What is the logic behind a magazine restriction?

The shooter in Orlando managed to reload several times with standard magazines. No one thought to tackle him while he was reloading.

 

SEVERAL times - with 30-rd magazines
None of the -300- people thought to attack the -one- guy with a gun.

 

Over a 3 hour time period.

 

By the time that the terror filled folks realized that he was beginning a reload, and including the time it would take to get to him because Im sure they were getting as far from him as possible in a nightclub environment, he was already done reloading. Count to yourself..... 1, 2,.... reload complete.

 

If the average citizen isn't brave enough to tackle guy within that time frame then no magazine restriction is going to help. He could've completed the job with a single shot musket.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't realized it was you until I looked at your username, OrlandoChuck. I assumed you was a new poster. Nice stance.

 

Sure -- the first time.

 

Why? Do his reloads get slower after the first time?
We really should not judge these people after the fact. We were not there, we have no idea how far away from the shooter they were and how frightened these folks were. I'm speculating... but I'm sure many hit the floor. We don't know if he gave orders for everyone to hit the floor before firing one shot.... we simply don't know.

 

[
After the first time, you get the idea that he has to reload and it takes a moment to do so.

We don't. But, its still 300 people in a relatively small space.

 

Almost every mass shooter has reloaded multiple times, and most have multiple firearms. At Sandy Hook, the shooter reloaded many times, discarding magazines barely used for full ones.

Magazine size has no relationship to body count in criminal activity. You are promoting nothing more than political propaganda (which normal people call "lies").

 

CORRECT.

There is no reason based on fact or history to limit magazine size. Gun banners are not doing it for public safety.

Creating a law that allows the government to regulate magazine size is just another line of attack for the gun banners in their war against gun owners and freedom.

Once that law is created, the banners will ratchet down the limit until its zero. Their goal is to disarm the population in order to increase their control of the nation.

 

What would make exponentially more sense would be to add prison or punishment time for each round fired during an obvious criminal act (such as a thug robbing raping, car jacking, home invading, assaulting, murdering).

In the same way there are draconian punishments for using or even having a full-automatic firearm.

I'd suggest 5 years for every round that wound or kill a victim, and 1 year for every shot fired.

 

some of the BM members want to do that-they are hard core big government types who want a disarmed public to treat like slaves. But most the democrat party gun haters are not. What the democrats want is to make the shooting sports too expensive or too much a hassle for average people. Like requiring 15 dollar background checks every time you try to buy a box of 3 dollar 22 shells to go pinking with. Once people stop shooting recreationally, many of them will stop sending membership dues to the NRA and other pro gun groups/. and those groups will no longer have the power to lobby against the creeping crud collectivist politicians. And that is REALLY the goals of the BM

 

But I suspect the militia movement will take up the slack.

 

I doubt it will make much of a difference

 

Maybe not. A lot of people are getting prepared for when/if the magic EBT cards quits working. You can already see the increasing violence in the big cities, as the PD's have gone fetal. When I told Vegas, that I was building another AR, I wasn't kidding. If you look around there are very few AR type weapons out there. Parts are a bit better, but not by much. If you look at the country, it looks a lot like just before the Spanish Civil War. A very similar scenario.

 

you keep saying this ad nauseum, but you still lack any evidence to support it

just because you WANT the motivations of these people to be to disarm law-abiding citizens, to as to facilitate martial law/UN control, doesn't make it so.

 

He didn't give the end motivation of gun control as martial law/UN control. You've made that up.

Visit sites such as Huffington Post and read the comments on any gun control article. A significant number of posters are in favor of a complete gun ban.

 

not to create martial law. the main goal of the leaders of the BM is to make the shooting sports too expensive or too much a hassle for all but the wealthy. When that happens, the membership rosters of the NRA and other pro gun groups will shrink and the NRA and other pro gun groups will have far less money and clout. That is the real goal of the BM movement.

The second goal of leaders of the BM is a way they can pander to handwringing ninnies among the voting public who want SOMETHING DONE every time some nut case or terrorist shoots up a nightclub or a school. These panderers can call for gun control which soothes the shouting of the low wattage ninnies while not doing anything to upset major democrat parties constituencies -constituencies that are quite upse when there is a crack down on violent street criminals

 

While I am not in favor of magazine restrictions the idea that we should do nothing about the bloodbath of our children is horrible

 

Have we had any mass murders of children in a elementary school since Newtown? In the last 25 years that's been the only mass murder of children in an elementary school. In just the last 15 years we've had 2000 elementary age children die in house fires, and 11,000 die in motor vehicle accidents. Why aren't we doing more for those tragedies?

 

We should do anything possible to stop house fires and car accidents. And we do. We need to do more about gun deaths. Thousands are dying

 

You specifically addressed mass murders of children at school like at Sandy Hook. Evidently we've prevented those, using the same logic espoused by those who use Australia as an example.

10,000 people die each year by hanging and suffocation. We should have stronger laws regarding rope purchase and ownership, right?

 

No we may want to fund mental heath treatment better

 

Raise taxes ?

 

Yes if necessary