My Sig pistol (9mm) has a 17 round magazine. That's standard for that particular weapon. Didn't buy it for the size mag but actually for the brand and price. Never shot anyone to this point. No plans to.
However, FUTURE sales could be controlled to specific magazine sizes.
But not being a gun smith, don't know how that affects various products. I suppose it can be engineered without affecting the gun design.
I care about a reasonable compromise that protects gun rights for civil-use weapons, while banning weapons and capacity that exceed a reasonable definition of civil/defense needs.
Put simply, you do not reasonably need 17 rounds to defend yourself. And if you do, nothing stops you from owning a second clip.
But this proposed compromise stops dead any future efforts to ban ALL handguns, or all guns in total.
As such, I fully expect both dedicated (R) and (D) to hate the idea, becuase fo rthem, this (like most issues) is a voter-holding all-or-nothing debate.
Whoa, Nelly. I purchased a legal product. I bought it because it was/is a good brand. It was the right size and weight and I felt comfortable handling it. Just happens to be a 17 rounder.
As a 9mm, it is less deadly than a .357. or .44 mag with fewer rounds but more killing power.
I WILL NOT under any circumstances give up the weapon. Period.
As I stated, FUTURE sales can be restricted to 15 and under magazines which may require some re-engineering. BTW, why 15? Why not 4 or 7? Or 1?
Or single shot breech or even muzzle loaders. Separate powder and round while we're at it.
I am for reasonable restrictions. Full automatic weapons or explosive rounds or grenades are not acceptable. To me. To others - ??
And you won't have to, becuase this is an entirely hypothetical debate, and no one on either side would ever agree to my "compromise" solution.I WILL NOT under any circumstances give up the weapon. Period.
But if they did (accept it, pass it), and you didn't (give up your now-illegal gun), and were caught, you should face the full force of Law for that choice.
There is no reason you should be grandfathered.As I stated, FUTURE sales can be restricted to 15 and under magazines which may require some re-engineering. BTW, why 15? Why not 4 or 7? Or 1?
And in this (again hypothetical) case, 15 is a compromise, lower than you'd like, higher than your equivalent gun-control liberal would like.
In the real world, the number of any such future compromise is far more likely to be lower, like 9 or 10. Better get prepared.
Which you define, conveniently, as whatever does not effect you personally, it seems.I am for reasonable restrictions.
I fine with clips being limited to 15 rounds.
As long as magazines can continue to be whatever capacity we want them to.
Out here you can indeed get hold of firearms if you have a legitimate use for them. Protecting yourself from "tyranny" (and an 18th century version of that in actual fact) with semi-automatics isn't one of them.
Who decides what is appropriate?In those cases you can get a gun/s. But they won't be semi-automatics, the gun has to be approriate for what you use it for, and you do have to be stringently vetted as psychologically fit to use one.
Who deos the vetting?
Whats the vetting process entail?
Whats the appeal should the vetting find you unqualified?
Those "wearing them openly" are generally not the problem. I can't recall one fo them performing a mass shooting, for example. Mass shooters all keep them hidden till the moment comes.There are no towns or places in Australia where you'll walk down a street and find people wearing guns openly as you can in certain parts of the USA.
My feeling of freedom is not determined by or limited by private gun ownership. It is far more deterDo you feel free with all those guns about in your country?
I can say I feel less free, because the people, as a whole, have no power to overthrow the State if they (the people) should deem it appropriate. This was a core component of the original intent to the right to bear arms (guns). To keep the Government at bay.
We no longer have that power. Hence we're all inherantly less free, regardless of if we feel so or not.
Inaccurate.Where any maniac with a grudge against society can get one?
Answered above.Does it add to your sense of freedom? Or does it do the opposite?
Out of curiosity Black Death, why the name change?
As for you questions above its some sort of government bureaucracy that does it, as it should.
I think in our country if you have a legitimate use for a weapon you can get to have one.
I agree about the people having no ability to overthrow the state but I would question whether owning guns would change that reality in any material sense, if in any sense at all. If anything mass gun ownership in the United States has sparked the growth of government, given that mass-surveillance policing is a fact and a huge encroachment on civil and human rights across all western socities, and given that this policing uses the excuse for its spread (quite justifiably in most cases, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also affect civil rights for the worse) rising violent gun crime and the sorts of massacres we've seen in the USA in recent weeks. You are scared of more vetting to get guns? What about the fact you have probably already been vetted 10 times without your knowledge by the NSA or the FBI or some other US government acronym to see if your mindset is acceptable to them? Would you rather fill out some form with a right to appeal where you know the outcome or would you prefer some version of your secret police sticking their nose in your life without your knowledge?
I like the name change.
In your country could I buy a gun for the sole purpose of self defense, could I buy a shotgun and then reconfigure it by cutting off the stock and the barrel to 18 1/2"? Lets assume I am sane and a good guy.
In my country gun ownership is at an all time high. Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. There are approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States.This means that 25 percent of all adults, and 40 percent of American households, own at least one firearm. These owners possess 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns.
Gun-related homicides have declined by 33 percent since 1993, including a 35-percent drop in handgun homicides. Meanwhile, from 1992 to 1996, murder rates declined by 20 percent, aggravated assaults by 12 percent, and the overall violent crime rate by 16 percent.2 The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Report data for 1997 show that these trends are continuing, with murder and robbery totals declining by 7 percent over the previous year and the total of all violent crimes declining by 3 percent.
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
Sorry for the long post.