Research has found that mandating smaller magazines would force mass shooters to more frequently pause to reload, allowing people to flee or fight back. Several states have adopted such limits, but gun rights advocates are claiming in court that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The issue is likely to come before the Supreme Court -
What is your opinion, and why?
That’s part of it. My major worry is the stopping power of the guns available to civilians. Guns that fire higher-velocity rounds are devastating to the human body, much more so than lower-powered firearms.
I’ll never forget how fast and effective the rifle was that the Buffalo shooter used last year. I watched his GoPro video of his shooting spree, and it was just one shot, one kill.
I listened to a lot of the coroner autopsy reports during testimonies in the Parkland, FL shooting case at that high school. I’ll never forget one of the victim’s dad listening while fighting tears back, and then losing it when he heard the bullet “obliterated” his son’s spinal cord at a high vertebrae, causing him to be paralyzed from the neck down, and his lungs to stop functioning on their own. Went on to explain that blood then fills up pretty quickly in the chest cavity, and they eventually can no longer draw breath. Tracked perfectly with the exterior perspective described by a classmate who survived and testified to what he had seen.
Another kid’s exit wound on the side of his head blew apart, he was unrecognizable. Showed his picture, baby-faced, probably still pre-pubescent kid, 105 lbs or something like that, according to the doctor who autopsied him.
Honestly, I wish someone’s family would give it the Emmitt Till treatment. Let them put a picture of their 14 year old kid on a gurney with half his head missing, right on the front page of Time, and we can all marinate on that for a while and hopefully circle back to the conversation with recalibrated priorities. Don’t show me their Picture Day photo, let’s deal in reality.
Our culture is the problem. We glorify lethal violence (but quickly yell “that’s assault!” at a fistfight🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️) and guns, we perpetually up the ante any time a new weapon comes out because we live in constant fear of not having the biggest gun, and I think so many people are literally addicted to the sense of power and near-invincibility they get from gun ownership. Like they just like the idea of having this thing they can wave around and nothing bad can ever happen to them, and feel like a badass in the process, because we glamorize the self-defense shooting to a point where people seem to rationalize resorting to that at the slightest sign of trouble. And remember we’re talking about humans here, absolute idiots who I don’t even trust to get much less serious shit right.
Of course there’s a legitimate layer of self-defense concern happening, but I just think we really go way overboard with it. Like if you’re taking Christmas card photos with your wife and kids all holding rifles in front of the tree, you have some brand of mental illness that I can easily spot but am just unqualified to officially diagnose, lmao.
I think it is a step in the right direction.
Not sure how limiting the number of ammunition in gun violates their 2nd Amendment rights, does the 2nd Amendment not just state the people have a right to protect themselves and bear arms?
Even though I am from Canada, I am truly interested in the rationale and what people have to say regarding this topic.
Good question, by the way!
Opinion
20Opinion
Magazine size is irrelevant if you know how to use tools at all. Like if all my handgun magazines become 7 rounds, I can just buy 2 or 3 of them, grind the feed ramp off the top of the lower ones, tig weld the mags and springs together, now the capacity is increased, the same won't work on staggered rifle magazines as the rounds aren't, well, round but tapered. Still and all, it isn't tough to machine.
Anyway, that's like trying to treat mosquitos by pouring diesel in puddles, the effect would be minimal for mosquitos. That was done before through the brady bill, it accomplished nothing. Assault weapon bans were done through that through, same story. Allowing teachers to carry, getting rid of gun free zones, it seems like that would be more effective.
There are more guns in the US than people, crowd source the stop of terrorism and active shooters, because all the AI and listening programs we have now, along with laws in most major cities making weapons very difficult to get aren't accomplishing anything.
m I was trying to avoid this question all together because it is clearly based on ignorance. And people get really stupid when discussing the topic, while I have more important shit to do with my time. But since you dragged me into it here.
Magazine size limits are about as useless as posting a sign that says “gun free zone” on a wall. If a person is going to commit murder they have already decided they aren’t particularly interested in following the law. Case and point, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Including a 10 round capacity limit on all fire arms regardless of whether or not it has a detachable magazine. And some firearms, like most semiautomatic rifles need to be modified so that the mag cannot be detached from the weapons unless the weapon is taken apart first. Those laws have done absolutely nothing to prevent:
Monterey Park: 1/21/23
Goshen: 1/16/23
Oakland: 9/28/23
San Bruno: 4/3/18
Laguna Woods: 5/15/22
Sacramento: 5/3/22
And that’s only going back a year and change.
I'm ok with it to a level. back in the olden days, they got 3 rounds a minute, so I don't see how that holds constitutional water.
It impacts the homeowner whom needs large magazine to fend off a herd of vandals, which we had scenario not long ago in the family... a "flock" of over 10 descended on a property to "take what they wanted". Police response is 50min+ and they aren't going to engage anyways... so that leaves the homeowner. Limiting mags is not fair to homeowner.
how we control that I don't know. might help the last scenario, but most criminals are going to get what they want.
Max of 9 rounds sounds ok, maybe 12. Or maybe they can buy more after training and time accumulated.
Jesus ran into this problem long time ago as did the Jews... there's just no way to write down a set of "rules" in a book and expect everyone to follow. Jesus said "I will write it on your hearts". That's the only place it's going to work, but not everyone wants to obey. So we end up in a never ending "hell". Chinese did get this achieved, mostly, by sheer terror and murder of the people til they submitted. They used fear, Jesus used love.
Good luck to us humans...
It only takes seconds to change a magazine. It will make virtually no difference.
Legislation to limit magazine capacity is part of an ongoing process that anti-gunners have been using for decades. They can't ban guns like they'd like, so they peck away at seemingly minor things that don't seem like much individually, but over time really add up. The pro second amendment people know this. That's why they try to stop ALL legislation designed to slowly peck away at their rights.
Banning guns is unconstitutional. Banning them one part at a time is just as unconstitutional.
Okay, let's say every state puts a magazine limit in place. What will this do? Not much, I'd say. In most cases, magazines are made compliant by being pinned. It's also possible to unpin a magazine. Yes, it would be illegal, but so is murdering people. Even if one weren't saavy enough to unpin a magazine, larger magazines are not hard to get, and I hardly feel someone intent on murder is going to balk at having an illegal magazine. The problem is, we are just creating laws that aren't hard to break.
My opinion is that we should on absolute access control; locking non-entry doors from the inside, and armed officers at entry doors. Also, we should mandate metal detectors and, while we are at it, stop advertising school districts as gin-free zones.
Further, we need not gun controls and regulations that weaken and disarm the innocent. We need people control, not permissive Soros prosecutors and judges.
Shorter magazines? I can switch to a new one on an M-16 and chamber a round in 2 seconds. And you need that larger magazine for thug mobs.
Maybe instead of taking these outlandish actions that really do not help but just enable the democratscto further erode our constitutional rights something could be done to get to the root of the problem. Violence video games and other forms of entertainment can desensitize impressionable people to be more prone to use violence. Social media can isolate people and enable bullying and other forms of assault. The lack of parental guidance is a big issue. The kids doing all the assaults are the first ones brought up in the day care generation. they are raised by strangers, often by people who are not trained. All of these issues and more should be addressed but that would be too hard to do so it is easier to blame the weapon and accuse Republicans for being the cause of all the murders.
It was part of the old 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and I think it made a difference. If you need 30 goes to kill something, you suck as a hunter.
The Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped when he stopped to re-load, but he'd already got off too many rounds.
The places with the strictest gun control laws have the most gun violence. It doesn't work.
If killers figure out to use shotguns instead of rifles they will have a much higher shot to kill ratio without even needing much ammo or money for supplies.
My understanding is that most of the damage from these mass shooting events isn't a question of how much ammunition is being fired, so I'd be curious about the impact legislation like that would have. It seems pretty rare that you have a gunner firing into large open crowds of people.
The real solution here is to change society so that we stop driving people insane, but that's obviously not as practical as one would hope.
hmm, no thanks. I still remeber Bidumb's speech about how we should only need 3 shots in a shotgun or else we shouldn't be shooting because we're a lousy shot. They tried real hard to ban guns during covid, so they could mandate even more unconstitutional shit on the people, and we stopped them in their tracks. That's the reason they keep looking for random little things they can get their foot in the door with, by banning parts and pieces of guns since The Second Amendment will ALWAYS be their to put a boot in their authoritarian ass.
We will not compromise our rights. There is no correlation between magazine capacity and the number of mass shooting victims. More damage has been done with pistols and knives than with 100 round magazines. But that's just because I like facts.
I don't see how it would help honestly. One would think it would just make the legal guns inferior to those made by criminals who don't care about the law. So if you were to do criminal acts, it would just make you even more likely to buy a illegal one
Only works until by mandating smaller magazines, everyone just switched to larger calibers with bigger bullets. That's why.45 ACP and 10mm are popular for handguns in restricted states, if you can only have so much ammo just have bigger rounds to fill the previous space.
I think people are missing the part that these people the do mass shooting don’t follow rules. You can’t regulate a criminal.
whatever burdens you put on weapons will fall only on the people that are the victims.
As a test. Hollywood needs to use single shot guns in their movies.
When the Dirty Harry movies were popular. Everyone wanted a 44 Mag. after the movies played!
Since Hollywood’s guns never run dry on ammo. Everyone wants one of those magazines. Or one close to never running out. So, let’s blame Hollywood!
It won’t make a difference considering how quickly magazines can be changed with just a little practice.
Its stupid.
1. Just because it's a legal mandate, does not mean they can't get ahold of it illegally, and they can and likely will.
2. Even if that was the case, it doesn't take but maybe a second or two to pop out a clip or magazine and replace it. Congrats, you bought 3 to 5 extra steps before you get shot.
3. That just slows them down. It doesn't stop them, nor does the guy with a gun nonsense, nor the cops. They all take too long.
That's stupid as fuck reasoning.
By that logic, opioid manufacturers need to make smaller pills as "research" shows less people will die from overdoses.
That would be nice. I’m not sure why we need more than a handful of bullets in a clip at a time. And limit the amount of mags they can buy.
She killed six people in 14 minutes. You could kill more people than that with a machete.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions