XD Talk

  • Home
  • Forum
  • Active Topics
  • Gallery
  • Social Groups
  • Search
  • Today's Posts
  • Mark Forums Read
  • Register
  • Advertise

New ban perposal in oregon

This is a discussion on New ban perposal in oregon within the XDTalk Chatter Box forums, part of the XD Talk category; I talked with an old coworker that works at a store in that mall and was told the actual rounds fired off were about 20 ...


Reply
Old 12-13-2012, 04:06 AM   #11
XDTalk Newbie
 
tkilla's Avatar
 
Member #: 64170
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay area, California
Posts: 25
I talked with an old coworker that works at a store in that mall and was told the actual rounds fired off were about 20 and not anywhere near 60.
tkilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Remove Ads
Old 12-13-2012, 04:18 AM   #12
XDTalk 10K Member

 
ArmyGuy45's Avatar
 
Member #: 16502
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 13,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkilla View Post
I talked with an old coworker that works at a store in that mall and was told the actual rounds fired off were about 20 and not anywhere near 60.
Doesnt matter, the media says 60 so its 60.

Either way why didnt anyone shoot back? Was it a gun free zone?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 post(s).

US Army 2005 - 2014
Kimber Series I Compact Aluminum - My Carry
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 post(s).


NRA Life Member
SAF Defenders Club Life Membership
AZCDL Life Membership

IN HELPDESK WE TRUST #2

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!"

Capt. John Parker, Lexington militia
ArmyGuy45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 04:23 AM   #13
XDTalk 1K Member
 
Member #: 52037
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,835
Hm, how many people got killed, 2? And shot how many more? 3? Doesn't seem to me that large capacity magazines worked very well in this case?

Feelgood laws designed by fools.
__________________
Knarren und Zigarren!!!
Stogies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 05:28 AM   #14
XDTalk 2K Member
 
mojoman's Avatar
 
Member #: 80807
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lakewood WA
Posts: 2,311
Or you can just carry six 10 rds mags now.
__________________
XDm .45 ACP 4.5
G19, G30S, G27
Remington 870 Tactical Express 18'
1972-2000 U.S Army Veteran
mojoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 05:32 AM   #15
XDTalk Member
 
user440's Avatar
 
Member #: 81788
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St. louis
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ///MCoupé View Post
silly perposals by senitors based on tragitys..
Ha ha

Carlb- I hope you hit spellcheck before sending something off. Damn brother...
user440 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 06:27 AM   #16
XDTalk 100 Member
 
Scoobywagon's Avatar
 
Member #: 63635
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bremerton-Like
Posts: 337
An open letter to Senator Ginny Burdick of the Oregon State Senate:

Honorable Senator Burdick,

I've read your proposal for legislation restricting the capacity of firearm magazines. This proposal, of course, comes in the wake of the terrible shooting at the Clackamas Town Center mall. I would like to offer some assistance in this matter, if you'd be willing to accept it.

You propose to limit the capacity of firearm magazines on the theory that if the shooter had had less ammunition available to him, fewer rounds would have been fired, reducing the number of injuries and deaths. I admit, this does sound good on the surface. Unfortunately, what you've failed to consider is the speed with which a magazine may be changed. Such legislation also fails to consider the fact that such magazines already exist.

Madam Senator, I no longer consider myself proficient with this weapon as I have been out of the Marine Corps since 1996. However, I can change magazines on that weapon in less than 2 seconds. As a matter of fact, I can shoot against a friend with a 30-round magazine and only be approximately 3-5 seconds behind him by doing 2 magazine changes. So, yes, while it would slow down such an attacker, it would not be particularly meaningful. This is especially true in the case of a person who is willing to spend a modicum of time training to speed up those magazine changes.

As for the availability of "large capacity magazines", the issue here is that such magazines already exist and are widespread. Additionally, this legislation, as proposed, does not affect out of state sales. What if our theoretical bad guy bought those magazines in another state? Why, nothing at all happens. He would be in legal possession of those magazines.

Of course, this legislation, just as with all others like it, assumes that a person who ignores laws pertaining to the theft of a weapon, the taking of another life and the unsafe discharge of a weapon will adhere to a ban on magazine capacity.

As I've noted previously, this legislation you've proposed does have a degree of "feel good" about it. People will tend to feel better because they perceive that you, their elected official, have done something to improve their safety. In fact, this does nothing more than make it marginally more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to obtain large capacity magazines.

Obviously, nobody wishes to see this sort of thing happen again. The question is: What do we do about it? This is a question to which there is no particularly easy answer owing to the extremely divisive nature of the question. Gun control advocates, given their druthers, would go house to house and seize every gun they could find. Gun rights advocates, on the other hand, would arm every man, woman and child. Somewhere in the middle, there has to be an answer.

Studies have shown that the issue really isn't the number of guns available or the capacities of their magazines. The issue really is who gets those guns. Background checks go a long way here. Unfortunately, there will always be someone who slips through the bureaucratic cracks. What happens then?

Some studies have shown that when the general public responds to such an incident, deaths and injuries are significantly lower than similar incidents in which the public waits for the police. I have seen analysis that indicates the intervention of a civilian results in 2.3 deaths vice the 14.3 deaths, on average) that result from waiting for the police. Therefore, we, as a society, must encourage people to stand against these mad men. How do we do that?

Firstly, I should think the thing to do is to offer legal protection to such people. ORS 30.800 as enacted in 1985, commonly called the "Good Samaritan Law" protects those who provide emergency medical assistance. I would submit that this law could be amended to provide similar protections to those who choose to put themselves between a shooter and the rest of the crowd.

Secondly, for those who choose to exercise their second amendment rights, arbitrary restrictions on caliber, capacity or accessories should be lifted. There's no reason why the good guys should be at any disadvantage against the bad guys.

It isn't that I'd advocate the complete lifting of any restrictions on the ownership of firearms. It's just that we seem to have come to a point where our laws are working against us and THAT is what needs to be addressed.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
<My Name>
__________________
"No more runnin'. I aim to misbehave." - Malcolm Reynolds

I have, here in my pocket, 61 165-grain presents. Take 2, they're small.
Scoobywagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 08:10 AM   #17
XDTalk 100 Member
 
Member #: 82308
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobywagon View Post
An open letter to Senator Ginny Burdick of the Oregon State Senate:

Honorable Senator Burdick,

I've read your proposal for legislation restricting the capacity of firearm magazines. This proposal, of course, comes in the wake of the terrible shooting at the Clackamas Town Center mall. I would like to offer some assistance in this matter, if you'd be willing to accept it.

You propose to limit the capacity of firearm magazines on the theory that if the shooter had had less ammunition available to him, fewer rounds would have been fired, reducing the number of injuries and deaths. I admit, this does sound good on the surface. Unfortunately, what you've failed to consider is the speed with which a magazine may be changed. Such legislation also fails to consider the fact that such magazines already exist.

Madam Senator, I no longer consider myself proficient with this weapon as I have been out of the Marine Corps since 1996. However, I can change magazines on that weapon in less than 2 seconds. As a matter of fact, I can shoot against a friend with a 30-round magazine and only be approximately 3-5 seconds behind him by doing 2 magazine changes. So, yes, while it would slow down such an attacker, it would not be particularly meaningful. This is especially true in the case of a person who is willing to spend a modicum of time training to speed up those magazine changes.

As for the availability of "large capacity magazines", the issue here is that such magazines already exist and are widespread. Additionally, this legislation, as proposed, does not affect out of state sales. What if our theoretical bad guy bought those magazines in another state? Why, nothing at all happens. He would be in legal possession of those magazines.

Of course, this legislation, just as with all others like it, assumes that a person who ignores laws pertaining to the theft of a weapon, the taking of another life and the unsafe discharge of a weapon will adhere to a ban on magazine capacity.

As I've noted previously, this legislation you've proposed does have a degree of "feel good" about it. People will tend to feel better because they perceive that you, their elected official, have done something to improve their safety. In fact, this does nothing more than make it marginally more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to obtain large capacity magazines.

Obviously, nobody wishes to see this sort of thing happen again. The question is: What do we do about it? This is a question to which there is no particularly easy answer owing to the extremely divisive nature of the question. Gun control advocates, given their druthers, would go house to house and seize every gun they could find. Gun rights advocates, on the other hand, would arm every man, woman and child. Somewhere in the middle, there has to be an answer.

Studies have shown that the issue really isn't the number of guns available or the capacities of their magazines. The issue really is who gets those guns. Background checks go a long way here. Unfortunately, there will always be someone who slips through the bureaucratic cracks. What happens then?

Some studies have shown that when the general public responds to such an incident, deaths and injuries are significantly lower than similar incidents in which the public waits for the police. I have seen analysis that indicates the intervention of a civilian results in 2.3 deaths vice the 14.3 deaths, on average) that result from waiting for the police. Therefore, we, as a society, must encourage people to stand against these mad men. How do we do that?

Firstly, I should think the thing to do is to offer legal protection to such people. ORS 30.800 as enacted in 1985, commonly called the "Good Samaritan Law" protects those who provide emergency medical assistance. I would submit that this law could be amended to provide similar protections to those who choose to put themselves between a shooter and the rest of the crowd.

Secondly, for those who choose to exercise their second amendment rights, arbitrary restrictions on caliber, capacity or accessories should be lifted. There's no reason why the good guys should be at any disadvantage against the bad guys.

It isn't that I'd advocate the complete lifting of any restrictions on the ownership of firearms. It's just that we seem to have come to a point where our laws are working against us and THAT is what needs to be addressed.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
<My Name>
Well said.

Sent from my Droid RAZR HD MAXX
DanCCH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 08:31 AM   #18
XDTalk 2K Member
 
smencinias's Avatar
 
Member #: 74977
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,365
"The concept creates an exception for law enforcement and military personnel"

first: isnt this illegal to do?

second: its state level, they have NO SAY about what the military does
__________________
Why the hell should I have to press '2' for English??!!
smencinias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 08:49 AM   #19
XDTalk 5K Member
 
Knightslugger's Avatar
 
Member #: 24504
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 7,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by smencinias View Post
"The concept creates an exception for law enforcement and military personnel"

first: isnt this illegal to do?

second: its state level, they have NO SAY about what the military does
The Militia (National Guard) is State controlled.
Knightslugger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 08:52 AM   #20
XDTalk 2K Member
 
smencinias's Avatar
 
Member #: 74977
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightslugger View Post
The Militia (National Guard) is State controlled.
true, it wasnt specific so im reading into it. my fault
__________________
Why the hell should I have to press '2' for English??!!
smencinias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   XDTalk Forums - Your XD/XD(m) Information Source! » XD Talk » XDTalk Chatter Box

ban, laws, oregon, senator, shooting


Search tags for this page
lc 1031 oregon
,
new california gun law perposal
,
oregon
,
oregon ban guns
,

oregon handgun magazine capacity limit

,
oregon lc 1031
,
springfield xdm .45 acp 4.5 for sale oregon
,
springfield xdm ban
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On