Bill introduced to limit high-capacity ammo clips

population density and welfare are the key differences if you want to go by per capita surrealnumber5

Back to my original point: Americans are naturally more violent.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

I just think Americans are naturally more violent.

Palantas

I see.

being a hate filled xenophobe is cool as long as you hate America

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

I just think Americans are naturally more violent.

surrealnumber5

I see.

being a hate filled xenophobe is cool as long as you hate America

I'm from America.

I don't hate America.

And being called "naturally more violent" isn't completely a bad thing.

We're a warlike country and we get things done militarily.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]population density and welfare are the key differences if you want to go by per capita no_more_fayth

Back to my original point: Americans are naturally more violent.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

I see.

no_more_fayth

being a hate filled xenophobe is cool as long as you hate America

I'm from America.

I don't hate America.

And being called "naturally more violent" isn't completely a bad thing.

We're a warlike country and we get things done militarily.

Back to my original point: Americans are naturally more violent.

no_more_fayth

You mean some Americans are more violent.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

being a hate filled xenophobe is cool as long as you hate America

surrealnumber5

I'm from America.

I don't hate America.

And being called "naturally more violent" isn't completely a bad thing.

We're a warlike country and we get things done militarily.

I don't even know what you mean by that. :?

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

Back to my original point: Americans are naturally more violent.

Palantas

You mean some Americans are more violent.

I mean generally speaking combining everyone's violent tendencies of America, ours would be higher than some other countries.

We wouldn't necessarily be the highest.

I just noticed the title say clip not magazine. The magazine is the ammunition compartment. A clip is a device used to speed load the ammunition into the magazine.

The only coomonhandgun thatuses a clip is a revolver. There's a half moon clip, a full moon clip and a drop a speed clip which is also known as a speed loader but they are all speed loaders, that's what clip is. Automatic pistols don't have ammunition clips for transferring a strip of ammunition into the magazine. It's just not practical. It would be too difficult to be beneficial. Some auto pistolsuse clips but they were a special type that uselarge ammuntion that was loaded directly into a fixed magazine Such as the Mauser C96.

So you could ban clips but what good could that ever do? Most people don't use the clips anyway. They just load the ammo into the magazine one round at a time. So how would banning a device that does not even exist for automatic handguns that use a detatchable magazine stop people from using high capacity magazines?

A number of people have commented on the confused language used in the article, but no one's taken it to its logical conclusion:

So you could ban clips but what good could that ever do? Most people don't use the clips anyway. They just load the ammo into the magazine one round at a time.

MagnumPI

:lol: Nice.

Car speed is not only factor involved in people getting killed as there are many. However, physics determines that velocity is the greatest factor in determining KE (Kinetic Energy) of an object. M * V^2 / 2 = KE. A 10 ton vehicle moving at 2 mph is going to be far less dangerous than a 1 ton vehicle moving at 100 mph. Speed isn't the only factor, but it is the most important (Aside from airbags, seatbelts, etc.) What are these "speed safegaurds" you speak of? Cars are not restricted by any mechanisms that I know of, only by their engine's capabilities. Drunk driving is indeed illegal, but so is shooting people. I do not know where you are going with this.On3ShotOneKill

Actually, cars are limited to x speed by the electronic engine controls. They have a built in rev limiter that shuts down the ignition to cylinders when the set speed is reached. It makes the vehicle seem like it is missing, which it is.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

Too bad I don't go to any gun websites :P How are those unfounded assumptions working for ya? Regarding your actual question, I meant Norway, which has a high amount of firearms nationally, but very low gun crime rates. Nice try though :)Espada12

Italy, Germany, Austria and the others (such as finland as you stated) have relatively lax guns laws as well.. not sure why people like using Europe as some shining example against American gun ownership.

Mexico on the other hand has strict gun laws.. it's working out great there though! =/

Just like England has a ban on firearms (ya have to jump through hoops to be able to own a hunting rifle), yet still have attacks with other weapons. Yeah, gun bans really work. :roll:

I'm sorry..but I want the biggest clip I can find... If someone attacks me.. they are going to die.. that simple. My life is more important than theirs at that point. All you gun control folks tell me what are you gonna do when you are attacked by someone that illegally got there hands on an illegal weapon (aka gun) once they have been taken away from citizen.

"I'll call the police"

Good luck staying alive for the 5-10 minutes it takes for them to show.

"I'll use a bat!!"

bullets > bat

there is NO FREAKIN REASON TO HAVE GUN CONTROL!!!

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]population density and welfare are the key differences if you want to go by per capita thegerg

Back to my original point: Americans are naturally more violent.

ON what do you base your conclusion that being born on the American continents causes one to be "naturally more violent"? It would seem to me that culture and exposure to certain outside man-made factors would be a much more logical reason for a higher rate of violence than geography.

That's precisely what I mean.

Based on our environment, our history, how we are raised, and what we're exposed to we've become naturally violent.

I'm not saying we're born and then we're violent - and of course most people aren't violent at all.

I'm saying everything is an effect, and then with each generation our innate violent "gauge" if you will is a teensy bit higher at birth, based on the aforementioned reasons.

I'm sorry..but I want the biggest clip I can find... If someone attacks me.. they are going to die.. that simple. My life is more important than theirs at that point. All you gun control folks tell me what are you gonna do when you are attacked by someone that illegally got there hands on an illegal weapon (aka gun) once they have been taken away from citizen.

"I'll call the police"

Good luck staying alive for the 5-10 minutes it takes for them to show.

"I'll use a bat!!"

bullets > bat

there is NO FREAKIN REASON TO HAVE GUN CONTROL!!!

Infinite_Access

But wouldn't it make more sense to just get a large magazine and put the rounds in the magazine beforehand? What are you gonna do? Get your gun out then get the clip, remove the magazine transfer the ammo into the magazine then put the magazine back into the gun? Wouldn't that just be unnecessary? Wouldn't it just make mores sense to have the ammunition in the magazine and magazine attatched to the gun so it's ready to go when and if you need it?

I'd rather have my shotgun anyway. Why shoot someone a dozen times with one bullet per round when you could just put severalshots into them with one squeeze of the trigger? A 12GA 3" 00 buck usually has 15 .32to 38ish caliber bullets in the shell, it's not a pellete shell.So that's the same as shooting someone 15 times with a pistol. The pistol is for range and backup. When close use the shotgun. Most people just stop when they see or hear a shotgun because they know it won't wound them and the pattrern won't miss them. Alternativley you could slugs which will put a hole their body the size of tennis ball.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]Car speed is not only factor involved in people getting killed as there are many. However, physics determines that velocity is the greatest factor in determining KE (Kinetic Energy) of an object. M * V^2 / 2 = KE. A 10 ton vehicle moving at 2 mph is going to be far less dangerous than a 1 ton vehicle moving at 100 mph. Speed isn't the only factor, but it is the most important (Aside from airbags, seatbelts, etc.) What are these "speed safegaurds" you speak of? Cars are not restricted by any mechanisms that I know of, only by their engine's capabilities. Drunk driving is indeed illegal, but so is shooting people. I do not know where you are going with this.WhiteKnight77

Actually, cars are limited to x speed by the electronic engine controls. They have a built in rev limiter that shuts down the ignition to cylinders when the set speed is reached. It makes the vehicle seem like it is missing, which it is.

I have a question for gun enthusiasts:

Why does America have more gun-related homicides than Canada?

They have just as much, similar laws, and it's just as easy to obtain one.

no_more_fayth

Uhh Canada has much more sane gun laws than the states.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

I have a question for gun enthusiasts:

Why does America have more gun-related homicides than Canada?

They have just as much, similar laws, and it's just as easy to obtain one.

htekemerald

Uhh Canada has much more sane gun laws than the states.

Ah-ha!

So gun control is the solution. :D

/thread.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]Car speed is not only factor involved in people getting killed as there are many. However, physics determines that velocity is the greatest factor in determining KE (Kinetic Energy) of an object. M * V^2 / 2 = KE. A 10 ton vehicle moving at 2 mph is going to be far less dangerous than a 1 ton vehicle moving at 100 mph. Speed isn't the only factor, but it is the most important (Aside from airbags, seatbelts, etc.) What are these "speed safegaurds" you speak of? Cars are not restricted by any mechanisms that I know of, only by their engine's capabilities. Drunk driving is indeed illegal, but so is shooting people. I do not know where you are going with this.racer8dan

Actually, cars are limited to x speed by the electronic engine controls. They have a built in rev limiter that shuts down the ignition to cylinders when the set speed is reached. It makes the vehicle seem like it is missing, which it is.

By limiting engine speed, you limit vehicle speed. I know for a fact that once a Ford van reaches 90MPH, that rev limiter kicks in and you don't go any faster.

I think that is fine.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Actually, cars are limited to x speed by the electronic engine controls. They have a built in rev limiter that shuts down the ignition to cylinders when the set speed is reached. It makes the vehicle seem like it is missing, which it is.

WhiteKnight77

By limiting engine speed, you limit vehicle speed. I know for a fact that once a Ford van reaches 90MPH, that rev limiter kicks in and you don't go any faster.

Seems like a possibly good idea to me.. Even though criminals may have it, it may be that much harder to get.. To me the concern are people going on a shooting spree.. Some one with less ammo in their clips may result in less fatalities.. And then its always a charge people can be charged with.. I don't see as "Well I don't wanna change my clips every 10 shots on the gun range! Thats just lame!" as a legitimate complaint.. But I honestly would be more in favor of going after different legislation such as closing the gun show loop and make longer waiting periods and more in depth background checks.. I see it at best as a minor annoyance to the legal side of the public at best.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

I'm not saying we're born and then we're violent

thegerg

with each generation our innate violent "gauge" if you will is a teensy bit higher at birth

no_more_fayth

Which one is it? Youre really contradicting yourself here. First you sa it's nature, then you say we're conditioned by society, then you go back to saying it's nature. Make up your mind. Haha.

I'm not contradicting myself.

There's a difference between being born with violent potential and being born a serial killer. :?

That's what I was attempting to say, but alas I'm bad at explaining my thoughts.

I like contradicting myself.

There.

I did it "again" for you.

Seems like a possibly good idea to me.. Even though criminals may have it, it may be that much harder to get.. To me the concern are people going on a shooting spree.. Some one with less ammo in their clips may result in less fatalities.. And then its always a charge people can be charged with.. I don't see as "Well I don't wanna change my clips every 10 shots on the gun range! Thats just lame!" as a legitimate complaint.. But I honestly would be more in favor of going after different legislation such as closing the gun show loop and make longer waiting periods and more in depth background checks.. I see it at best as a minor annoyance to the legal side of the public at best.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

with each generation our innate violent "gauge" if you will is a teensy bit higher at birth

Which one is it? Youre really contradicting yourself here. First you sa it's nature, then you say we're conditioned by society, then you go back to saying it's nature. Make up your mind. Haha.

I'm not contradicting myself.

There's a difference between being born with violent potential and being born a serial killer. :?

That's what I was attempting to say, but alas I'm bad at explaining my thoughts.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Seems like a possibly good idea to me.. Even though criminals may have it, it may be that much harder to get.. To me the concern are people going on a shooting spree.. Some one with less ammo in their clips may result in less fatalities.. And then its always a charge people can be charged with.. I don't see as "Well I don't wanna change my clips every 10 shots on the gun range! Thats just lame!" as a legitimate complaint.. But I honestly would be more in favor of going after different legislation such as closing the gun show loop and make longer waiting periods and more in depth background checks.. I see it at best as a minor annoyance to the legal side of the public at best.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Rev limiters limit engine speed, not the vehicles speed.

racer8dan

By limiting engine speed, you limit vehicle speed. I know for a fact that once a Ford van reaches 90MPH, that rev limiter kicks in and you don't go any faster.

One thing to remember is that nowadays, vehicles are no longer using distributors. Ford has been using direct ignition since at least since the 90s and all their modular based engines use direct ignition. There is no distributor involved, they either you coil on plug or coil packs (2 plugs are fired with one coil). This is how both engine speed and vehicle speed is managed. The vehicle speed sensor in the transmission or on the differential relays vehicle speed information to the ECM. Once a preprogramed speed is reached, the ECM alternates cylinders from firing.

at least for a few more generations then everyone born in the union will be a crazed killer surrealnumber5

No, I said a teensy bit.

I think the sun will turn supernova before that happens.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

I'm not contradicting myself.

There's a difference between being born with violent potential and being born a serial killer. :?

That's what I was attempting to say, but alas I'm bad at explaining my thoughts.

thegerg

If that's all you were trying to say then why did you start out with that "Americans are naturally more violent" BS? Those 2 claims have nothing at all to do with eachother.

To me they do.

I's weird, man.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

If that's all you were trying to say then why did you start out with that "Americans are naturally more violent" BS? Those 2 claims have nothing at all to do with eachother.

thegerg

To me they do.

I's weird, man.

Would you mind explaining what they have to do with eachother? Also, it's clear that no one is ever born a serial killer.

Not true, dude.

That John Wilkes Chapman guy was born a killer.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

Would you mind explaining what they have to do with eachother? Also, it's clear that no one is ever born a serial killer.

thegerg

Not true, dude.

That John Wilkes Chapman guy was born a killer.

I don't know who that is. How many people did he kill before he was born?

Seven. :o

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

By limiting engine speed, you limit vehicle speed. I know for a fact that once a Ford van reaches 90MPH, that rev limiter kicks in and you don't go any faster.

WhiteKnight77

One thing to remember is that nowadays, vehicles are no longer using distributors. Ford has been using direct ignition since at least since the 90s and all their modular based engines use direct ignition. There is no distributor involved, they either you coil on plug or coil packs (2 plugs are fired with one coil). This is how both engine speed and vehicle speed is managed. The vehicle speed sensor in the transmission or on the differential relays vehicle speed information to the ECM. Once a preprogramed speed is reached, the ECM alternates cylinders from firing.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

Would you mind explaining what they have to do with eachother? Also, it's clear that no one is ever born a serial killer.

Not true, dude.

That John Wilkes Chapman guy was born a killer.

I don't know who that is. How many people did he kill before he was born?

i dont know who that guy is but before i was born i ripped out the doctors neck, true story.surrealnumber5

I've heard of that happening before.

Rev limiters limit engine speed, not the vehicles speed.

racer8dan

Correct. My Jaguar went over 200 after falling out of a cargo plane. The limiter had no effect on its speed.

Seems like a possibly good idea to me.. Even though criminals may have it, it may be that much harder to get.. To me the concern are people going on a shooting spree.. Some one with less ammo in their clips may result in less fatalities.. And then its always a charge people can be charged with.. I don't see as "Well I don't wanna change my clips every 10 shots on the gun range! Thats just lame!" as a legitimate complaint.. But I honestly would be more in favor of going after different legislation such as closing the gun show loop and make longer waiting periods and more in depth background checks.. I see it at best as a minor annoyance to the legal side of the public at best.

sSubZerOo

If you want to legitimately attempt to control people going on shooting sprees*, then you need to analyze different weapons' capabilities, and limit certain types of weapons. Generating an arbitrary number like 10 and limiting magazines (or "clips") to that number betrays a non-understanding of the function, purpose, and cabilities of modern firearms.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure how you go about improvnig background checks. You run a person through state and federal databases and see if anything there says they can't have a gun. Is that not what's done now? Waiting periods seem reasonable to me, though that starts another arguments about how long the wait should be.

What's the gun show loop?

* EDIT, Footnote: If you want to attempt to control people going on shooting sprees, and you believe the way to accomplish this is limiting non-criminals' access to firearms.

I don't own any guy that can even carry more than 10 rounds. Don't most handgun's carry 10 or less anyways? That and shotguns shouldn't carry any more than 10. The only guns that would carry more are those that are rather impractical in a self-defense situation.

Ghost_702

I can't give you statistics to tell you if "most" handguns carry more or less than 10 rounds. Most revolvers carry six or eight. The famous Colt 1911 holds six to eight, depending on configuration, but usually seven. A great number of more recent (>1980) designs chambered in 9mm carry more than 10, like 12, 15, or 17.

What's absurd about this legislation is that it doesn't at all address the capabilities of the weapon used in the Arizona shooting. A number of professional groups use the 1911 pistol, which holds seven or eight rounds. That a different pistol holds 15 rounds does not magically make it more powerful.

EDIT: GameSpot's s**** WYSIWYG editor ate my spaces again.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i dont know who that guy is but before i was born i ripped out the doctors neck, true story.no_more_fayth

I've heard of that happening before.

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i dont know who that guy is but before i was born i ripped out the doctors neck, true story.surrealnumber5

I've heard of that happening before.

I blame those gosh darned children cartoons.

Really the simple fact of the matter is that I should have the freedom to choose what kind of magazines I want to use and what kind of weapon I want to own, within reason.

Just because some of you can't understand why I would want an assault rifle, doesn't make my wanting it any less of a valid point. It's my freedom to own guns. I'm a law-abiding citizen and there's no reason for me not to be able to own a certain piece of weaponry.

People really need to learn how to mind their own business. My owning of a firearm doesn't affect anybody.