Richard Aborn of the New York City Crime Commission (courtesy nyccrimecommission.org)

Richard Aborn is the president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. This piece is republished from newsday.com with the author’s permission. NOTE: Any ad hominem attacks in the comments section will deleted and the commentator banned.

A recent major gun bust in Brooklyn exposed yet again how criminals exploit lax laws in Southern states to buy large amounts of weapons, reselling them in New York with shocking ease . . .

The cache included some of the most lethal guns — Uzis, TEC-9s, MAC-11s and an AR-15 rifle. But even more dangerous than the guns are their large-capacity ammunition magazines. Such magazines have no practical purpose, make guns more powerful than those carried by law enforcement, and allow mass murderers to wreak much greater havoc. For instance, an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine was one of the guns used to murder 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.

In a new nationwide analysis of incidents since 1984, my organization identified more than 30 mass shootings — the killing of four or more victims in a public place, unrelated to another crime — that involved a large-capacity ammunition magazine. That was about half of all mass shootings during that time.

Overall, the shooters who used large magazines were far more destructive than those who didn’t. From 1984 to 2012, assailants who used large-capacity ammunition magazines were able to shoot 161 percent more people and kill 78 percent more victims than those who used a weapon holding 10 bullets or fewer.

Though the number of those hurt or killed by a mass shooter using a large-capacity magazine is but a small portion of American gun casualties overall, it is an eminently preventable type of mayhem — so preventable that a failure to limit the size of magazines is plainly reckless.

Yet only eight states, including New York, continued to limit ammunition-magazine capacity after a prohibition set by the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. That means those big magazines are now easy to procure.

Opponents of a large-capacity magazine ban question how effective it would be in preventing malicious use. But the database statistics are striking. We found that, in the decade before the ban, more than twice as many people were killed or injured by shooters using large-capacity magazines than in the decade during the ban. In the decade since it expired, casualties have nearly tripled.

There are other common-sense reasons to prohibit large magazines. First, if criminals need to reload, that creates an opportunity to stop them. Indeed, that was how the gunman who shot then-Rep. Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, Arizona, was disarmed.

But here’s an even more basic point: Why would a law-abiding citizen need to fire more than 10 bullets at a time? Even hunters in many states have had limitations on ammunition for years.

There will always be dangerous people with no regard for life. We have to limit their ability to maim and kill as best we can while protecting personal freedoms.

For years, a majority of Americans has supported a ban on large-capacity magazines — including after the most recent effort failed in the U.S. Senate last year, and in a CBS News-New York Times poll conducted three months ago.

New York’s Secure Ammunitions and Firearms Enforcement Act significantly increased enforcement of the state’s 20-year-old ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines. But we are still left unprotected while other states don’t have such measures in place. The Brooklyn gun bust showed that.

Congress should limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Americans want it. Common sense demands it. It’s time to reinstitute the federal ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Richard Aborn is the president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. NOTE (again): Any ad hominem attacks in the comments section will deleted and the commentator banned.

214 Responses to Citizens’ Crime Commission of New York: Ban High-Capacity Magazines

    • ad hominem…Do doo be-do-do
      ad hominem…Do do-do do
      ad hominem…Do doo be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do-doodle do do do-doo do!

        • Ad Hominy attack!!!!
          What is Ad hominy anyway?
          Hominy is a food which consists of dried maize kernels which have been treated with an alkali in a process called nixtamalization. Eeewww!
          Aren’t we a mature bunch? 🙂

    • I have never seen an ad hominem so I have no strong desire to senselessly attack one. If ad hominems start going up in price, or they start attacking farm animals or people on the jogging trail, it may be worth it then. Until then, I will continue to not participate in attacking the ad hominems. I have enough on my hands with all these red herrings.

    • The moderating I… well, I’m not sure I understand it since the antis will not be happy anyway but fine. But banning? Lol. What does that even mean? A static IP ban?

  1. Yeah, limiting magazines to 10 rounds really helped the kids at Columbine…where the shooters both carried AWB-legal 10 round magazines.

    This is just more of the same idiocy and ignorance repackaged. Or is that statement an ad-hominem attack?

    • It isn’t. You didn’t address anyone specifically. And I didn’t see anything wrong with what you said.
      But who the hell am I?

      • Probably not. Just FYI, it means “at the man,” which means a personal attack, used when a debater strays from the issue and attacks his opponent personally. Name-calling is the most obvious example.

        • Name calling by itself is not ad hominem. You need only click on either of the links above to determine that. To be ad hominem, an argument must be fallacious, and criticize or point out an irrelevant fact about a person, or their character, presented as an argument about the subject itself.

          Blinky Pete, you are an idiot. Not ad hominem.
          Blinky Pete, you are an idiot. Of course it’s ad hominem because [insert logical argument here]. NOT ad hominem.
          Only an idiot like Blinky Pete could believe this is ad hominem. THIS is ad hominem. It presents itself as n argument, but instead only attacks the person holding the opposing view, and undermines the argument by implicating that anyone who agrees with me is de facto an idiot.

      • Trying to discredit the authors viewpoint by attacking the person, but the attack is irrelevant to points the author is making. e.g. “This guy can’t be right because he is a jerk.”

      • And also doesn’t know how Google works?
        It’s Latin for “against the man”, i.e., turning from debating ideas and saying something derogatory about the person you disagree with. Like a low blow in a boxing match. Our ideas and points are good enough without that.

  2. What’s the point of deleting comments? Even if it never happens, the antis will make somthing up. We won’t win by playing their game.

  3. One reason FOR a 30 round clip or magazine, is that they are used for target shooting and competition shooting. Thus they should not be banned.

    • Then they will say you need a target-shooting license. Pony up to visit your friendly local sheriff.

    • “Is there a human right to self-preservation?”

      Yes.

      “So if someone is shooting at me, then I have the right to shoot back?”

      Well we don’t want guns so —

      “Keep it on point, please.”

      Yes.

      “I, as the defender in that case, have every right to win. Correct?”

      No — I mean, yes.

      “So why shouldn’t I stack the deck with the largest clipazine I can get?”

      Because it scares me.

      “I have two middle fingers that let you know how much I care.”

  4. Overall, the shooters who used large magazines were far more destructive than those who didn’t. From 1984 to 2012, assailants who used large-capacity ammunition magazines were able to shoot 161 percent more people and kill 78 percent more victims than those who used a weapon holding 10 bullets or fewer.

    I know a mass shooting that blows this bs out of the water,Virginia Tech.

    • Actually, the COPS who use standard capacity mags are far more destructive. Those who wildly empty a 15-17 round mag without hitting their target are far more dangerous than the old-school cops who only had a Police Positive to empty. We should ban the carry of standard-cap mags by law enforcement – for the children.

    • I don’t believe there were many 10 round magazines made for semi-automatic firearms prior the AWB, and they probably didn’t get commonplace until 2000.

        • Just a guess, but I think tacocat was referring to magazines for those firearms that fell under the AWB. For example, prior to the 1994 AWB, were there any 10-round magazines available for the AR-15 platform?

          I don’t think tacocat was including magazines for firearms that were not affected by the AWB, like the 1911.

        • Replying here to reply to DonS above:

          There were 5, 10 and 20 round mags for the AR even prior to the ’94 AWB. The 5,s and 10’s were produced mainly for bench rest shooters and the like for whom the longer magazines were bothersome.

      • I’ve got a forty-year-old .22 that proves that wrong. Auto-loads fifteen. Banned now I guess in some states.

  5. I my exhaustive research of drunk driving, I have uncovered the presence of an automobile in 100% of the crimes. Drunk people are clearly more lethal in when using an automobile.

    Conclusion: Lets ban automobiles!

    Further, “But even more dangerous than the guns are their large-capacity ammunition magazines.”
    Put a bullet in any firearm and you can kill someone with it. Put any number of bullets in any magazine, and you have a harmless box of ammunition. The quote above is the most willfully ignorant type of scare mongering there is.

    The rest of this drivel is equally misinformed and deceptive.

    • Nobody’s coming to take your automobiles away.

      What we really need are restrictions on high-capacity gas tanks, which allow drunk drivers to drive for HOURS without needing to refuel. Limiting the amount of gas you can have in your car at any one time will force these dangerous individuals to make more frequent stops, allowing gas station attendants to recognize their inebriation and contact the authorities. True most gas stations don’t have employees outside at the pumps, but even so it’s a common sense measure that any reasonable citizen supports.

      Vote for 5-gallon tank limits today and help us stand up to the car-bullies at the AAA.

      • I see your point, but you are missing the other thing which is a major contributor and is present in every automobile involved massacre. Tires. Tires, especially “high performance” tires are what cause cars to drive at high rates of speed above 10 MPH. It makes the drivers think they are invincible and before you know it, POOF, the tires mow down another innocent victim. We need to ban the round tires and maybe go to a hexagon. This will force people to slow down. Our High Performance Tire ban (HBT) will be the envy of the nation. Police and MRAPs can keep the round ones though.

        • First we need to institute “speed free zones” where it would be illegal to travel over 10 mph. They should be set up within 100 ft of anywhere a pedestrian could be. Then, alongside the HPTB, stricter penalties can be imposed for driving an automobile equipped with high performance tires within a speed free zone.

      • No, the equivalent would be banning all vehicles that go over 55 mph. Only first responders could have vehicles that go over 55 mph. Because speed kills, yo.

  6. Hm. “More than” 30 mass shootings (31? 32?), over a 28-year period. On average, slightly over one shooting per year in this study’s database. Yep, gotta ban those large-capacity ammo clipazines because that’s the real thing KILLIN’ OUR CHILDREN. /sarcasm

  7. Robert, I have a real question here.
    Do we know what study this is from. I would like to see the raw data which talks about these claims.

    Now I am not saying that straw purchases don’t happen. I am not sure exactly why they say tax laws. It appears to be low hanging fruit, but a magazine with out a gun is worthless. So why go after that?

    It seems to me that if there were serious straw purchases going on than you would target that. If anything that would strengthen the argument for background checks on all firearms purchases, but instead the are focusing somewhere else entirely. The big magazine argument is old and tired really.

    UCSB, VA Tech, and many more were with small magazines, so I think this is a let’s pass something, rather than really looking at the issue.

    • I hope you can examine it, Daniel. This is about one thing only: the Death by 1000 Cuts, also known as Incremental Confiscation.

      They know what they’re doing. People, stop patting yourselves on the back by declaring them “stupid” or “incompetent”.

      • Wendy, one of the shooters in this data, worked for me at Iowa Prison Industries, in Ft Madison, Iowa, at Iowa State Penitentiary. He was an interstate compact, where a state can swap notorious inmates. He was a good worker, very nice and rather quiet. There was a lot of racism involving the Moung, (spelling) in Wis., but his incident could have bee handled better, buy both sides. Murderers make the best workers in prison.

    • I think you might be on to something, then again this guy might just be an idiot, or it could be that the mags are easier to go after than guns, or that it’s just something to go after, you know, so they are ‘doing something’ about ‘gun violence’.

      I have to agree fully that the mag this is old, and I don’t think there is a prayer of congress hearing anything about this officially, at least not until after Nov.(and with any luck, by then it will be too late to have a chance of being passed).

  8. So, we’re not allowed to address the person for his personal opinions? Waste of my time to even read.

  9. The Citizens Crime Commission of New York and its President are spouting numbers that I cannot seem to find any verification for. This is just another of NYC’s liberal elite screaming that the sky is falling. I honestly did not know that the standard capacity magazines that came with my rifles were the cause of all the mass shootings. I really thought that they had told me that cause was the nasty semi-automatic firearms. Knowing that its not the firearms but the magazines concerns me. I know darn well there are a lot more 30 round magazines than there are rifles. If the last incident in Santa Barbara shows us anything its those nasty hi capacity knives and beemers that are as much to blame!!

  10. “For instance, an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine was one of the guns used to murder 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.”

    Anyone else notice what they just did there? Sounds like he is trying to insinuate that adam lanza walked into the school with 30 bullets and killed 26 people. Either this guy is dumb enough to believe Adam Lanza never reloaded or he is deliberately misleading someone who is. This blatant error is too convenient to just be ignorance though. I dont know what is more sad that this person stoops to that level or that people exist (probably lots of them) who will hear that and believe it and then act upon it.

    • The statement on its face proves nothing, without more. So one of the guns had a 30-round mag. How many did he kill with that one? He may have used that particular gun on one person, and finished off the rest with his other guns. The statement is a patent device to name-drop Newtown which apparently is otherwise irrelevant to the point he is supposedly making.

      • Thats my point he is being deliberately misleading by leaving the comment so open ended, a low information reader could assume the gun was used with a single magazine to kill 26 people, they might even assume there were 4 bullets leftover. The saddest part is, from my interactions with non-gun owning people, this is not a difficult jump for them to make. Heck I have had to have long discussions about this with some of the fuddier friends of mine who own guns. My uncle thinks about detachable magazines in terms of the 3 round DBM on his browning A-Bolt 300WSM.

  11. Wow – a high cap mag makes a gun not only more lethal but more powerful? Damn, I’ve been going about this all wrong. Who needs a flipping AK when clearly my Ruger 22LR just needs a high-cap mag to turn it into a bazooka.

    It must be true. He said so to the press. I mean, he wouldn’t lobby for a change to the standard equipment and accessories of firearms if he weren’t an expert, right? 🙂

    “While on leave from his position in 2009 he was a candidate for Manhattan District Attorney. His list of endorsements included Congressman Jerry Nadler, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, State Senators Eric Schneiderman and Eric Adams, Assemblypersons Jonathan Bing, Deborah Glick, Richard Gottfried, Brian Kavanagh, Daniel O’Donnell, Linda Rosenthal and Michelle Schimel, and gun control organizations the Brady Campaign, Gun Free Kids, Million Mom March and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.

    From 1992-1996 Aborn served as the president of Handgun Control Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and was a principal strategist behind the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Aborn also served as the president of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence” per Wikipedia.

    Not attacking him – just giving some background to explain the context of his remarks and his expertise on the subject.

    • “Expertise”, in regards to this man’s alleged “knowledge” of the subject, is about the mot tortured stretch one could possibly make without resorting to some very uncivil comments.

      He is no more an expert on this (or on literally anything under the Sun for that matter) than I am at psychology.

      • Folks – see the smiley face in my first post? I was being sarcastic. This guy is no more a firearms expert than my cat is.

        I take that back. Shouldn’t insult my cat by comparison like that. Even though she likes the smell of Ballistol, she knows not to jump in daddy’s lap when he’s cleaning a Glock.

        Bore snake is another matter – I have to be careful not to use it when she’s looking, she thinks it’s an amazing new toy to swat at.

    • Hmm, I believe that your honest recital of his resume is potentially the worst damming anyone could have given him here. It’s like a laundry list of reasons why he couldn’t possibly be fair minded, grounded in fact, honest or even a terribly serious person.

  12. “A recent major gun bust in Brooklyn exposed yet again how criminals exploit lax laws in Southern states to buy large amounts of weapons, reselling them in New York with shocking ease . . .”

    …but it’s illegal to resale those guns in New York. It’s almost like criminals don’t obey the law or something.

    • Funny how these weapons/magazines are readily available in the rest of the country, but they don’t ’cause a problem there. It’s only in the large cities. Why, it’s almost as if crime were an urban problem, and not a gun problem!!

      (And when I say urban, I mean urban. No racial overtones intended.)

      • When they say that lax gun laws might be OK for rural areas and small towns, but not their big cities, I have a few things I’d lke to ask them (on record) “So, mr mister, are you saying that people in your cities are that much less sane, safe, responsible, and that much more prone to murdering for no reason than people in the country or small towns? Please speak into the microphone.”

        In which case, I might agree with them…

        • Perhaps people aren’t the problem. Living in cities kills people. Outlaw cities!

    • Yes. The MAJORITY of magazines in this nation are 10+ rounds. All he has proven (assuming he actually has some kind of proof) is that killers in other states don’t go out of their way to comply with CA cap limits. “Yo, let’s smoke those fools”
      “Hold up, our magazines are not CA legal.”
      “…we don’t live in CA…”
      “…snap, we don’t follow laws either!”
      both; “Bwaaahahahahahahahaha!!!”

      • That was not only funny but illustrative of the foolishness behind the proposal. Ban the mags and they become instantly quite valuable, meaning they will be maintained. Anyone wanting one will have to pay more, but if mass murder is what you must have, and you insist on a gun to accomplish it (it’s really not the best way, or even in the top 5), and rapid reloads or sniping from a distance isn’t your thing, or carrying multiple guns, or manufacturing magazines, or smuggling, and you didn’t happen to already have a few of the millions and millions of standard capacity magazines already in existence I guess you’d have to pay a little more to get some. Now if only there were a way to use your newfound murderous unlawfulness to turn a profit so you could afford the pricey mags. . .

        The very notion that a capacity limit is useful in any practical way is ridiculous. Maybe this is actually an economic stimulus plan in disguise: Rail about banning mags, there is a run on mags, the manufacturers and distributors profit, the economy improves. Somehow I think the meager improvement would be more than offset by the instability that comes from attacking freedom and threating the livelihood of several industries at once, but hey, you know, I’m not an economist.

  13. “But even more dangerous than the guns are their large-capacity ammunition magazines.”

    This made me laugh

    • They’re getting warmer. It’s not the type of stock or the bayonet mounts, they figured that out (mostly). They might be catching on that it’s not the barrel shrouds or muzzle devices, they’re onto the mag thing right now but eventually, someday, maybe they’ll catch on that it’s the person shooting the gun at people that’s dangerous. Of course, using their logic, they will immediately push to ban people. Especially those with two eyes, no one needs that much vision! It’s for the children!

  14. They already have laws against selling these sorts of weapons in NY, regardless of where they came from right? So are they saying we need to make it super-illegal to sell these weapons in NY, and that will solve the problem?

  15. “But here’s an even more basic point: Why would a law-abiding citizen NEED to fire more than 10 bullets at a time?*

    >NEED is NOT the point. Common use and mass-criminalization are the issues here. 90%+ of ammo magazines are 10-20 rounds — NONE have markings indicating exact capacity — or serial numbers. A BAN would make 100s of millions of pieces of plastic and metal CONTRABAND and touching one would be an instant felony — with no criminal intent. Gun manufacturers have been producing said contraband since almost 100 years ago.

    http://radioviceonline.com/new-york-penalty-8-round-in-magazine-more-severe-repeat-child-molester/

    “Even hunters in many states have had limitations on ammunition for years”

    The above is NOT criminal law. Small fine.

  16. The FBI defines a “mass shooting” as the injury or death of four or more people in a single event. They also report that “mass shootings” occur about once every two weeks.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/

    But the vast majority of those shootings never go beyond local reporting brecause they are accomplished by gang members against other gang members or innocent bystanders and they most commonly use pistols.

    The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report of 2012 (the most recent complete report) proves that more than 75% of the shootings nation-wide are as a result of gang violence.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expandhomicidemain

    What we really need in this country is a conversation about the thug rampage that has been in progress nation-wide for more than 20 years. Need proof of that? Just look at the dwindling crimes occurring compared to the gun ownership rates that are climbing.

  17. The goal of articles like this is simply to draw away from the fact that despite the (repeated) proliferation of ‘high capacity’ magazines, murder rates continue to fall. It’s easy to massage numbers on a spreadsheet until they tell the story you want them to tell. It’s a lot harder to explain how forcing killers to switch magazines every 10 shots rather than ever 15, every 30 or more is going to somehow stop them. It’s pretty telling that the worst mass shooting in US history involved 10 and 15 round magazines.

  18. Prohibition does not work.

    Never has.

    Never will.

    Regulating the majority because of the actions of a few is flawed to its core. If we followed this rule for everything then we wouldn’t have cars, knives, or even bottles of bleach.

  19. “Congress should limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Americans want it.”

    Some Americans, yes, but certainly not all. Some Americans want people to go to jail for saying politically incorrect things. Some Americans support unreasonable search and seizure or want cruel and unusual punishment. Some Americans want to be allowed to break into your house and steal all your belongings.

    So what? Human rights don’t end where Americans’ wants begin. “Common sense” doesn’t demand anything other than not banning these “high capacity” mags either BTW.

    • “Congress should” impeach OBumer, pass a balanced budget, properly fund the US military, airdrop all residents of Gitmo, close DOEnergy, ATF, DOEductaion, EPA, sell 90% land holding, layoff 50% of Fed employees and ban their union, etc etc etc, And follow the CONSTITUTION.

      • He should have been impeached five times over by now. But I sense he is about to be tossed aside by the same forces that put him in. He has been a very obedient servant, but his personal liabilities have mounted to a point where it’s not worth protecting him.

        I don’t see an impeachment, however. Congress lacks the guys to ever do that. I see him tendering a sudden resignation. Hillary is the new Chosen One. She won’t last long, though. Her health seems too precarious.

  20. “In the decade since it expired, casualties have nearly tripled.” Is he insinuating that shooting deaths have trebled in the past decade? We all know that’s an outright fabrication. Maybe I am missing some statistical sleight of hand he tried to pull. As for the larger point, he clearly knows nothing about firearms, and has no right whatsoever to dictate what citizens of other states may or may not own because a handful of thugs in his city can’t behave themselves.

    • It’s just the Big Lie all over again. Just spout some official-sounding figures, and most people will swallow them.

      I’ve seen this many times before. If someone says it on TV, it’s the Truth. If it wasn’t on TV, it didn’t happen.

    • Once you massage the numbers enough, cherry pick just the right selection of cases, you can say anything.

    • Think of it another way: If those people over there weren’t so free the oppressed peoples over here wouldn’t be so bent on violence. Imagine, with a straight face, saying that the liberties of people in other jurisdictions, 100’s of miles away and which do not have such problems are the cause of the crime problem in your jurisdiction. The argument is so illogical that no thinking person could accept it. The very first question that comes to mind is ‘Why aren’t these objects causing a violence problem in those places where they are legal?’. Of course any honest answer to that would bring down the house of cards that is liberal politics and anti-liberty statism. Basically,to answer that question honestly, you have to admit to a failure of generations of democrat policy.

      The anti’s have said it before, though in oblique fashion, that some people can’t be responsible with guns. Never mind that the vast majority can, since some can’t they need to go. Notice that there is never any accountability for the people who misuse guns, nor any suggestion of what might be done about these people and their actions. In fact there is never any mention of who ‘these people’ are. Failing to recognize that a very small criminal underground is responsible for the vast majority of the violence would make hitting on a solution to said violence virtually impossible.

      If crime reduction is the goal then the conversation has to be about crime and criminality. Burglary will never be reduced by banning pry bars any more than mugging could be reduced by banning wallets. It’s an absurd argument and one that entails practical and civil rights restrictions as well as serious ethical, legal and practical issues that include the very liberty and security of the nation. We’d have to talk about who burgles, where, why, and how. Then we could begin generating policy to address burglary. If reducing violence is instead the goal, then we have to discuss who is violent, where, to whom and why. Just as the how of burglary may be ladders and pry bars the how of violence is often shooting. However, just as burglars will burgle by say, first floor entries via smashing windows if ladders and pry bars are outlawed, violence will continue by some means regardless of available tools.
      A meaningful look at the roots of violence in America however has so much political and cultural baggage that I doubt any serious discussion of it could take place in the current climate. Meanwhile, under pressure to ‘do something’ about rampant urban violence the left will continue tilting at ladders and pry bars while smash and grab artists make off with everything in the store.

  21. An AR-15 with a standard capacity magazine is more powerful than those carried by law enforcement? Since when?

  22. “Yet only eight states, including New York, continued to limit ammunition-magazine capacity after a prohibition set by the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. ”

    So even the CRNY (Communist Republic of New York, my home state unfortunately) has banned these magazines, criminals seem to still be getting their hands on magazines, hmmm….well, guess they better pass more laws, cause as the “War on Drugs” as shown, that will solve everything…….*facepalm*

    If they really believe this: “There will always be dangerous people with no regard for life. We have to limit their ability to maim and kill as best we can while protecting personal freedoms.” Then punishing your normal American citizen is NOT the answer. We need to start at accountability (individuals, parents, society, et all…) and work from there.

  23. Why would a law-abiding citizen need to fire more than 10 bullets at a time? Even hunters in many states have had limitations on ammunition for years.

    Because “even hunters” are not the target consumers for the ammunition magazines in question. People using ammunition-based weapons for combat or sporting purposes are the target consumers of this product, and they have both the desire and need for these larger-than-small-capacity ammunition magazines.

  24. “But here’s an even more basic point: Why would a law-abiding citizen need to fire more than 10 bullets at a time?”

    Let me see…. (?)… (%)…(@&)… how’s about if there were 11 or more no-knock SWAT team members coming through my door? Shouldn’t I be able to kill them ALL?

    • Particularly when you consider most semi-automatic rifles and handguns ship with “large capacity” magazines. This is a perfect example of correlation always equals causation, other influencers be damned. It would be interesting if they demonstrated that there’s a correlation between number of casualties and the actual capacity of each killers magazines rather than a simple over and under based on a completely arbitrary number, but then that probably wouldn’t produce the conclusions they’re looking for.

  25. But here’s an even more basic point: Why would a law-abiding citizen need to fire more than 10 bullets at a time? Even hunters in many states have had limitations on ammunition for years.

    Here in Wisconsin, I don’t know how, without even having ID’s, many deer have been aquiring firearms so the DNR has been considering rule changes on mag capacities for SD considerations.
    Water fowl shotguns will still be requiring plugs with a 3 shot limit because the geese and ducks can’t seem to get off the ground while armed.

  26. So they are using an instance where these firearms were found illegally as an argument for banning them? So the good folks of brookyln are not allowed to have these weapons…but that didn’t stop the criminals from acquiring them and storing them there… A 30 round mag has a great function…to make certain I have at LEAST if not more than the amount of ammo my attacker does. These bad guys had the 30 round mags while the law abiding citizens of Brooklyn would only have 7 or 8…whatever their stupid law is. So the law has only kept the good people underarmed while the dangerous people disregard the foolish law…

    Riddle me this…

  27. WOW TTAG…threatening to ban commentators for logical fallacies!?!?!?!

    What’s next, banning commentators for using strawmen, false cause, appeal to authority, loaded questions?

    Lighten’ up Francis 🙂

    • I’m assuming they meant insults and name calling, which is apparently what ad hominem means now.

      • Somewhere in this thread I actually made a near textbook ad hominem. I suspect it will stay there because what’s really at question are posts with no merit other than to shout insults, and I’m fine with keeping that out. I read this with my morning coffee and I don’t want to wade through a bunch of comments in which an idiot demonstrates his ability to type out insults and nothing more. To call Richard Aborn an idiot is likely still allowed as well (and arguably accurate). To comment only to point that out is completely useless and often bothersome. Now, I’d hate to see a comment removed for such a minor insult if the commenter went on to explain, rationally, why they think so, but it’s hard to put up a policy against excessive attacks and foul language that is understandable to the sorts of people who post comments that consist mainly of insults and foul language without a blanket ban on insults and foul language, which is terribly restrictive to everyone else.

        I’ll take the judgment of sound minds over hard rules any day, and I’d say that the way the policy is administered here is working quite well.

  28. I’ve gotta go shopping for higher capacity magazines.
    They’ll turn my .9mm into tank!!!

    • Got just the deal for you Tom. Have you seen the dude on YouTube fire off 600 rounds from a whole shitload of magazines fastened together end to end.

      • MattV2099. A bunch of Glockazines taped together and some clever video editing. I think it was the crotch grab that really sold it.

        • Crap. That was the wrong video. He has another where the Glockazine is laying on the ground instead of hanging off the roof.

  29. “Such magazines have no practical purpose, make guns more powerful”

    Using a 75 round drum, an AK in 7.62×39 can be used against tanks, in lieu of a rocket launcher. Those extra 45 rounds make it like 45x more powerful.

  30. Sigh.

    I won’t offer an ad hominem attacks.

    I will say that the entire “commission” is nothing more than a bunch of political appointees appointed to reach a predetermined conclusion.

    I would imagine if I, and people like RF and DZ were appointed to a similar commission, it would have had a very different outcome.

    John

  31. That guy starts off by talking about a New York gun bust against a criminal gang and segued from there to mass shootings by nuts. Talk about misdirection. He makes it seem like the Crips knocked over Newtown.

    42 states shouldn’t have to change because eight states including New York are incompetent and can’t handle their own own business. Nobody should have to bow down and kiss the rings of the venal and corrupt New York City power elite.

  32. What are the odds that those Uzis, TEC-9s, MAC-11s either don’t exists or are semi auto clones that idiots like to buy to feel retro?

    • I would bet you nailed it. They didn’t say actually what was illegal about them. The information on the bust did not call them fully automatics and it did specify an AR.
      I would also bet they only way he could get permission to reprint this was if no ad hominum comments were allowed

    • One of the techniques they are using is calling them “crime guns”. You will see the term used often with rifles. Reading the real details where they are available, every time I have encountered it, the “Crime guns” were not used in the commission of the primary crime, they were generally recovered after a search of the suspects home. They are illegal for various reasons but were not used in the commission of a violent crime (mostly because they are impractical for robbing a Bodega and blending in after the crime). Often their existence IS the crime. Get ready for the anti gun crowd to start publishing some real bogus numbers as they count every unregistered “assault weapon” confiscated in New York and Connecticut as a “crime gun” using this dodge. Make the gun illegal. When folks don’t register them, that fits with their plan. Start confiscating the ones not turned in and counting them as “crime guns” and then tell the world “There are umpteen million violent crimes committed in America this year and xx% of the “crime guns” found in New York and Connecticut were assault weapons. See, we were justified in banning these dangerous tools of mass destruction that are clearly favored by criminals”

  33. I’m confused. Is this organization for or against crime?
    The name “Citizens’ Crime Commission” sounds like an organization Batman might have gone up against, as opposed to something like “Citizens’ Crime Prevention Commission”.
    The fact that they suggested a way to disarm the law abiding population, without suggesting anything that might reduce the number of guns or full capacity magazines in the hands of criminals, makes it seem even more likely that they are pro-criminal.

    • I think you’re on to something here. I can just see Joker, Riddler, and Penguin in a basement – slanted at an angle for effect – talking about how the crime pickins will be easy once the citizen-fools give up their firearms. Bruce Wayne will get a fundraising invitation from Bloomburp, put two and two together, and Batman will be calling the Commissioner to talk about the “diabolical plot” before the next commercial break.

    • Since what they suggest is criminal under the constitution and natural law, I’ll go with they have just the right name. That and Anti-Self Defense, Pro-Criminal, Citizens Committee for the Promulgation of Bad Policy and Abolition of Liberty is too long while The Committee for the Advance of Collectivist Statism and Really Bad Public Policy was already taken, I think they’re located in California.

  34. So the “high-capacity” magazine sitting alone, all by itself, is more dangerous than the actual gun? Right… Also, it’s good to know that putting a “high-capacity” magazine in a gun makes it deadlier. Since I’ve got a serious force multiplier on my hands, I think I’ll slap a 25rd mag in my 10/22 Takedown & go hunt a grizzly!

  35. These anti’s will never get that they are grossly misinterpreting the data and information that they use to their “advantage”. They don’t seem to get that they largely created the problems by hindering our ability to defend ourselves.

    • This^ Heavily strengthen SD laws and few firearms restriction along with go everywhere CCW all without hassle would largely and rapidly kill of the tiny minority of people who drive the bulk of violence. Or, with violence rates already low and dropping, we could just, you know, stay out of it and let the trend continue.

  36. Who needs ad-hominem attacks when the truth is so much worse? (via wikipedia):

    From 1992-1996 Aborn served as the president of Handgun Control Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and was a principal strategist behind the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Aborn also served as the president of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

    In 2009 he was a candidate for Manhattan District Attorney. His list of endorsements included Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, and gun control organizations the Brady Campaign, Gun Free Kids, Million Mom March and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. He lost.

    I pity these people.

  37. The cache included some of the most lethal guns — Uzis, TEC-9s, MAC-11s and an AR-15 rifle.

    Ah, yes, the infamous TEC-9, a pistol so lethal that’s it’s used by a long list of military and police organizations, from… um… wait, hold on…

    Well, wouldn’t you know it, it seems nobody really seems to want to use that particular gun in a professional capacity.

    • I have a 1993 newspaper clipping with a photo of then-Senator “Plugs” Biden, waving a Tec-9 during a Senate subcommittee meeting on “gun violence.” I understand he now recommends a shotgun.

      • I’ll give the old Tec-9 one thing: it has got to be hands-down the absolute favorite gun of people who know absolutely jack about guns.

    • A guy actually showed up with a TEC-9 at my concealed carry class. The instructor took an immediate dislike to him. Part of the problem other than the stupidity of bringing a TEC-9 was that the instructor wanted the action open and the safety on, which can’t be done on the old open bolt version. He was in the lane next to me and I am pretty sure he had failed the practical before we even left the three yard line. I didn’t like standing next to him cause he looked like an accident about to happen. What really annoys me is that I was shooting a Dan Wesson .357 with interchangeable barrels and grips. Just to be a joker I had the eight inch barrel on it. At the three yard line I swear there were powder burns on the target. Even out to the seven yard line I was basically tossing rounds through a big ragged hole in the center of my target. At fifteen, my eyes are’t good enough to see the hole definitavely with the poor lighting they had. When the target comes in I have a reasonable group around the original ragged hole with four flyers on the extreme lower left of the target. I know they are his, but can’t prove it. The instructor said I could shoot again if I wanted, but I passed so it wasn’t worth it. Funny thing is I went to the same range the night before to practice and a similar thing happened. Guy next to me with a target at five to seven yards was going rambo with some plastic semi auto pistol. I put mine out to 25 yards and loaded five rounds. Took aim, and let them go a couple of seconds apart. Bring the target in and I got seven holes in it. Frankly if all the bad guys were armed with TEC-9s it would probably be a pretty good thing.

      • Is it the TEC-9, or more like that a certain kind of duffer buys a TEC-9? I knew that kind of duffer once, but his Mom broke up withdumped me before I had to chance going to the range with them.

  38. I need more than 10 rounds because if three armed people break into my home intent on harming my family, I want all the firepower available to me.

    This guy is “comment self moderated”.

  39. I need more than 10 rounds because you should mind your own business.

    I am not a criminal – don’t treat me as if I was one. MYOB.

  40. Actually he’s right. I don’t want to fire more than 10 bullets at a time.
    Can you imagine how much that would cost? How many ransom rests with strings all cut just right.
    The table to mount it all on, lugging all that stuff around.
    And no way to conceal it.
    I guess this guy can make sense after all.

  41. And here I thought this article was talking
    About thous high capacity magazines you see
    At news stands and the grocery store thous
    Magazines that are almost as thick as Websters dictionary

  42. Kids seem learn in video games to never empty a magazine. Adam Lanza switched out magazines frequently, without exhausting them. “Authorities determined that Lanza reloaded frequently during the shootings, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine” Loughner on the other hand exhausted his high capacity magazine and dropped the replacement trying to reload, likely because the damn thing was unwieldy. He was subdued because it seems he was in the middle of a crowd. The thing that is annoying is the fact people forget the infamous Columbine was actually a failed bombing. The bombers used their low capacity AWB legal guns as a matter of expediency.

  43. Wow – a high cap mag makes a gun not only more lethal but more powerful? Damn, I’ve been going about this all wrong. Who needs a flipping AK when clearly my Ruger 22LR just needs a high-cap mag to turn it into a bazooka.

    Reminds of one of my favorite statements of idiocy during the Newtown fact-free zone of reporting. A CNN bimbette (is that ad hominem?) made reference to Adam Lanza and his use of “high-velocity magazine clips.”

  44. From the article: “There will always be dangerous people with no regard for life.”
    Very true. Here are two more facts. 1) Those same people have no regard for the law (e.g. magazine size limits). and 2) Those people will kill regardless of the tool used. After the Oklahoma City bombing, did anyone scream out to ban rental vans? Did anyone propose limiting the purchase of fuel oil (used to make the bomb) to 10 gallons? Did anyone propose limiting the purchase of fertilizer (use to make the bomb) to 10 pounds? Did all farmers go on an FBI watch list because they owned large quantities of fuel oil and fertilizer?

    If passing a law – words on paper – could stop any one of these killers, they we should just pass a law making it illegal to kill someone. That would end all murder, gun related or not. Simple solution for simple people.

  45. I agree with others. I grow weary of your constant “issue” with ad hominem attacks, and the threat to “ban” is rather churlish.

  46. “Such magazines have no practical purpose, make guns more powerful than those carried by law enforcement”

    How is it even possible that such magazines, that are carried by law enforcement, both have no practical purpose AND magically make a gun more powerful than another identical gun with an identical magazine carried by law enforcement?

    Oh, I’m sorry, law enforcement can have full-automatic versions. So apparently ‘large capacity magazines’ [sic] make a semi-automatic rifle or pistols ‘more powerful’ than the fully automatic version of the same weapon.

    /facepalm

  47. When a pedestrian is hit by a car that person has an 80% higher survival rate if the car is going 30mph vs 35mph. Therefore all roadways in America should have speed limits of 30mph or less. Why not save all of the innocent lives from senseless motor vehicle deaths.

  48. The problem with the analysis is that it does not determine if things would change with smaller capacity magazines. A mass murder is 4 or more people, a 10 round magazine is just as capable of killing 4 people as a larger capacity magazine. It also does not account for multiple weapons which nullifies the magazine capacity limit. Changing guns is colloquially known as a “New York reload”

    I examined the Mother Jones databases of mass shootings and found that 37 of the 62 mass shootings they identified between 1982 and 2012 (30 years) the killer brought multiple weapons. The average number of weapons brought is more than 2. The average number of people killed per gun is less than 3 and the average number of people killed or injured is less than 8. There were only 3 instances where the number of people killed per gun exceeded 10. This analysis indicates that there is essentially no effect on the number of people killed/injured from reducing magazine capacity.

  49. “But here’s an even more basic point: Why would a law-abiding citizen need to fire more than 10 bullets at a time? Even hunters in many states have had limitations on ammunition for years.”

    My AR only fires 1 bullet at a time…Where can I get one of these 10 barreled Rifles.

  50. “… make guns more powerful than those carried by law enforcement …”

    Didn’t take long to find the typical assertion of a falsehood as a fact.

    How exactly is a full-auto AR/m4 pattern rifle w/30-round magazine, carried by law enforcement LESS POWERFUL than a semi-auto AR15 w/ 30-round-magazine carried by the typical citizen?

  51. I’ll say it once, I’ll say it a million times. You cannot stop mass murderers by limiting their choices of tools. Limit them to 10 round magazines (and somehow magically make all the 30 rounders go away) and they will simply alter their tactics to compensate. These are not stupid people. Crazy, yes, but not stupid. They carefully plan their attacks and would have no problem getting around a mag cap by, oh let’s see, oh yeah. Bringing more magazines and not firing from the middle of a crowd.

    To my knowledge only two mass shooting have ever been stopped while the bad guy reloaded. (Tucson, LIRR) What do you say we not base public policy on 2 incidents.

    • And the Tucson shooter shouldn’t even count. If he’d positioned himself a few feet away instead of firing from within a crowd of his intended victims, his fumbling of the mag would’ve had less, if any, effect.

      He wasn’t stopped because he had to change mags. He was stopped because he was (fortunately) a butterfingered incompetent.

    • How about the Aurora theater shooting? From the reports I read, the shooter spent a bit of time (much more than would be required for a mag swap) trying to clear a jammed 100-round drum mag. He eventually gave up and switched to a different weapon. I didn’t see any reports of potential victims tackling him while he was busy playing amateur gunsmith.

  52. Here is the problem. The report assumes that magazine capacity is the only variable which has an effect on the number of victims killed in mass shootings.

    Plus they cite the Aurora shooting, even though in the details of the report they acknowledge that his large cap magazine jammed. Not to mention VA tech where “15 and 10” round magazines were found. An incident in which the shooter had all the time in the world to reload.

    The report also cites incidents where the shooter used “high-cap” mags during the ban, so I;m not sure how that’s supposed to help.

  53. So a standard capacity magazine makes a gun more powerful? When they start off with such drivel as that, you know the rest is just as useless.

  54. Robert,
    Ad hominem attacks are directed at a person when they make an argument. It’s logically proper to call into question a person’s character and circumstances when they make statements of fact.

  55. I’d love to know how these people plan on enforcing such a decision. There’s untold millions of 30+ round magazines in circulation throughout this country. You could ban them tomorrow and there’d still be 30 rounders showing up in crimes a hundred years from now. And yes, I suspect, barring directed energy weapons breakthroughs, the 5.56 mm caliber will be around in 2114, ha ha.

    But to flush out untrackable items such as magazines, would take a herculean effort of law enforcement that even the antis would question the side effects of.

    That’s the issue the antis overlook. If they really want bans and limitations enforced, it’ll involve unleashing law enforcement and abrogating a lot of other civil liberties as well…

  56. Why does TTAG take a press release that is OBVIOUSLY full of lies and blatant misrepresentations and reprint it without any commentary at all, and then demand that everyone who comments make no insulting remarks vis a vis the liar who authored it?

    Why carry these people’s water for them without issuing even the most basic rebuttal?

    The AP, NYT, Reuters, WaPl, etc will all blithely reproduce this tripe without even a cursory fact check, that is a given.

    Why add TTAG to that list of bad actors?

    You want to post the press release and Fisk the hell out of it? Go for it. Mock it and them mercilessly.

    But to just report the lies they say as though they are objective truth is a bridge too far IMO.

    TTAG is supposed to disseminate the TRUTH about guns, and this article is anything but.

  57. I live in Brooklyn (I’m out whenever I can), and am writing this comment in Brooklyn. Aborn’s statement is illogical and dishonest. How does use of a magazine holding more than ten rounds make citizens better armed than police carrying such magazines? The “major gun bust” he’s referring to, I believe was reported here on TTAG and is only “major” to those who are so clueless as to consider a few hunting rifles and a rusty revolver with a few boxes of ammunition to be an “arsenal”. Not only is crime with “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons” a non-issue in Brooklyn, criminal use being marginal with zero evidence they worsen violent incidents. They are already strictly illegal, and we have the most draconian firearms and weapons laws in the nation. Heck, you can only buy two units of pepper spray at a time from a licensed vendor, which you must register. What I consider most offensive about Mr. Aborn’s statement is his desire to impose his will on peopl not in his community. It’s none of his business what people thousands of miles away put in their pockets! The laws he’s put in place where he lives doesn’t work, so he’ll enslave the world? The United States of America is the last developed country on Earth where the human right of people to arm themselves for defense is even partially respected. There’s nowhere else to go. How dare he try to forcibly stop Arizonians under threat of violence from doing what they feel they need to to be safe! After the sovereignity of states is weakened to make the entire nation mirror the laws of New York and California, will he seek to impose his values on Canadians? Will we have to invade them to exert legislative control? What about any other country in the world where you can buy a Glock magazine?

    It sickens me that as New Yorker my tax dollars go to organizations like this. I’ve lived here all my life, but I don’t consider it home. My home will be somewhere where God-given/natural human rights are respected, where I won’t be criminalized for doing what is righteous and morally correct. I expect to leave within a few years, and as long as they have these laws I’ll never live in New York again if I can help it. It is purely because of the weapon laws.

  58. Funny how the violent crime in the anti-gun states always gets blamed on the so-called easy access to guns afforded by lax gun laws in other states. Yet, those other states, where the guns supposedly originate, do not themselves have such high violent crime rates. How can a cause precipitate an effect someplace else, but not where the cause itself supposedly exists?

    • That’s exactly what I was thinking when I wrote my little comment. Those states with the more lax laws have lower violent crime(except for maybe the large cities…Atlanta, etc??). Funny how it works that if there are people armed, CC or OC, where those people may be, crime seems to be a bit lower. Funny how that works.

    • The same way chlorofluorocarbon molecules, 3-5 times heavier than air, levitate to the stratosphere and migrate to the south pole, where they destroy ozone molecules.

      That is, through the power of hokum.

      • The same way chlorofluorocarbon molecules, 3-5 times heavier than air, levitate to the stratosphere

        Is that the same way that N2 molecules magically sink down to sea level, ending up below (edit: mixed with) O2 and CO2?

        I’m kind of happy that CFCs levitate up to the stratosphere. If they just behaved and stratified out according to molecular weight, then the O2 I like to breathe would be a bit out of reach.

  59. Why doesn’t this ‘fine gentlemen’ know that I can change mags on any of those guns in under 5 seconds? Heck, I can reload a Garand with its’ 8 round clip under 5 seconds. I don’t need a 30 round mag.

    Why aren’t these people at least required to be knowledgeable about firearms before they start spouting crap?

  60. First the magazines he wants banned are standard capacity mags , next most of these spree killers have had a history of mental illness ,

  61. Next the Second Amendment is not about hunting , in most instances of home invasions or burglaries victims have needed more than the low count magazines , as for the firearms being bought out of state and then sold there is part of the job description of the BATFE , it seems that if the BATFE paid more attention to what is going on instead of trying to make law to disarm law abiding citizens , maybe this wouldn’t be a problem . It all just boils down to anti-gun politicians and those that follow their agenda want to disarm all citizens so they can tell us how to live because they think they know best , but we are US citizens and we are a very independent lot , we do not appreciate anyone else telling us how to live especially politicians that can’t even run the nation as it should be ! Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  62. Gee I thought everything was pretty much banned in New York already. Why is this really newsworthy or deserving of comment? Maybe because RF threatened banishment? I just don’t get it LOL

  63. “For instance, an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine was one of the guns used to murder 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.”

    I believe the man has his facts wrong.

    NBC Admits No Assault Rifle Used At Sandy Hook

  64. I had to stop reading this bias crap as soon as it read an AR15 was used at Sandy Hook because it was NOT it was in the TRUNK of the car he drove… NEVER used. The guy writing this must think people are stupid… My guess is he is a BHLPD.

  65. When the **** and ****** ****** ***** ******** ***** and ************ I might say *********** and ********. Now that this ******** and ******** has ************* to law-abiding gun owners it is *********** that ********** and ******** has gotten us nowhere. Even if we ****** often ********* ***** and ********. In closing may I remind everyone ************ and ****** are out to screw us.

  66. Has anyone ever figured out why three magazines with 10 rounds are more better than one magazine with 30 rounds?

    Is this something designed by, or modeled after, the TSA and their 3 ounce rule? Where seven different three ounce bottles in a zippybag is safe but but a single sixteen ounce bottle of water is a threat…. is the magazine capacity thing the same? More smaller is OK but all together in one is somehow bad?

    • Actually the 3oz rule had a basis in science. They are fairly certain that 3oz of home brewed TAP cannot bring down a large aircraft.

  67. Does everyone else see how selective their data is? They just grabbed the most famous “mass shooting incidents they could find. I thought that mass shootings were defined as an incident involving four casualties or more, yet they just grab the high profile ones that fit their data set. They totally cherry picked this whole “study.” When will this bunk science stop!!

  68. This is full of lies aimed at misleading people who are not firearm savvy.

    These weapons are no more lethal than any other firearm in the same caliber. The bullet and the amount of powder pushing it determine lethality to an extent the same can be said for magazine capacity, but more on that later. The most important aspect to lethality is bullet placement. If placed directly into lets say the heart for example, a muskets single shot lead ball is no more or less lethal than the 5.56/.223 round from a modern sporting rifle. You are no less dead in the end.

    As for the claim that these are high capacity magazines giving criminals more firepower than the police. Simply put, false. First, these 30rd mags are standard capacity for many of these rifles. Secondly, the police have access to these “high capacity” magazines, in fact the NYsafe act was specifically amended to make sure police retained their access to these.

    Furthermore, FBI crime statistics show that these weapons are rarely ever used with deadly results. They are simply cost prohibitive for most criminals. They prefer the cheap throw away guns like cheap Hipoints or Jennings 9mm that jame more often than they work.

  69. “Mass shootings are a unique feature of American life which have occurred consistently throughout history in every region of the country”. Really? I thought they were a result of the invention of the
    M-16/AR-15. Didn’t loonies need “assault rifles” to carry out these atrocities? How did they ever carry these out without high-capacity clip thingis?

  70. 10 round mags didn’t slow down or stop the most recent mass murderer. Insane gun laws actually helped him by not allowing anyone to defend themselves. Most Americans do not support a ban on regular capacity magazines. Most Americans are sick of the nanny state. Most Americans do not want more stupid knee jerk reactionary gun laws.

  71. Versus how many DGU’s with 11-30 round mags over a 28 year period? Even if you figure a conservative 50 K / year with 11-30 round mags, that’s more than a million. So the chance is several orders of magnitude greater that a standard capacity magazine will be used lawfully than in an illegal manner.

    The antis love to use spree shootings and mass murders to “prove” their points. Those are virtually the only stats they have left.

    • “The antis love to use spree shootings and mass murders to “prove” their points. Those are virtually the only stats they have left.”

      And I can’t get over the fact that the one single factor that each and every one of those mass shootings has had in common was that it took place in a “gun-free” zone.

      The ONE thing.

      Gun-Free Zones Kill Children.

  72. Hmmmm. It is my personal observation and thoughts, while both stating and acknowledging that TTAG as an entity including writers, web masters and editors, do not share or support my comments or ideas in any shape or form. As such, the guy is full of ▓▓▓▓ .
    Thank you.

  73. “I have no idea how guns work, let alone the fact that I’m talking about standard capacity magazines and not high capacity ones, and I’m also not totally sure about my sources, hence my numerous falsehoods claimed in this speech, but I do know that New Yorkers loathe and fear freedom, having been conditioned to submit to local tyranny over the past decades, and thus demand that I limit everyone else’s Constitutional rights to give their weak minds some kind of false peace.”

    Is that about it?

    • Yea that’s about it. It’s kind of funny really that you mentioned false peace, as that is all they will ever get is false peace. Gun control can only actually work one way, and that is world wide. If you can’t do a world wide ban on guns (and we already know you can’t), then don’t bother because there will always be gun violence. Sorry all but it’s a fact of life as we know it. Do I wish there was no gun violence? of course, but there will always be gun violence as long as there are guns anywhere on this poor planet.

  74. New York’s laws banning many firearms and magazines do absolutely nothing to stop or even diminish crime, nor does it have any effect on criminals. The Brooklyn raid proves as much. A national law exactly the same as NY’s would have the same effect nationally, criminals would have them, and law abiding citizens wouldn’t, just like Mexico and other places. Criminals are criminals because they disregard law, so no law will stop them, it’s simply common sense and a basic understanding of language and the definition of the word “criminal”. Most people that support such laws have either another agenda, or are completely ignorant and too intolerant to listen, and too lazy to think for themselves (much of my own family being part of the later). The best thing pro 2A people, such as ourselves, can do is check out emotions at the door, be respectful and courteous and allow our opponents to show themselves. I know it is very difficult when faced with extreme stupidity, but to do otherwise would make us appear as juveniles throwing a fit for not getting what we want. Just my personal thoughts.

  75. And among those who don’t accept that bans of regular capacity magazine will help (or bans of semi-auto copies of military styled rifles)
    are the majority of police officers.
    See the article on police views on gun control proposals.
    policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

    It mentioned how hunters are forbidden to use some types of ammo: More specifically, in many states, you can’t use the rifles or ammo of many common military-styled rifles because it’s not lethal enough to drop game (even human-sized) immediately.

    Many articles on this topic also fail to mention another factor in almost all public mass shootings: They all happen in places where the shooter knows that they’ll face no opposition for at least ten minutes until police arrive.
    End the “disarmed victim soft target zones” and these types of cases will stop.
    The Isla Vista shooter, in his manifesto, specifically said he’s looking for places where there won’t be any armed responders already on-site. Dylan Klebold was outspokenly against a proposal in Colorado which would have allowed carry onto school grounds by licensed concealed carry permit holders.

  76. “an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine was one of the guns used to murder 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.”

    And like the guns used by the police to respond to that exact shooting. And like the guns used by all police forces.

  77. I just have one question for Mr. Aborn: If lax laws in Southern states is to blame for the gun crime in NYC, why don’t those same Southern states have equal or worse crime rate?

    There is more poverty in the South (which is an influence on crime), less restrictive gun laws, and lower crime. Something just doesn’t add up. Too bad people are quick to blame objects for their problems.

  78. “Citizens’ Crime Commission of New York”

    WAIT – New York has a Chamber of Commerce type organization for criminals?

  79. Well, first of all, it sound like the problem is in New York rather than (most of) the rest of the country that has a more reasonable attitude towards guns. If the People of New York chose to live in such a stilted society, that is their business. However, it’s their business to deal with the consequences. It’s not my responsibility to limit my liberty in my state to cater to your insecurity.

    Your unalienable rights end when they infringe on my unalienable rights.

    Second, I take great offense that you did not include my Ruger 10/22 in that list of “some of the most lethal guns” True, it may be only a .22, but 1) it’s my only rifle, 2) I practice with it regularly, 3) I know how it shoots with all the different loads that I may put though it whether it’s a 40gr LRN standard velocity or a 1700 FPS 32gr JHP and 4) I have a pile of 25 round magazines for it. There’s an old adage about the man with one gun…

    Next, I would note that while you throw out some numbers, there is no evidence of causality or indication of statistical significance. Sorry, but as a scientist, those kind of statistical errors are hard for me to ignore.

    If standard capacity magazines are banned, there is no reason to believe that these mass murderers would not simply use more low capacity magazines. The impact of reload time is seriously over-estimated. When a 10 round limit doesn’t have an impact, do we drop to 7? Then ban all semi-automatic weapons when that doesn’t work? What’s your endpoint?

    The “argument from ignorance” fallacy has no business in the process of law-making. Indeed, it is the job of responsible citizens to debunk such weak arguments. To say, “We have to do something,” is self deception.

    As far as the “need” of a law-abiding citizen for more than 10 rounds, there are two responses. First, “need” is a red herring in both the sense of a logical fallacy and an attempt to mislead. What the private citizen needs or does not need is not relevant to the discussion. As I said earlier, you do not have a right to impose your subjective limitations of your liberty upon me. I am not responsible for your insecurity. That said, I will give at least my own equally subjective reason why I need 25 round magazines. I practice with 25 round magazines to make sure I can reliably hit my target when I only get one shot.

    By the way, I would suggest dropping the histrionics. Whether the magazine hold 7, 10, 25 or 30, it fires one shot at a time. Just friendly advice to avoid distraction from the actual arguments and subjecting yourself to unnecessary ridicule.

    I tried looking searching out your poll. The only thing I can find on the subject of magazine capacity was in the first few months of 2013 while the passion was still high about Sandy Hook. I suspect you mean 1 year and 3 months ago, rather than 3 months ago. When the full facts of the case were presented, pro-ban proponents were not able to muster the popular support to their ban passed. To blame the NRA and other grass-roots organizations for your failure is really rather self defeating. The lack of outcry when the banning attempts invariably fail is sufficient evidence for me.

    To close, obviously American’s did not want it all that much, if they ever really did. And your appeal to “common sense” is a subjective opinion that is not supported by the facts.

    ps- I don’t know why ad hominem attacks were banned for this. The arguments for magazine bans are so weak, it’d be embarrassing to resort to them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *