Seven bullets is still too many!

[TRJuan]

Glad to see New York finally try and address gun violence with some legitiamte solutions. But I would have preferred to see a three round (or dare I say a single round) limit enforced. Seven is just too many and no one needs that many to defend themself or hunt.

A complete ban on automatics and semi automatics would have been nice too. Anyone know if this is a goal for the future in NY? Perhaps the current new law is just a stepping stone, that would be nice.

[atreides1]

1. Uh huh

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why you think seven rounds is still too many?

Maybe give us an example of your personal self defense or hunting experiences, where you were able to stop a break in or bring down an animal with 1 round?

[TRJuan]

3. Sorry...

...I have no experience shooting people. I think that would be horrible and leave that up to the trained police.

Seven bullets = seven gun deaths with no reloading. Makes life easy for the criminal.

Feel free to describe all of the instances you needed more than one round to kill someone.

[Recursion]

5. One bullet almost never kills someone

So, not really.

[NYC_SKP]

7. But but but in the movies....

It just takes one, every time!!!

In reality, and especially in sudden emergency situations, well, you know...

[petronius]

17. It's actually a lot more complicated than that:

One bullet kills bad-guy henchmen instantly (even if the bullet just goes in their general direction).

One bullet kills good-guy henchmen, but not instantly - there's time for a heartfelt goodbye.

One bullet never kills boss-bad-guys - it just stuns them so they look dead, then they jump up to fight some more. BBGs need multiple bullets, and usually a grenade plus a long fall or a shark or something.

Physics is weird, when you think about it...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Haha - I love it. nt

[regjoe]

9. Not true

I read earlier that an AR 15 mag can wipe out half of Yankee Stadium.

[jpak]

16. It could - with 100-round magazines - thank the FSM Cuomo banned them

yup

[HereSince1628]

8. That approach is a lot like saying pedestrians should not have an opinion on traffic laws

or that only women should have an opinion on any reproductive issue.


It's overly restrictive, and it isn't unlike attempts of certain political parties to make difficult voters access to the polls in order to bias election outcomes.

[FSogol]

2. No one needs more bullets than Dirty Harry needed.

"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? "

[Bake]

13. Harry was probably a better shot than I am.

He was also a fictional character.

His .44 magnum (the most powerful handgun in the world!) had 6 shots -- it was a revolver. My 9 mm hold 15 + one in the chamber. Harry, fictional as he was, was probably a better shot than I am -- and I'm a pretty good shot.

How many is enough?

Granted, 30 is probably too many. My 9mm is built to hold 15+1. Is that too many?

Ban the magazine if you want to. I have a spare. I can drop an empty clip and pop in a full one and rack the gun in about 2 seconds.

Bake

[FSogol]

18. You sound like my college roommate.

He used to stand in his underwear in front of the mirror and pose with his beloved 9mm. He could drop an empty clip and pop in a full one and rack the gun in about 2 seconds.

[Bake]

19. I don't pose with mine. Andit's not "beloved."

It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

But I'm pretty good with it (not as good as Dirty Harry, but still fairly skilled).

I don't pose in my underwear nor admire it in the mirror.

you didn't answer my question, though (not surprising). How many is arbitrarily enough?

Bake

[FSogol]

21. I didn't answer your question because I was just being snarky about Dirty Harry.

BTW, Thanks for letting me know he is fictional. I'm off to see if Sherlock Holmes, Capt Nemo, and Huckleberry Finn are fictional too.

[Bake]

22. And you STILL didn't address the question about how many rounds in the magazine is enough.

Again, not surprising, snark nothwithstanding.

I don't think 15+1 is "high capacity."

What do YOU think? And how do you arrive at that?

Bake

[FSogol]

25. Aspects of Zealotry

Allows his/her passion to displace normal aspects of life.
Considers those who do not share his/her enthusiasm to be either evil or stupid.
Sees other humans as potential converts.

To which I would (not surprisingly) add: does not realize when someone is making fun of them.

[Bake]

30. I'm sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion.

I was being dead serious and rational, not passionate (much as you might want to believe otherwise). If you want to be snarky, fine. I can do that, too.

But you still haven't answered the question.

Meanwhile, I **could** go out and buy multiple hi-cap magazines. I won't have to reload as often at the range, and that's ok, but I still have no plan to shoot anybody or to pose in the mirror with my 9mm.

Bottom line, your snark adds NOTHING to the actual discussion. I'm concerned about definitions. I don't see 15+1 as high capacity for a semi-auto handgun. Some want to limit the capacity arbitrarily to 6 because that's the traditional number of rounds a revolver holds (and that's how many my .357 holds).

Bake

[cthulu2016]

14. since he couldn't remember, he my well have needed seven

[The Magistrate]

4. Six Is Traditional, Sir....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[Bake]

24. Six is traditional for a revolver.

My standard S&W 9mm holds 15 plus one in the chamber. That's pretty "traditional" too.

And I have more than one magazine loaded, and I can drop an empty clip, pop in a full one, and rack the gun in about 2 seconds.

The issue here is that whatever number you arrive at, it's arbitrary. How many is enough? I'm fine with a 15-round clip that is built for the gun. Smaller guns hold fewer rounds. But I don't have (or need) a magazine that extends below the butt of the grip and holds 30 rounds.

Bake

[Hoyt]

6. Tend to agree. I'd like to see us stay with 5 or 6 shot revolvers. That would all but kill the gun

market as we know it today because small revolvers aren't going to get the gun cultists' hormones flowing. We'd be a lot better off though.

[Bake]

15. 5 or 6 is an arbitrary number.

but you knew that already.

My 9mm S&W is built to hold 15+1 in the chamber. That's not exactly "high capacity."

Bake

[The Magistrate]

23. Traditional Numbers Are Seldom Arbitrary, Sir

Early revolvers had six or five chambers owing to the necessity to leave sufficient metal to form a safe chamber for a charge able to propel a ball of sufficient weight to do real harm on impact, while keeping the total weight of the item something that could be held in one hand without undue strain.

For most of the time automatic pistols have been manufactured, a magazine holding fifteen rounds would certainly have been considered 'high capacity', and would have been roughly twice what was considered normal.

[Bake]

33. What is"normal" is arbitrary, sir.

Normal for a revolver is six, because of the physics of the wheel and the chamber.

Normal for a semi-auto is 15+1, because of the size of the gun, the magazine, and the ammunition.

Normal is arbitrary, depending on the device.

Not trying to be argumentative, sir; you know I hold you in the utmost respect, sir. I'm just concerned about definitions, which tend to be arbitrary. I'm comfortable with the standard issue clip for my 9mm, i.e., 15+1. If I had a smaller gun, e.g., a .380, it would hold 5 or 6 in the magazine due to the smaller size.

Bake

[The Magistrate]

37. Things I Remember Being Introduced, Sir, Cannot Be Traditional....

The high capacity Smith and Wesson self-loader did not go on the market until the seventies; it was well into the fifties before Smith and Wesson made anything but revolvers.

Traditionally, repeating pistols have held something on the order of six to eight rounds. Smaller calibers sometimes had larger capacities; a .22 revolver I used to shoot as a kid held nine, if I recall correctly. There were some odd extra items, like the 'snail' magazine for the stocked Mauser pistol, issued in the Great War for aerial use in the early days, which held twenty-five rounds. It is a fairly recent development that pistol magazines could employ staggered stacking of rounds reliably, and that that mode has become standard.

[onenote]

36. Its a matter of definitions

Some people equate any weapon with a capacity of more than a single round as an "automatic" or "semi-automatic" weapon and thus would put a revolver in that category. But others would say that its not the number of rounds, but the firing technology that distinguishes the different classes of weapon and that revolvers are not semi-automatic or automatic weapons from that perspective. The C93 Borchardt, manufactured in the late 19th century, is often characterized as the first semi-automatic or automatic pistol; it had an 8-round capacity.

I'm not sure that "traditional" notions of how many rounds a weapon could hold are particularly useful in any constitutional analysis. The issue from a current constitutional perspective is whether the individual's interest in having a weapon of a particular capacity outweighs or is outweighed by the government's interest in restricting the capacity.

[Hoyt]

28. People do fine with 38 specials. You should be glad you are even

allowed to have a gun, much less a 16 shot semi-autos assault pistol. Jeebus.

[Bake]

38. Assault pistol????

Is that a new category of weapon?

If there is such a thing as an "assault pistol" it's not my standard-issue 9mm! It would be a full-auto thing like you'd see on Miami Vice back in the day, like a MAC-10 or whatever they called those things.

And I'm lucky?? I'm lucky that YOU didn't write the Constitution. I thank God every day that my RIGHTS don't depend on Hoyt's whims.

.38 special? (Yes, there is a decimal point in front of the "38&quot . Useful enough, more or less. But I've got a .357 magnum which is more powerful, holds 6 in the wheel, which gives me a little more confidence in stopping a potential intruder. I could legally get a .44 magnum, which is even bigger but still holds only six rounds (that's the "Dirty Harry" cannon).

Do you want to regulate caliber? Becuase I haven't seen that argument raised anywhere. .38s are okay, but .44s are not? .223? Where do you want to draw that line?

You know so little about the issue that your opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight.

I'm a responsible gun owner who is in favor of an assault weapons ban and a hi-cap magazine ban. My only issue is what is the definition of hi-cap. I don't need or want a 30-round drum. On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable with a standard 15-round magazine for most full-size semi-auto handguns.

Bake

[Hoyt]

39. I was field-stripping a 1911 by age 8, and grew up with a bunch of gun nuts.

Just about all were bigots and cowboys who should never have been allowed near a gun.

As I matured, I became less and less impressed with callous gun talk, nomenclature, guns and gun cultists.

Enjoy your guns.

[Bake]

40. Again, we're all thrilled that you don't get to decide who does and does not get to own a firearm.

On what basis did you decide that they should have never been allowed near a gun? How many of them are convicted murderers/felons/etc.? Did you do a background check on them?

I didn't think so.

As for your claim of field-stripping a 1911 by age 8 ... yeah, right. We all believe you.



Bake

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. no 7-shot .357 revolvers ? nt

[Comrade_McKenzie]

10. My animals come pre-dead. Zero would suffice. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. So just ban all guns right?

Not sarcasm, I say that because lets be honest, that's what a lot of people, many on DU rally would like to see but few say it. And for the record I do not own a gun and don't plan to. I just would like to see us cut through the bull.

[TRJuan]

29. Would love to ban them.

I would if we could, but thanks to the uber-right supreme court justices misinterpretting the second amendment, we will never legally be allowed to.

So we are stuck with single shot rifles and handguns as a minimum to not violate the ruling. But anything over that can, and should, be confiscated.

[cthulu2016]

12. This is ridiculous. If you want to ban guns then ban guns

Banning guns is a comprehensible view.

Your notions about what people need for different uses are, however, just someone being weird.

You can say that the self-defense interest is insufficient to off-set the public safety interest, but saying from on high that a single shot is adequate for self-defense is preposterous.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Precisely!

I really wish (a lot of) the antis would just be up front about what they really want: no civilian firearms. The pretense of wanting less than that (as opposed to being willing to settle for less) is wearing thin.

[TRJuan]

27. I will tell you why...

Because we have that damn supreme court ruling (which was wrong) that allows handgun ownership as a second amendment right. But they left the door open for regulation of those handguns, so single shot handguns are constitutional. And WHEN that handgun is used in a crime, it will only have one chance to kill an innocent kid instead of seven.

Now I am all about repealing the second amendment. It is an antiquated peice of crap that has no place in modern society. Then we can actually do something to stop the murders.

[cthulu2016]

35. The word "reasonable" in "reasonable regulation" actually means something.

No court is going to find a single-shot handgun law "reasonable" so if speculating about unconstitutional measures, why not speculate bigger?

[rightsideout]

31. 7 is a good "Holy" number (no put intended)

Jesus would like "7" since it's used in the Bible alot. And if Jesus likes it, Conservatives, who wave the Holy Bible in one hand and a gun in the other, will like it too.

Maybe a "3" round too for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

From what I understand Conservatives believe God endorses gun rights. The "Thou shalt not Kill" Commandment is just a formality.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. 1911 .45acp has a SEVEN round mag... designed by J. MOSES Browning... O-M-G !! nt

[jmg257]

41. 40 is used a lot in the bible too - let's go REALLY hi-cap! Make it 8...

I say 8...keeps the good old M1 Garands and their enbloc clips unaffected.

And 15 round mags could be legal, but can only be loaded with 8 unless at the range....keeps the good old M1 Carbine unaffected.

10 could be the limit on rifles with fixed mags, but only loaded to 8...keeps the Johnson and the SKS unaffected.