- CrazzySnipe55
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
Posted by: SpartanMk18
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
If you don't need something for hunting or self defense or sport, you should not be allowed to have it. The amount of bullets a gun can shoot before you reload (whether that's a clip, a magazine, what have you) should be limited to about 10. If you're hunting, and you fire off 10 rounds, you either hit or did not hit whatever you were trying to hit. If you didn't hit it, it's probably run off. If you did hit it, good job. Either way, it's time for you to reload. This would limit the amount of damage any given gunman would be able to do to a crowd of people (as that's the point of gun restrictions: to help with gun crime).
If that restriction alone is put in place, along with restrictions to people who have people with mental illnesses living in their home and/or on the mentally ill themselves (determined via a federally-regulated test), I think the violent gun crime rate would go down drastically. Or, at the very least, the amount of people killed in the incidents could go down. Everything else (collapsable stock, pistol grip, scope, etc.) don't actually assist someone in the killing of another human unless they've got a sniper rifle in which case holy -blam!- how the -blam!- did that man get a sniper rifle remove that man's sniper rifle.
TL;DR: "Assault Weapon" criteria are dumb. Amount of bullets in a magazine/clip/gun is a legitimate argument to have though.
You do know that magazine size makes no difference what so ever. Be it a 10 round mag, a 20 STANAG, 30 PMAG, or 100 round BETA C. The speed at which you can drop a mag and reload is pretty fast for anyone who is anything close to familiar with firearms.
Did you know that the Aurora shooter had a hundred round beta mag, which jammed after a few rounds and he reverted to his shotgun and handguns? Did you know that restrictions on guns is not all that I put in my post?