Among other things gun related, the shooting in Arizona came up during a conversation I was having at work. I was asked to explain the extended magazines that Loughner used. The question was why people have them at all. They weren't asking about the legality of them, but the practicality.

Aside from cool factor, is there a real purpose for them? I suggested that they were really designed for other guns (carbines) and that they were not originally designed for use with pistols.

In the same conversation, one of my coworkers asked me if had heard about the 'you lie' rifle. I proudly revealed our dialog here at LGC. I reaffirm my vote for 'Hell Yes. Let's order those things'.

If my full time 40+ hour job regularly had me in shots fired scenarios I might consider somethnig that cut my reload need in half.

I personally don't have a work-related reason to own my extended capacity mags. They are just novel.

Fucking drama. Not interested in any controversy. Give me common sense or give me death. Novel- that's it.

The biggest reason for hi cap mags is to teach people how to clear failure to feed jams. The best thing that the pundits can do is ignore them and they will go away. If they keep arguing the point people will want them, its human nature. If you carry the best thing that a person can do is pick a gun that they can shoot well and practice extensively with it, shooting and rapid reloading and they might find out how insignificant the hi caps are.

Simmer down wrote:If my full time 40+ hour job regularly had me in shots fired scenarios I might consider somethnig that cut my reload need in half.

I personally don't have a work-related reason to own my extended capacity mags. They are just novel.

I just ask myself why LEO's don't carry 33 round magazines for their Glocks. They are not practical for any defensive purpose.

As I told Mark. We need to figure out a way to limit the offensive damages done by criminals while not hindering the defensive capabilities of law abiding citizens. We need to find that sweet spot.

The cops that I know of that carry these call them their "oh shit" magazines.

Theoretically they'd be good for competition. If they worked.

Few work. Most jam. Scratch that. All jam.

eelj wrote:If they keep arguing the point people will want them, its human nature.

That's it in a nut shell. As soon as this happened the first thing the left wing anti gun nuts started screaming is for gun bans and hi-cap mag bans, so of course the right wing nuts are all going out to buy hi-cap mags that they don't need, never wanted before, will probably only use once and probably paid twice what they're worth for because "they're going to be banned soon!".

So, instead of concentrating their efforts on figuring out how this loonytoon slipped through the cracks and proposing logical legislation to fix the problem, let's argue about hi-cap mags because everyone on the far left knows that every 'black gun' is a high capacity assault weapon, just like every clown on the far right knows that if you ban 31rd mags for Glocks the next thing you know we'll become a communist muslim fascism police state.

Personally, I have no need for a 30+ round pistol magazine, and won't raise my hackles over a push to ban them. I've seen them used at the range, and can't help but think that they are too heavy, and too awkward to be useful. This guy had it fully loaded, and by the time he was 2\3 of the way through it, his arms were so tired, his shots were landing off the paper completely. Seems like a useless gimmick to me.

rglad wrote:Personally, I have no need for a 30+ round pistol magazine, and won't raise my hackles over a push to ban them. I've seen them used at the range, and can't help but think that they are too heavy, and too awkward to be useful. This guy had it fully loaded, and by the time he was 2\3 of the way through it, his arms were so tired, his shots were landing off the paper completely. Seems like a useless gimmick to me.

I'm not saying that the 31rd Glock mags are a good thing, I'm saying that by focusing on them both sides are missing the point.

If this guy had been reported/gotten some help upon the multiple incidents and outbursts previous to the shooting this could have been prevented.

But then the left would have to admit that guns in and of themselves are not at fault and the right would have to admit that our current system of background checks and waiting periods for acquiring a firearm are completely inadequate.

The problem is our fellow Liberals who want background checks also want privacy laws that keep psychiatric treatment out of the database.

JoelB wrote:The problem is our fellow Liberals who want background checks also want privacy laws that keep psychiatric treatment out of the database.

True, which to me is a bit crazy in and of itself.

Love&A.45 wrote:

rglad wrote:Personally, I have no need for a 30+ round pistol magazine, and won't raise my hackles over a push to ban them. I've seen them used at the range, and can't help but think that they are too heavy, and too awkward to be useful. This guy had it fully loaded, and by the time he was 2\3 of the way through it, his arms were so tired, his shots were landing off the paper completely. Seems like a useless gimmick to me.

I'm not saying that the 31rd Glock mags are a good thing, I'm saying that by focusing on them both sides are missing the point.

If this guy had been reported/gotten some help upon the multiple incidents and outbursts previous to the shooting this could have been prevented.

But then the left would have to admit that guns in and of themselves are not at fault and the right would have to admit that our current system of background checks and waiting periods for acquiring a firearm are completely inadequate.

I get your point, and totally agree. I was just offering up my opinion of the 31 rounders based on something I witnessed.

I'm not for banning the big mags, but I have to ask, what exactly would this ongoing, public, mental health evaluation of everybody, that we'd need to weed out the crazies, have over just outlawing the big mags, in terms of civil rights? Maybe that's why they call it an easy solution.

Respectfully,
's Advocate

FriqueNationale wrote:I'm not for banning the big mags, but I have to ask, what exactly would this ongoing, public, mental health evaluation of everybody, that we'd need to weed out the crazies, have over just outlawing the big mags, in terms of civil rights? Maybe that's why they call it an easy solution.

Respectfully,
's Advocate

Civil rights are based on certain preconditions. We do not, for example, guarantee certain civil rights to criminals (life, liberty, etc.), nor do we guarantee liberty the mentally ill (when they are a threat to society). The RKBA in my opinion guarantees the right for any sufficiently competent person to have pretty much any weapon at all (unfortunately, taken literally this would allow Bill Gates to have a thermonuclear warhead, if he could get the permit). Given that criteria, it stands to reason we would need a whole infrastructure to determine competency. Also, treating the mentally ill is in general a nice thing to do.

stickman wrote: Also, treating the mentally ill is in general a nice thing to do.

We have a winner.

Poor Sarah's cross-hairs on a map?
Not the cause or the fix - although it is fun to see her get raked over the coals.

High-capacity magazines for pistols?
Not the cause, banning them is not the fix.

Concealed carry leading to a "Wild West" atmosphere?
Pure bullshit.

When someone is obviously insane and is allowed to wander amongst an unsuspecting citizenry? Armed? With 31 shots?
Yup. That's the stuff. THIS is the problem.

Reagan threw the insane onto the street back in the 80's. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 of the homeless in America are mentally ill - it's pretty amazing this stuff does not happen more often.

Mental health is a health issue, and as such is not always public record, usually excepting when a crazy person winds up in court. To make the determination of mental competence without a past history of legal trouble due to mental illness would require a state diagnosis of mental competence before any such event takes place today. If it is made a public matter, it will inevitably become a political matter. Yuck.

rglad wrote:

Love&A.45 wrote:

rglad wrote:Personally, I have no need for a 30+ round pistol magazine, and won't raise my hackles over a push to ban them. I've seen them used at the range, and can't help but think that they are too heavy, and too awkward to be useful. This guy had it fully loaded, and by the time he was 2\3 of the way through it, his arms were so tired, his shots were landing off the paper completely. Seems like a useless gimmick to me.

I'm not saying that the 31rd Glock mags are a good thing, I'm saying that by focusing on them both sides are missing the point.

If this guy had been reported/gotten some help upon the multiple incidents and outbursts previous to the shooting this could have been prevented.

But then the left would have to admit that guns in and of themselves are not at fault and the right would have to admit that our current system of background checks and waiting periods for acquiring a firearm are completely inadequate.

I get your point, and totally agree. I was just offering up my opinion of the 31 rounders based on something I witnessed.

And they are indeed gimmicky and useless.

Man, you guys are wrong. These hi-cap magazines have plenty of uses.

- Once inserted, they render any Glock 300% less concealable. Unless you're wearing a tent.
- Speaking thereof, if a tent pole breaks while you're camping, you can use the mag.
- If picked up by a Rancor in the fighting pit in Jabba's palace, you can use it to wedge his mouth open.
- Doubles as a baseball bat.
- Great prank to play on any buddy who insists that Glocks never jam.
- Can be filled with a three year's supply of Pez candies.
- Good emergency boat oar.
- In combat, can be used as a splint for larger bone fractures.
- Exercise tool! Loading one of these over and over improves strength in your hand muscles.
- Can be used as a prybar for jimmying open doors.
- If caught in a mall loaded with zombies, you'll get at least 10 shots off before the thing malfunctions and you die horribly.
- Buy two and they make decent skis.

Come on, folks. Be realistic! These mags have plenty of uses!

flemco wrote:Man, you guys are wrong. These hi-cap magazines have plenty of uses.

- Once inserted, they render any Glock 300% less concealable. Unless you're wearing a tent.
- Speaking thereof, if a tent pole breaks while you're camping, you can use the mag.
- If picked up by a Rancor in the fighting pit in Jabba's palace, you can use it to wedge his mouth open.
- Doubles as a baseball bat.
- Great prank to play on any buddy who insists that Glocks never jam.
- Can be filled with a three year's supply of Pez candies.
- Good emergency boat oar.
- In combat, can be used as a splint for larger bone fractures.
- Exercise tool! Loading one of these over and over improves strength in your hand muscles.
- Can be used as a prybar for jimmying open doors.
- If caught in a mall loaded with zombies, you'll get at least 10 shots off before the thing malfunctions and you die horribly.
- Buy two and they make decent skis.

Come on, folks. Be realistic! These mags have plenty of uses!

Too. Damn. Funny.

Well one things for sure is if you have a bunch of them at hand because of the inevitable debate on them coming up you'll be able to sell them and probably pay off your mortgage. Just like after the AWB went through all I ever saw in shops was AKs ARs SKSs and piles of "pre ban" mags, really did a lot of good.

JoelB wrote:The problem is our fellow Liberals who want background checks also want privacy laws that keep psychiatric treatment out of the database.

It's actually not bat shit crazy.

Back in the mid 1990s, I think, here in Washington state there was an effort to raise the bar on the definition of mental illness insofar as prohibiting someone from owning a gun. The mental health community stepped into the fray and said don't do it.

They said if a person was teetering and in need of help, they might not come forward and get help if they thought it might later preclude them from owning a gun--thus leading to more tragedies over time. The argument was that if a person were involuntarily committed, and the doctors say "Yep, we're keeping this one", then one would not be allowed to own a gun. I'm inclined to think this is the correct answer and anything less should not be grounds for denying one a gun.

There are many layers and distinctions of mental woes. Just because one has been to see a counselor does not mean they go on the no guns list.

Great stuff. You forgot one use: Wayne LaPierre's butt plug

I am with Thomas Szasz on mental illness...it's the modern day version of the witch hunt...used to demonize people with the 'wrong' opinions, preferences or behavioural patterns. Remember when homosexuality was a mental illness? Women had 'hysteria'?

I don't know how people can be so cavalier about the power of a coercive centralized state. Whatever happened to liberals being, urr, liberal. H/t John Stuart Mill. What happened to ultra-decentralist Progressivism? H/t John T. Flynn.

K. That was my rant.

ArmedAznF wrote:I don't know how people can be so cavalier about the power of a coercive centralized state.

Maybe i am misunderstanding.
Do you actually believe that the citizenry can rule itself with wisdom if given the reins?