In 2011 a person owning a Glock 9mm pistol with a high capacity magazine felt as though it was his destiny to go out with a "bang". Jared Loughner came up to Arizona's congresswoman and opened fire. The gun can is loaded with something called a "magazine" which is an interchangeable container of bullets regularly holding 10 bullets before a reload. The magazine or "slide" during this assault is what is known as an extended magazine containing nearly three times the amount of ammunition of a normal pistol.
Clearly this was a premeditated operation and there is no question that the Jared went out with the intention to injure as many people as possible; but the response to this tries to take yet another bite out of the constitution in a manor which probably isn't in the best interest of "we the people".
Yes the really is no practical reason to have 18+ rounds in a magazine for a hand gun but to propose a magazine have a limited number of bullets is absolutely intrusive. The 2nd amendment to the constitution establishes that there are several functions for owning a firearm. The article that I found on the huffington post seems to be as liberal as most of the articles on the internet talking about how guns are either for hunting or self defense. Where in reality there is a third purpose and that is to overthrow the government and re-establish a congress. The articles fail to state any of this and no real examples defending fire arms came up during the time period because it happened during a streak of ongoing incidents involving inappropriate gun wielding and shootings. There are numerous reasons why there should never be a restriction on any sort of magazine limit or even general firearms in general, if you take away the guns from all of the innocent people only the bad people will have guns! This can be proven looking at England; which has an insane crime rate. Additionally if you look geographically the Russia has a significantly higher crime rate and violence rate then the United States. And when it comes to the continental US the places that are known for having more guns per household have far less (if any) crime whatsoever, you can almost think of it as being dumb enough to rob a gun store. but the farther you go from the Midwestern states (Baltimore being a tremendous example) the less the firepower that you are "allowed" to have in your house, the more the crime rate! The article states "No one is arguing that a high-capacity magazine ban would have prevented our colleague Gabrielle Giffords from being shot -- but it might have spared the victims who were struck by bullets 11 through 31". This is an ignorant statement because it holds no water. From professional experience I can say that firing an extended magazine hitting several targets with accuracy is far more difficult than a standard mag. The only real prevention you can apply is to monitor how well people train and what their intentions are and that is intrusive and none of anyone's business because if trained properly you can do almost equal damage with a standard magazine. The point being of all of this is if you allow them to strop one of your firearms or the accessories from your availability but allow them to have it you create an injustice and an unequal playing field. Last time I checked gun murders were a minor fraction of the cause of death that alcohol was; and I cant remember the last person that said they felt safe and protected because they had alcohol in the house.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html
