signalmankenneth
Verified User
Why do I need 30 rounds?!! You don't unless you are a soldier in war!
Chinese Attack Tactics: Korean War (Human Wave)
Are you a soldier? Were you ever a soldier?
Soldiers need 30 round magazines in combat!
Why do I need 30 rounds?
- Thread starter canceled.2021.1
- Start date
Why do I need 30 rounds?!! You don't unless you are a soldier in war!
Chinese Attack Tactics: Korean War (Human Wave)
Are you a soldier? Were you ever a soldier?
Soldiers need 30 round magazines in combat!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Why do I need 30 rounds?!! You don't unless you are a soldier in war!
Chinese Attack Tactics: Korean War (Human Wave)
Are you a soldier? Were you ever a soldier?
Soldiers need 30 round magazines in combat!
then once you get them away from law enforcement, maybe we won't need them anymore.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Why do I need 30 rounds?!! You don't unless you are a soldier in war!
Chinese Attack Tactics: Korean War (Human Wave)
Are you a soldier? Were you ever a soldier?
Soldiers need 30 round magazines in combat!
They didn't have 30 rounds in Korea. They have 8. And they won WWII, so obviously the military doesn't 'need' 30 rounds mags either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
The heavy lifters in WWII didn't even have 8, they had 5 and it was a bolt action, not a semi-auto. So the military doesn't 'need' these 'high tech' (as in 19th century tech) weapons to win wars either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin-Nagant
signalmankenneth
Verified User
I take it you were not in the military? I was using the human wave attack as example of a use for 30 round magazine! They did have weapon that use 30 round magazines in the Korean War too!
Exactly, but humankind just keeps inventing more effective ways of killing a lot of people in a little time.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I take it you were not in the military? I was using the human wave attack as example of a use for 30 round magazine! They did have weapon that use 30 round magazines in the Korean War too!
No, I only did two tours in Iraq as a machine gunner. Wouldn't know a damn thing about military history or operations or guns or any of that. Like how those guns you posted weren't infantry rifles but sub-guns for non-combat persons. Or how the M1 Carbine was developed with a 15rnd mag, and the Thompson was issued with 20, not 30 rnds. In either case it's irrelevant. They don't 'need' them anymore or less than anyone else.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
This argument is great because it brings up a good point. When I talk about limiting the mag. size to 10 or 30 rounds extreme gunners say, "That won't do anything. If a bad guy practices a lot he can swap out mags from his belt with no time at all." But if you ask why they need high capacity mags they say they need it to take out more bad guys.
The fact is that people are taught to throw things at someone on a killing spree and the smaller the magazine, the harder it is for the bad guy to reload.
It doesn't matter which specific gun you pick, none of them killed as many as falling out of bed did. Which gun do you think they're trying to limit? So we match up what is with what is.
Swimming pools killed more than all guns put together, as did automobiles. If the goal is to make us safe we need to look at those. But that isn't the goal. Banning hi-cap magazines isn't going to stop this, it isn't even going to slow it down.
Yeah, no reaon to have any laws, there will always be people who break them.
That isn't the point. The reality is that it is cosmetic, they ban how the gun looks rather than what it can do.
Or maybe we can realize that these stupid laws aren't going to make us safer and look into what will. First putting dangerous psychos away, then later guarding our kids.
People need to sue every "gun free zone" that doesn't protect them as they could themselves. If you are going to disarm a people who have a right to bear arms you have the responsibility to protect them. If I was a parent who lost a child to stupid "gun free zone" signs that make our kids targets I know why and who I'd be suing.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Especially when enterprising individuals (not naming names) would start making them and selling them illegally.
http://www.firearmfiles.com/files/AR15/11793442-Magazine-Blueprint.pdf
Oh look, readily available blueprints.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Well, when those laws have no impact on crime and infringe on a individual right, yeah they're a bad idea.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
fixed that for you
True that.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
http://www.ima-usa.com/original-u-s-wwii-thompson-smg-30-round-magazine.html
Korean War M2 and M3 Carbines
Well, you guys refuse to believe that gun laws do impact crime. You refuse to see the stats that show guns are most often used on non intruders. There has to be compromise. Laws are compromise by societies, all laws limit freedom. No law is going to stop crime, but it does make it harder to comit these acts if the tools aren't really available.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Because all evidence shows otherwise.
Oh you mean the ones that says people murdered at home are usually shot? Well that would make sense, as murders outside the home are also usually committed with guns.
And if there is a measurable benefit than you can argue that. But in this instance there isn't.
No, it doesn't. There is no evidence to support your assertion. Crime is not related to tools. It's a complex, multi level problem which isn't solved by making it harder for non-criminals to exercise their rights. Limiting access or capacity of any other tool doesn't stop people from completing a task that they are set out to do. Hell, you smoke pot. You should know this stuff.
Freedom often does that, leaves us with a "quandary". Either we trust government to protect us from everything or we accept the risks inherent with our freedoms. The sweet song of "I'll take care of you" is often like a siren to some people who fear freedom (risk). I prefer to accept the risks than to give up still more rights, others want to pretend they are free while they give up rights they should, IMO, jealously guard.
It isn't that I don't "recognize" or "refuse" to... It is that I do, but believe that the Right is so valuable that it is worth that risk. Much like I believe that the benefits of automobiles absolutely make them worth the risk. Considering I am (yes a small exaggeration) a million times more likely to die in a car than by any of these guns, I am taking on a far larger risk with something you ignore as the larger risk, and which is used in the large majority of crimes.
It is complex but, I do not agree with your claim that gun laws do not prevent crime. The articles I have read state otherwise, so I guess it is in who you read.
You know what I mean, stats how that more people are injured or harmed by their own guns than intruders stopped from a commission of crime in their home.
Like I stated, no laws stops all crime, but it can sure slow a person own and laws even stop some people from comitting crimes.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Well, I read the government reports.
And from England...one of the most draconian nations on the planet when it comes to guns.
