Amazon.com Widgets

Should high-capacity ammunition magazines be banned?

  • Yes they should

    The high-capacity magazines law should be enforced. For instance, “High-capacity magazines — or assault weapons likely equipped with them — were used in at least 15 of the incidents (11%).” (Analysis of Mass Shootings). Due to high-capacity magazines, they are more likely to be used with assault weapons. Both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are illegally sold in California. Besides, “These incidents resulted in an average of 13.3 total people shot — 155% more people shot than in other incidents (5.2) — and 7.5 deaths — 47% more deaths than in other incidents.” (Analysis of Mass Shootings). This means high-capacity magazines are used in mass shootings and injure more people. More people are hurt because of high-capacity magazines rather than a shooting with an assault rifle. The law on high-capacity magazines should be enforced on the illegal selling.
    The mass shootings that involved high-capacity magazines had made the death rate increase by 63% and injury rate rose 156%. First off, “In 1984, the assailant who massacred 21 at a McDonald's in San Ysidro, California, unleashed more than 200 rounds. School and workplace shootings in Stockton, California, and San Francisco in the late '80s and early '90s also involved large magazines, with an estimated 100 shots fired in each case. In 1997, a gunman in Orange, California, fired nearly 150 shots, wielding an AK-47 with a 30-round magazine three years after a federal law banned such assault weapons.” ("A Killing Machine"). This means that after assault rifles were banned, they and high-capacity magazines are being used in mass shootings which is increasing the death and injury rate. The death rate rose because the rifles are rapid-fire weapons that shoot faster with a larger magazine. Also, “Seven states have some restrictions on high-capacity magazines; a new state law passed in New York limits magazines to no more than seven rounds.” ("A Killing Machine"). For this reason some states have banned high-capacity and one has a limitation on bullets. High-capacity magazines are banned unless you have owned one before January 1st, 2000. Mass shootings that have involved high-capacity magazines have made the death rate and injury rate increase.
    Most can agree that gangs use high-capacity magazines are mostly used by gang members or at mass shootings. For instance, “Your assailants may well be armed with high cap magazines themselves. No ban will affect these criminals; it will actually encourage them. Do you really think the gang bangers care about federal laws? Again, ask the local cop why he or she won’t “downgrade” to a ten round mag to go along with this feel-good idiocy. Ask the polls why they don’t think the cops should do so.” ("High Cap Freedom"). For this reason people would want these magazines to protect themselves. Also, police officers are given extended clips and will not use a ten round magazine.

  • Yes they should

    Guns are not the problem. However with large capacity mags (or LCMs), more damage can be done in a quick time with any weapon. LCMs have been used in more crimes that assault weapons. Also LCMS have been tied to more deadly shootings than assault weapons have. Why would a citizen of any country seriously need a mag that holds more than 10-15 rounds. In any probable defense situation NO need for mags that large exists.

  • High-capacity ammunition magazines should not be banned because of tragedies like Sandy Hook.

    Yes, the Sandy Hill shooting was a truly tragic day in our country, but that man was insane. You can't blame the guns for the problems - you have to blame the person that takes action to shoot the gun and cause such evil. Our constitutional rights will also be taken away if there are more restrictions on gun ownership.

  • Banning high-capacity ammunition magazines will make us vulnerable.

    By banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, the American people will be left in a weak position if we are ever invaded by a foreign army or our own government. Our constitution will also be weakened. The right to bare arms is not a right to hunt. It is the right to protect ourselves against bad men and women who want to take the country and our freedom. We have no ability to keep it if our defenses are crippled.

  • No, the Constitution is pretty clear.

    Our founding fathers have made it clear in the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms, its never stated what kind of arms, or what kind of ammunition. It is true the founding fathers could never take into account the world we are facing, but the constitution is pretty clear.

  • No, the bottom line is it makes the constitution irrelvent

    No matter what we want to think about it, and no matter what we want to tell people putting restrictions on the guns is contrary to the amendment. It can be taken into account the concept that we never realized what the guns can do, but the bottom line is the constitution rules.

  • Absolutely not.

    One of these days, there's going to be a zombie apocalypse. Nobody knows when it's coming, but we can be certain, as evidenced by the movies, that it will happen. We need to be prepared. The more ammunition, the better. There is a slight chance that aliens will invade before the zombie apocalypse, and we need to be prepared for that, too. It makes no sense to grant people a right to life, then deny them the ability to defend it.

  • People are the problem, not guns.

    Its not the guns that need regulating, its the buyers and possessors. Reducing magazine size puts homeowners at risk against multiple intruders. Unless you plan on giving everyone in your family a gun, you should leave the magazine size alone. Multiple incidents have suggested that revolvers and other small capacity weapons are insufficient for home defense.

  • Should the right to free speech be limited to only compliments?

    Our constitution is very clear in regards to our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. "It was written for muskets": 100% verifiably false. During the revolutionary war there were Gatling guns and rotating automatically repeating weapons. Many of them holding a very large capacity even to today's standards. Our founders were fully aware of the innate nature of the advancement of weapons. Please do your research, look up the statistics and above all use common sense. A gun is not scary. The person wielding it very well may be.

  • Should the right to free speech be limited to only compliments?

    Our constitution is very clear in regards to our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. "It was written for muskets": 100% verifiably false. During the revolutionary war there were Gatling guns and rotating automatically repeating weapons. Many of them holding a very large capacity even to today's standards. Our founders were fully aware of the innate nature of the advancement of weapons. Please do your research, look up the statistics and above all use common sense. A gun is not scary. The person wielding it very well may be.

  • There is no reason to ban them

    If you are getting jumped or attacked by a group of people. You are not going to be able to get everyone of the people with only 6 rounds. But in a life or death situation you are not going to be able to shoot and hit your target every time. You are going to want to just sit there and be killed your going to want to fight for your life.

  • Multiple threat attackers

    Obviously we as a country we the people own more legal guns than we have servicemen. Then as more in depth we the people also have large capacity magazines. Firearm enthusiasts and competition shooters alike often care for a "high cap" magazine over a 10 round magazine. How are we supposed to shoot multiple targets wether competition or defense, with a 10 round mag? It's pretty difficult. Think about it like this, if there is a group of armed or suspect to lethal danger threats entering your home do you really think you can reload fast enough to keep your family safe? There is a rising threat with armed attacks as we see occurring more and more. Has anyone e,she realized how they got so far before they were stopped. Well between gun free zones and not enough armed citizens these problems will keep occurring. Let's take the San Bernidino case for example. We have an attacker in a gun free zone who has no threat to be stopped for a decent amount of time due too the area being gun free. If just one person had a gun wether a good shot or not a high capacity magazine could have easily stopped them.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.