Oregon Gun Magazine Limit Proposal

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
RR7 said:
Ok, well, we don't have time machines, so can't take away them drafting it. So that time wasted has been wasted. What negative effect does the legislation have?
Click to expand...
It's a waste of time for legislators, law enforcement officials, and citizens in general to do what it would take to enforce/comply with a completely useless law.

What positive effect does the legislation have?
 
donkiez said:
Would any of you gun advocates feel differently if it was your wife or daughter shot in Clackamas on tuesday?
Click to expand...
If anything, I think I would feel even more strongly that such a devastating loss be used by politicians on either side of the discussion to blow their own horns and bang their drums trying to pass legislation that would have zero impact.
 
BlazerWookee said:
It doesn't matter what the purpose is, and it matters even less why the average person needs one. If such a useless law was on the books already, fine. While my default position is to vote on the side of more freedom vs. less freedom, the reasons for owning them are completely irrelevant. What bothers me is that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are spending even a few hours discussing/arguing a law that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

And since when is "you don't really need it" a reason to ban it?
Click to expand...

And you dismiss my question about bazooka's and handgrenades? What about fully auto's? The reason and usability of said weapon is completely releavent to its legality.
 
MARIS61 said:
Of course not. How would disarming my wife would help protect her from someone who stole a gun? :crazy:
Click to expand...

the question is not about disarming your wife of child its about limiting clip sizes. In this case of someone stealing a weapon it could definatly save your wife or childs life. It could give them time to react while he reloads.
 
So, should the taxpayers pay for the weapons that are made illegal with this legislation?

Can I, personally fend off a government running amuck with my gun? Clearly not.

Can 75,000,000 people fend off the government with their weapons? I think the government would have to completely destroy their own country to force that many armed citizens into compliace with something they were willing to fight about.

Go Blazers
 
oldguy said:
California has a 10 round max magazine law. The fact that California did it first should tip you off that Oregon doesn't want to do that.

The gun homicide rate (per 100,000) in CA is 4.82, the fourth highest in the nation.

Oregon, without any laws around max magazine size is 1.34 gun homicides per 100,000. That is the 12th lowest in the nation.

Why should I think that this proposed law will make things better here?

The fact is, if some nut job wants to kill people, he will kill people. My folks made me understand that when I was a kid, and I don't stress about it. It is sad when it happens, but it will still happen, no matter how many laws are passed to try to stop it.

As a point of reference, the lowest rate in the nation is NH, at 0.48 per 100K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

The stats are a little screwed up, but I don't know where to find data that differentiates between a gun homicide where some asshole was shot to death during a home invasion, and an actual murder by a low life scumbag.

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

The law in California began in 1989, and was updated twice along the way. Just going through a few different papers on the subject, it looks like the murder rate by all guns was close to 11 per 100,000 in 1987(couldn't find 1989 for some reason). Was at 4.8 for the data you showed from 2004. And last year was under 3.5. Is it because of that law only? Probably not. But showing their rate at what it was, and failing to show what it WAS before their ban or limit doesn't do the argument justice. You can say it has been ineffective because their rate is higher than Oregon's, who doesn't have that law, but when it has dropped significantly over the time period the law has been in effect, it kind of hurts the notion it has been ineffective.
 
donkiez said:
the question is not about disarming your wife of child its about limiting clip sizes. In this case of someone stealing a weapon it could definatly save your wife or childs life. It could give them time to react while he reloads.
Click to expand...

Naivete' abounds. Anyone supporting this bill is openly admitting they literally do not understand the most basic facts about guns and how they work. A limit on clip capacity in a semi-automatic has no more effect on the amount of shooting one can do than the size of your car's gas tank has on how many miles you can drive on your summer vacation.

If he's reloading it means he has already shot 5-10 people under this proposed legislation. You are making the assumption that my wife and child were not among those shot, and that the 2/3 of a second it takes him to switch clips will somehow give them an advantage they would not have had if his clip held 15 or 20 rather than 10 bullets.
 
donkiez said:
And you dismiss my question about bazooka's and handgrenades? What about fully auto's? The reason and usability of said weapon is completely releavent to its legality.
Click to expand...
How are bazookas, grenades, flamethrowers, or fully automatic weapons even relevant to the discussion? They're not trying to limit fuel capacity for flamethrowers, which are already regulated. I'm not arguing that banned and regulated weapons should be unbanned and unregulated. I'm arguing that legislating a legal limit on the size of a magazine will accomplish nothing except provide a vague sound bite for some politicians to use to run for reelection, and it will accomplish that at the cost of time and money spent on drafting, debating, voting, printing, enacting, enforcing, and complying with useless legislation.
 
donkiez said:
the question is not about disarming your wife of child its about limiting clip sizes. In this case of someone stealing a weapon it could definatly save your wife or childs life. It could give them time to react while he reloads.
Click to expand...
And if a qualified and competent citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon had been near this peckerhead when he started shooting, that citizen could have dropped him and saved a couple of lives, a lot of trauma, not to mention the cost of patching walls and replacing windows.
 
Last edited:
Our magazines should always hold one more bullet than the cop's magazines hold.
 
BlazerWookee said:
How are bazookas, grenades, flamethrowers, or fully automatic weapons even relevant to the discussion? They're not trying to limit fuel capacity for flamethrowers, which are already regulated. I'm not arguing that banned and regulated weapons should be unbanned and unregulated. I'm arguing that legislating a legal limit on the size of a magazine will accomplish nothing except provide a vague sound bite for some politicians to use to run for reelection, and it will accomplish that at the cost of time and money spent on drafting, debating, voting, printing, enacting, enforcing, and complying with useless legislation.
Click to expand...

My point about adding other weapons in this discussion is simply where do you draw the line? I think the clip issue is a grey area that at least merrits a discussion, especially when related to an assult rifle and the post mordem of a tragedy of this scale. I do agree however that the benifits of this legislation would probably not be worth the cost especially when its just a state regulation.

I also agree that the line between freedom and regulation is very fine and should not be taken lightly. I hope that the people argueing freedom in this thread also vote pro choice, pro gay marriage and pro marijuana as that argument applies to those topics as well. I find it oddly ironical that both political parties use the same argument for topics they support and dismiss that argument from the other side.
 
BlazerWookee said:
And if a qualified and competent citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon had been near this peckerhead when he started shooting, that citizen could have dropped him and saved a couple of lives, a lot of trauma, not to mention the cost of patching walls and replacing windows.
Click to expand...

Serious question here. Why doesnt this ever happen? There are a lot of these shootings in the US and there are a lot of qualified, competent citizens legally carring a gun. Have the two scenarios just happen to never meet up?
 
I'm an ABSOLUTE supporter in the the right to bear arms!

That said, I will never own a gun...ever. I hate guns.
 
donkiez said:
Serious question here. Why doesnt this ever happen? There are a lot of these shootings in the US and there are a lot of qualified, competent citizens legally carring a gun. Have the two scenarios just happen to never meet up?
Click to expand...

some places like schools forbid them on premises. Something else that stands out is you never see shit like this happen where others might be armed, say compton..seems to be some 15 to 30 pasty ass white punk who has played far too many video games...
 
A few things to consider when talking about this law:

1. There are already thousands of high-cap magazines in Oregon.

2. Vancouver is just five minutes away, where you could legally purchase these mags if you wanted to go on a killing spree.

3. The gun used in the Clackamas shooting was acquired illegally, which means that laws wouldn't do shit.

4. Changing from 30 to 10 would make very little difference in a case like this, as he was wearing an LBV (load-bearing vest)

5. An LBV can carry anywhere of upwards of 10 to 12 mags easily... are you gonna outlaw those too?

6. Anyone can learn to do a speed reload, there are countless videos on the internet. Case in point -

This is your average redneck with a mag in his jeans pocket

[video=youtube;Nkhq_3nKoyg]

This is a dude showing speed reloads with his Glock and 1911.

[video=youtube;hBAK3oO1Tcg]
 
BlazerWookee said:
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120121/ARTICLES/120129934
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...d-after-victim-pulls-his-own-gun-jacksonville
Click to expand...

A customer, who is a concealed weapons permit holder, thwarted the robbery by pulling his gun and attempting to hold the men until deputies arrived. When one of the men pointed his gun at the customer, the patron fired, killing the teenager.

The teenager, later identified as Dante Lamont Williams, of 827 S. Edisto River Drive, Roebuck, was pronounced dead at the scene, according to a written statement from Coroner Rusty Clevenger. Williams had been shot in the head and chest.

Sheriff Chuck Wright said he does not plan to charge the customer, who he says is “very upset” about the shooting.

During a news conference Saturday night, Wright said even after the masked men entered the restaurant, the concealed weapons holder waited until the robbers began ordering customers to the floor and employees into the back - while waving a gun - to act. After pulling his .45-caliber Glock, the customer ordered the men to stay put until deputies arrived. Only after Williams pointed his Hi-Point 9mm at the man, did the customer fire, Wright said.

“The way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is you point a gun at him,” the sheriff said...
:cheers:
In October, in the wake of an attempted rape at a popular park in Spartanburg County, Wright implored female residents to obtain concealed weapons permits, saying that residents need to fight back. The comments made national news and precipitated a spike in concealed weapons classes.

In the months since then, several instances of residents shooting or attempting to shoot aggressors have occurred, including a homeowner who shot a man staying inside a vacant Converse Heights home.

Wright described Saturday's shooting as “another example of how a (concealed weapons permit) may save your life.”
 
RR7 said:
The law in California began in 1989, and was updated twice along the way. Just going through a few different papers on the subject, it looks like the murder rate by all guns was close to 11 per 100,000 in 1987(couldn't find 1989 for some reason). Was at 4.8 for the data you showed from 2004. And last year was under 3.5. Is it because of that law only? Probably not. But showing their rate at what it was, and failing to show what it WAS before their ban or limit doesn't do the argument justice. You can say it has been ineffective because their rate is higher than Oregon's, who doesn't have that law, but when it has dropped significantly over the time period the law has been in effect, it kind of hurts the notion it has been ineffective.
Click to expand...

Not a bit. Murder rates have dropped nationally at a steady pace over the last decade and a half, in nearly all 50 states. The increased deterrent in armed citizens might just as easily be credited for the drop, but the most likely factor is the longer prison sentences doled out now for killers, keeping them from getting out and repeating the crimes.
 
donkiez said:
My point about adding other weapons in this discussion is simply where do you draw the line? I think the clip issue is a grey area that at least merrits a discussion, especially when related to an assult rifle and the post mordem of a tragedy of this scale. I do agree however that the benifits of this legislation would probably not be worth the cost especially when its just a state regulation.

I also agree that the line between freedom and regulation is very fine and should not be taken lightly. I hope that the people argueing freedom in this thread also vote pro choice, pro gay marriage and pro marijuana as that argument applies to those topics as well. I find it oddly ironical that both political parties use the same argument for topics they support and dismiss that argument from the other side.
Click to expand...

You know, it's funny--I was going to bring up the same point. It occurred to me that the "where do you draw the line" argument you're using by bringing up flamethrowers and bazookas is similar to the conservative "where do you draw the line" argument used by the right when they bring up polygamy and incest in response to the gay marriage debate.
 
Or "gun laws won't stop gun violence" is similar to "voter ID laws won't stop voter fraud".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top