An AR-15 or AK-47 in Canada would only have 5 + 1 bullets. If you're only going to kill 5 or 6 people, it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort. Might as well stay home and get high or something.
I'm sure the Canadian mafia has them, but most people wouldn't. Some random loner who wants to shoot people would have considerably difficulty obtaining such a thing.You don't think that if someone wanted some 30 round mags they couldn't get them? You don't think they already exist up there?
They should give him a .45-70 revolver and let him figure it outImproper use of a weapon, you hold that stock tight to your shoulder.
You should send this video to the pentagon. Those idiots keep issuing 30 round magazines to soldiers because they seem to be under the impression that 30 shots has a significant tactical advantage over 10 shots or 5 shots.Well yeah, your right, a shooter bent on mass murder would be inconvenienced by having to change mags more frequently. But in a gun free zone, would it really matter? And just how much do you really think magazine capacity is going to slow him down? I have no doubt as to where this slippery slope is headed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
lmfao
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
An AR-15 bruised his shoulder and a few rounds gave him PTSD. These gun grabbers dont help their cause with idiocy like the above.
Well yeah, your right, a shooter bent on mass murder would be inconvenienced by having to change mags more frequently. But in a gun free zone, would it really matter? And just how much do you really think magazine capacity is going to slow him down? I have no doubt as to where this slippery slope is headed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
An AR-15 or AK-47 in Canada would only have 5 + 1 bullets. If you're only going to kill 5 or 6 people, it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort. Might as well stay home and get high or something.
Higher capacity AR-15 magazines are actually very easy to acquire in Canada:
1) Purchase a legal 5 round .50 Beowulf magazine. It's compatible with standard 5.56 AR-15s and can hold 15 rounds without modification.
2) Purchase a legal 5/30 magazine, which is a standard 30 round magazine with a rivet that prevents loading more than 5 rounds. Drill out the rivet.
I don't understand the "5 round magazines means 5 deaths" comment. Magazines are removable and can be swapped in seconds (or less, for skilled shooters). There has been no correlation between magazine capacity and number of deaths in US mass shootings, so the likelihood of a capacity limit reducing casualties by any measurable amount seems very low. I suspect that this is because the average rate of fire at most mass shootings is less than the amount of time required to change a magazine.
And for all the talk about how effective the AR-15 is for mass murder, it seems to suck at killing people. Among the 10 deadliest mass shootings, AR-15 attacks resulted in more injuries than deaths in all but one case, and handgun/shotgun attacks resulted in more deaths than injuries in all but one case.
You should send this video to the pentagon. Those idiots keep issuing 30 round magazines to soldiers because they seem to be under the impression that 30 shoots has a significant tactical advantage over 10 shots or 5 shots.
Also, all of Canada is a gun free zone.
The guy in the comments nailed it on that video:
This illustrates the point they didn't state. In order to do this, you have to count rounds while shooting. The reason he only fired 9 the first time is so that there would be a live round in the chamber when he swapped magazines. If he fired the 10th round, you'd have a empty chamber and would have to hit the slide release to load the first round of the new magazine.
I'm sure the Canadian mafia has them, but most people wouldn't. Some random loner who wants to shoot people would have considerably difficulty obtaining such a thing.
They should give him a .45-70 revolver and let him figure it out
All the usual frothing, huh?
All the usual frothing, huh?
If there were no correlation between killing capacity & magazine capacity then the military probably wouldn't use extended magazines, would they?
Who to believe- military armorers or internet blowhards?
Ah, more misinformation. The idea, and design of the m16 with it's small round, yet high rate of fire could take the enemy out of combat in a dense jungle where he who fires the most wins, and that can be more effective than just killing them.
Ah, more misinformation. The idea, and design of the m16 with it's small round, yet high rate of fire could take the enemy out of combat in a dense jungle where he who fires the most wins, and that can be more effective than just killing them. the m16 was not designed to be a one shot one kill weapon.
If there were no correlation between killing capacity & magazine capacity then the military probably wouldn't use extended magazines, would they?
Who to believe- military armorers or internet blowhards?
Washington Post - banning the AR15s won't stop mass shooting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/
.
You know why young men join ISIS? The system has failed them, and they seek relevance.
You know why young men join MS13? The system has failed them, and they seek relevance.
The current system has no idea how to deal with economically displaced and/or indigent young men, other than to simply make for-profit sausage out of them.
They're not even imagining any other thing.
If there were no correlation between killing capacity & magazine capacity then the military probably wouldn't use extended magazines, would they?
Who to believe- military armorers or internet blowhards?
If there were no correlation between killing capacity & magazine capacity then the military probably wouldn't use extended magazines, would they?
Who to believe- military armorers or internet blowhards?
Weight and storage comes into play with the military. If you're talking a standard infantry loadout of 210 rounds that's 7x30 round magazines, one in your rifle and 3 each in 2 ammo pouches. If they instead used 5 round magazines that would require an extra 35 magazines for the same combat load, which would add around 10 pounds of weight due to the magazines (@ around 4 ounces each) plus you'd need considerably more than 2 ammunition pouches to hold them all.
Reducing magazine sizes would akin to requiring the military to fill up their diesel generators using 12 ounce bottles rather than 5 gallon cans.
They use fully automatic weapons. What is confusing about their need for greater capacity?
I saw a commercial for a foldable AR-15. Why do you need to be able to fold it down? Perhaps to sneak into an area, hide under jacket? Could be how Orlando killer got the gun into the club. Don't know how foldable aids in target shooting or hunting.
When Trump starts allowing them at his rallies I'll believe the honesty from the right on this issue.
Oh, and for those not aware, an AR-15 was not used in Orlando.
Please don't misrepresent what I said:
"There has been no correlation between magazine capacity and number of deaths in US mass shootings."
That's an analysis, not an opinion. Higher capacity magazines may be beneficial in armed combat, but they've proven to not be very important for mass shootings. I already offered a thought about why, but you seem to be more interested in leveling insults than reading and discussing.