Page 1 of 2
Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:56 am
by Rrash
Here a photo followed by the text I posted on Facebook earlier today. It sparked a firestorm of debate, but the surprising thing is that it got people talking. I doubt any minds will be changed, but probably challenged. Everyone has been civil, and I learned a lot about my 'friends'. It was kind of nice to read through the responses. At the very least, it shows the absurdity of the New York ban.
The text is as follows:
This is a gun I legally carry. Statistically, 0.1884% of crime, Class A Misdemeanors and above are committed by CHL holders like me. The 2nd Amendment states that my right to defend myself and my family from an attacker, "shall not be infringed," as does the Supreme Court. According to State law for a CHL, I have passed an FBI background check, submitted my fingerprints, am up to date on taxes, child support, etc. I obey all laws as to where, how, and to what extent I can carry this weapon. Again, if a crime is committed in our society, there is a 0.1884% chance it is a person like me and a 98.116% chance it is someone who does not have a CHL (the general public).
The magazine on the left holds 9 rounds, the magazine on the right, 13. Same gun, same ammunition, same thing happens when it goes 'bang'. In the state of New York, if I carry the magazine on the left, I am a husband, father, upstanding citizen, a contributor to society. If I use the magazine on the right, I am a criminal, and according to legislature, mass shooting and violent crime will go up.
Please explain this logic to me. I'm not looking for slander, I don't care what you think about your President (he is still your President) - I'm just trying to understand this bill, how it makes New York (and potentially the United States, if the Gun Control recommendations laid out by VP Biden) safer.
Also, please explain why Police officers choose to carry high capacity magazines - if they are using their guns to protect themselves (and the general public) from the same bad guys a U.S. citizen (like you and me) would face. For a bonus, please explain to me why a Police officer often chooses not only to carry a high-capacity handgun, but also, a high-capacity rifle?
Again, leave the slander out of the argument or I will promptly delete your post. Fill me in on what I'm missing.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:01 am
by G26ster
No, your now a criminal in NY State with either. Gonna have to revise your FB page, as the magazine on the left is now illegal in NY State as of yesterday if you load more than 7 rounds.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:03 am
by fickman
Nicely crafted demonstration... very effective. I'm reminded of Senator Graham on Fox News Sunday when he told Feinstein and Chris Wallace that he had an AR-15 and asked if the country would really be safer if somebody took it away from him.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:32 am
by jmra
Is there an exemption for NY police? I'm thinking if they would have been restricted to 7 rounds during the Empire State Building shooting maybe they would have shot fewer bystanders. (Sarcasm)
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:37 am
by Ericstac
jmra wrote:Is there an exemption for NY police? I'm thinking if they would have been restricted to 7 rounds during the Empire State Building shooting maybe they would have shot fewer bystanders. (Sarcasm)
Maybe we are misreading the new law and it is really only meant for NYPD..
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:16 am
by philip964
Is it the capacity of the magazine or the number of bullets you put in it? Can you have 1+7 or only 7? Or can you have a magazine with a capacity of 9, but only 7 bullets in it?
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:17 am
by Jaguar
Rrash wrote:Again, if a crime is committed in our society, there is a 0.1884% chance it is a person like me and a 98.116% chance it is someone who does not have a CHL (the general public).
The mathematician in me says 100% - 0.1884% = 99.8116%, not 98.116%, (Unless maybe you are exempting law enforcement.)
Good post.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:22 am
by JJVP
philip964 wrote:Is it the capacity of the magazine or the number of bullets you put in it? Can you have 1+7 or only 7? Or can you have a magazine with a capacity of 9, but only 7 bullets in it?
I think the +1 is a loophole. The one in the chamber is NOT in the magazine. That's what happens when idiots who know absolutely nothing about firearms write gun laws. Soon they'll write legislation to close the chamber loophole.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:59 am
by texanjoker
Good post, nice photo. The only counter debate I could say is the police comment. Police carry for different reasons than a CHL. The police are required to take actions that could be considered offensive in nature like traffic stops (both simple violations and felony car stops), being ambushed, warrant service, clearing buildings on a burglary, and responding TO the threat as part of their job. The CHL holder is carrying for defensive reasons and IMO are carrying to get AWAY from those same threats with their families in tact.
HOWEVER I think those magazine bans are stupid, and will not do anything to stop crime. It's not like one couldn't carry several of the 10 round or even 7 round mags that don't exist and still get the job done. Even a 6 shot wheel gun with speed loaders works. We all carried those back in the day and got the job done. In a school shooting I worked the kid was armed with a 22 caliber revolver. He shot 17. I also remember in various tactical training that the pistol is primarily a defensive weapon. If you are going on the offensive have the rifle or shot gun with you. When I worked K9's and we were searching for BAD people, I always had cover with me with a rifle for that very reason.
I would bet for sure there is an exemption for LEO's. Take CA, they only sale 10 round mags. LEO's can get them for duty purposes with a letter from work, or if they work for a good agency have them issued. NY has some Draconian gun laws
. The rest of the citizens will drive across a state line, buy their mags and bring them back to NY.... thus creating a criminal out of what should be a law abiding citizen.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:31 am
by Wes
JJVP wrote:philip964 wrote:Is it the capacity of the magazine or the number of bullets you put in it? Can you have 1+7 or only 7? Or can you have a magazine with a capacity of 9, but only 7 bullets in it?
I think the +1 is a loophole. The one in the chamber is NOT in the magazine. That's what happens when idiots who know absolutely nothing about firearms write gun laws. Soon they'll write legislation to close the chamber loophole.
Ha! Chamber loophole! That was good, lol. Here is the text of the bill, it's hard for me to follow but the section I believe applies says fixed capacity, so you could interpret that to mean in the magazine itself so 7+1 is most likely ok. If anyone can make more sense of it, let us know. Once they hear people have 8 rounds they will take that down to 5 total, just wait. This isn't over for New York, they won't stop until the enact prohibition of firearms. Never want to and never will live there, no matter what!
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?defaul ... y=Y&Text=Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:24 pm
by G26ster
philip964 wrote:Is it the capacity of the magazine or the number of bullets you put in it? Can you have 1+7 or only 7? Or can you have a magazine with a capacity of 9, but only 7 bullets in it?
You can have the 9 rd magazine, but if you are caught with more than 7 rounds in it, you've violated the law.
According to the media:
"Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge."
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:01 pm
by Jumping Frog
Jaguar wrote:Rrash wrote:Again, if a crime is committed in our society, there is a 0.1884% chance it is a person like me and a 98.116% chance it is someone who does not have a CHL (the general public).
The mathematician in me says 100% - 0.1884% = 99.8116%, not 98.116%, (Unless maybe you are exempting law enforcement.)
Good post.
Check your math again.
His math is correct.
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:48 pm
by Jaguar
Jumping Frog wrote:Jaguar wrote:Rrash wrote:Again, if a crime is committed in our society, there is a 0.1884% chance it is a person like me and a 98.116% chance it is someone who does not have a CHL (the general public).
The mathematician in me says 100% - 0.1884% = 99.8116%, not 98.116%, (Unless maybe you are exempting law enforcement.)
Good post.
Check your math again.
His math is correct.
I'm confused, 100 - 0.1884 = 99.8116
What am I missing? I'm feeling like an idiot?
Granted, 100 - 1.884 = 98.116, but that is not the number given. Still confused...
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:10 pm
by ffemt300
Nicely stated. I hate facebook....
Re: Interesting Facebook Debate, Magazine Bans
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:14 pm
by JALLEN
Ericstac wrote:jmra wrote:Is there an exemption for NY police? I'm thinking if they would have been restricted to 7 rounds during the Empire State Building shooting maybe they would have shot fewer bystanders. (Sarcasm)
Maybe we are misreading the new law and it is really only meant for NYPD..
I read online somewhere yesterday that the bill was written and passed so hurriedly that there is no law enforcement or military exemption. West Point cadets, NYPD, FBI etc all have to limit to 7 rounds as the bill now stands.
Act in haste, repent at leisure, I believe Poor Richard put it.