69 Comments - NW IL Democrat - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 12:55 pm: As we’ve seen in horrible instances the past few years, high-capacity magazines are one of the single strongest reasons we have massacres in movie theaters and schools. When a mass murdered has to reload, the victims have a chance to tackle him to stop the carnage. Beyond that, there is absolutely no reason for high-capacity magazines in modern civil society. They are made for the theater of war, not society, and should stay on the battlefield. This is a matter of common sense. - Coyote Chris - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 12:56 pm: Yes,because you never hear of someone having to shoot 10 bad guys defending their home, it’s always the opposite. - Bill - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 12:59 pm: Six in each hand was enough for the Lone Ranger and Roy Rogers. Bat Masterson only needed two in his derringer. Why do those sissies need more than 10? - Stones - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:01 pm: Yes - common sense restriction. Why does one need more than 10 rounds for personal defense? - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:02 pm: Every firearm should be registered and an annual registration fee paid, like for motor vehicles. The money raised should go into buyback programs. The magazine thing is good politics with swing voters, but the kind of policy that will do more to harass legal owners than to change public policy outcomes. - bloval23 - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm: Ah yes, but when you stop and use the common sense you all allude to, then you would see this BAN is nothing more than a feel good bill. If your home is broken into and there are 3 armed thugs in your home you will most definitely need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself, family and property. If you think the thugs in your home are going to sit and only fire one round at you and take turns firing then you all are in fantasy land. Why don’t we see our President or Local State leaders in Illinois pass a LAW that will prevent gun violence which is to label all Street Gangs Domestic Terrorist Organizations and send in the National Guard to eradicate them from the streets once and for all. Why do they continually ignore the obvious? Common sense leads you to tackle the street gangs if you want to reduce all this gun violence. Also google statistics on gun violence and you’d see actually it’s on the decline, but the Media doesn’t want the people to know this because it destroys the agenda that’s being pushed. - reflector - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm: No,I don’t have a 30 round mag but it’s just letting the camel get his hesd under the tent. - wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:04 pm: Yes, it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights and if it makes one lunatic flop around looking to reload it’s worth it. For crying out loud, you can’t buy firecrackers in this state. - Rufus - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:05 pm: I said yes, just so something got passed. I don’t think it will make any difference in the random gun violence, perhaps a small chance. Gun violence is big problem, but I don’t have any solutions, or even answers…. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:07 pm: Stick to the question, please. - Wensicia - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:09 pm: Yes, who besides law enforcement personnel or the military have a genuine need for such magazines? - RNUG - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:13 pm: Voted no because (a) it isn’t goign to make any differenc ein the gun violence and (b) standard mags are 12 to 15 rounds for most pistols - Challenger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:13 pm: I’m sorry but until they get the guns out of the criminals hands I refuse to be against any gun law that restricts 10 rounds of ammunition for the law abiding tax paying citizen. Also if you are a responsible gun owner these will be locked up for only you to access. Common sense or not that is just how I feel. - doedoa - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:15 pm: No. It isn’t the size of the magazine, it’s how you use it. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:18 pm: Yes!!! If you can’t hit a target in two or three shots, you shouldn’t be trusted with any more chances. Oh well, perhaps, Nerf darts? - why? - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:24 pm: No, this would have no impact on the crimes the politicians are highlighting. Criminals will find a way to get the magazines that hold more rounds or just bring more magazines with them. Law abiding citizens will be the ones impacted by such a decision. If, G-d forbid, a deranged meth addict breaks into my home I would rather I (or my wife) have 17 opportunities to stop the threat than ten. That is what it comes to for me, the safety of my family against a hopefully unlikely event. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:25 pm: No. all those voting against it that talk of hitting the “target” in 2-3 shots have no idea of life and death shooting. target is moving, low light conditions in most cases, you are moving, sweat, heart rate, respiration all going crazy… Even the supporters it admit it will really do nothing, which means it just makes those that want the rounds for self defense not have them. Anyone that has ever been in a real gun fight have never said “I wish i had fewer bullets”. - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:30 pm: I voted yes. Even though I’m not sure it will do much to solve the problem, I do believe there may be some benefit. Besides, I have not been convinced by anybody yet that there is a true need to have more than 10 rounds in a gun. - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:30 pm: I voted yes but with real reservations in that while this bill seems responsible, it is true the criminals always find ways around restrictions while law abiding citizens are restricted. - John Boch - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:31 pm: Not only no, but “Heck NO!”. If highly trained professional cops average about 20% hits on bad guys they are shooting at, and you have a pair of bad guys break into your home at oh-dark thirty, do you want standard capacity mags or do you want to be arbitrarily limited to ten rounds? If standard capacity magazines are good enough to protect the elites in our state, they are are good enough for you and me. Gun control such as this is elitist. I don’t support elitism. And before some say, “Oh my gosh, we’ll have wounded innocents everywhere”, keep in mind cops shoot innocent bystanders 5.5x more than lawfully armed civilians. - Mongo - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:31 pm: I voted yes. I am persuaded by the argument that it takes time (yes, even two seconds can make a difference) to change a magazine. I am posting before reading above comments but imagine I’ll see the “police have mags with more than 10 so should I” and that is fallacious. We are not police officers, with a sworn duty to protect the peace, the public, and property. I don’t want a tear gas gun, riot mask and shield, high capacity magazine, baton, car with mars lights on top, and so forth. - Mongo - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:37 pm: Hey math whiz I am I counted 13 yes to 5 no. But the pool shows a majority opposed. Those of you stacking the poll without commenting ought to be able to come up with a rationale of your own. Please do. - Amalia - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:40 pm: Yes, because what the Newtown families said….he left the small ones at home and took the large one with him for faster killing. - Pelon - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:42 pm: No, the only impact will be on Illinois firearm dealers. Anyone who wants large capacity magazines could just go to another state to get them. Manufacturers will need to create special magazines for Illinois which will increase the cost of firearms for Illinois firearm dealers. Both results will encourage people to purchase firearms in other states but will do little to prevent a mass shooting. - titan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:43 pm: No - when confronted by multiple home intruders in the night, one cannot be sure that 10 rounds is enough (under those conditions, some ronds will miss and some will not be instantly fatal). - LisleMike - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:43 pm: I vote yes, for reasons above, common sense, does not infringe on ownership, and frankly who really needs more than 10? I don’t subscribe to camel’s nose into the tent argument. Give a little on the issue and gain alot! - dazed & confused - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:47 pm: No. This will not stop or prevent tragedies. Chicago banned handguns and they continue to have carnage in the streets. It’s a “feel good” measure that will have no impact. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:49 pm: I voted no because as long as I am not causing crime, it is no ones business what I own or why. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:51 pm: No, and stay out of my gun safe. - Mongo - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:57 pm: JJJS, you don’t have an unlimited right to whatever you want to have in your gun safe. In your earlier posts you have usually offered some thoughtful rationale. - Kevin Highland - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:00 pm: No a magazine capacity limit will do as much to stop gun violence as the FOID law does. - Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:03 pm: I voted no. Despite the sensational crimes which occupy the 24 hr news stations. Shootings in which 30 rnd magazines and “assault” weapons is incredibly low. In 2011 there were only 323 murders and non negligent homicides committed with all rifles a percentage of 2.5% Rifle includes so called “assault Weapons”. Coincidently more people were killed by someones bare hands then rifles. Therefore reducing Rifle magazines cannot logically effect more than 2.5% of crimes. The standard magazine for most semi-automatic handguns is typically 12 plus. While Handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals they also happen to be the prefered weapon of homeowners and CCW. Therefore this law would primarily affect only law abiding citizens. As has been stated before by other posters banning magazines in IL would only mean a criminal would have to drive into STL or Gary stop at a gun store buy a untraceable and fully legal product and drive back to where they intend to commit crime. In short this ban would work about as well as the ban on Fireworks here in IL. Ever wondered why MO and Indiana fireworks stands are setup right across the border? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:05 pm: >>>>> In your earlier posts you have usually offered some thoughtful rationale. Standard capacity magazines prevented the Lake of Egypt Massacre of 2012. - Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:05 pm: BTW Kotowski’s idea of increased penalties for use of High Cap magazines in crime is a good idea and one that on it’s own would probably sail through. - wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:13 pm: It’s interesting to note today that the argument is that you need larger capacity magazines to defend yourself from criminals in the home. In the past, the argument was that the ban would not prevent lunatics from quickly reloading multiple times. That strikes me as contradictory. - ProblemChild21 - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:17 pm: No. Under stress, ability to hit a target accurately with a stopping blow becomes much more difficult. I pray I never have to look over the barrel of my gun at someone, but if I do, I don’t want to be limited on what it takes to stop that person. Besides, in 2006, John Guzman survived at least 13 shots. Maybe 14 or 15 or 20 would have ended it? - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:19 pm: No, because you can’t ban them, so this is a wasted of time. If you can’t buy one in IL when the law goes into effect on XX date, people will buy them before the ban goes into effect or drive to a border state and buy them just because they can. - Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:20 pm: Wordslinger It actually isn’t contradictory. Let me explain a criminal or Psycopath get’s to choose when he commits the crime and can prepare accordingly i.e. he gets to initiate the behavior. The homeowner cannot he has to react. So the homeowner does not get to bring a half dozen magazines. Most likely the homeowner will only have the rounds in the magazine that is in the weapon. Can you see the difference?? - titan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:22 pm: ===- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:13 pm: It’s interesting to note today that the argument is that you need larger capacity magazines to defend yourself from criminals in the home. In the past, the argument was that the ban would not prevent lunatics from quickly reloading multiple times. That strikes me as contradictory. === What is contradictory about it? The high capacity magazine ban would do very little, if anything, to protect the public against a rampagin maniac. It might negatively impact the performance of a terrified woman trying to defend against a late night home invasion. Two very different scenarios. - why? - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:23 pm: @wordslinger … Both are valid arguments, but I would suspect that criminals would not have to use the lower capacity magazines because they would find and use the larger ones. The criminals will find the larger magazines just like they they can find a gun despite not having a FOID card. - Earnest - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:36 pm: I voted yes. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to limit responsible people to have to reload after ten shots, and it could slow down an irresponsible or dangerous person. - Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:36 pm: No. Box magazines are not difficult to manufacture by someone with basic sheet-metal fabrication skills. This prohibition will only create a black market for these magazines. Multiple-round magazines are useful in certain civilian defense situations, and law abiding citizens should not be deprived of their legal availability. Also, weapons which utilize them are fun to shoot in multi-target range arrangements. I regret that deranged persons have used high ammo capacity weaponry to commit atrocious acts. But the solution is not banning easy-to-make instrumentalities and crinimalize their possession. The solution is to improve mental healthcare in our society and improve identification of troubled individuals and control their access to any weaponry. - railrat - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:56 pm: Voted NO, only once by the way, I define an ammo clip(magazine) as a spring loaded container that can be attatched to a pistol or a long gun. They are made for various cartridge capacities. When a friend asked me “why I need more than a 3 shot “clip”(magazine) for game hunting”, best I can explain is “the game don’t shoot back”… and by the way I’ve yet to see a magazine discharge a projectile on its own… - dupage dan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:57 pm: I mentioned yesterday that this issue will likely be moot in a few years when 3D printers become plentiful and less expensive. It has already been proven that the magazines can be made that way - rather easily. The law is a waste of time - window dressing. In response to my post, word indicated that the manufacture of the magazine would violate the law. It was subsequently pointed out to word that it had not yet been passed. I would say that is totally irrelevant (see below). Q) Who are we trying to keep from having access to large capacity magazines? A) Criminals and the insane. Q) Who is likely to ignore that law? A) See answer above. We would all love to prevent powerful weapons from being wielded by evil folks bent on murder and mayhem. I believe that limiting the size of the magazines will do not one thing to prevent a tragedy. Some suggest that it may limit the number of folks who are injured or killed by the evil person. I believe we should do more to prevent the crime by identifying the madman before that person decides on the evil course of action. That appears to have disappeared from the public discussion. Instead we have the emotional declaration of “we have to do something” even if it is beyond useless. - Keyser Soze - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:04 pm: No here. Banning the possession of firearms by lunatics makes more sense. Lunacy is the common denominator in all of the mass shootings. - Rusty618 - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:09 pm: No. 15 rounds is not capacity, 30 rounds is. Most semi-automatic handguns come with a 14-16 round magazine. My wife would probably take that many shots to hit an armed intruder in our house. - Pretzel - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:10 pm: Voted no. The argument of slowing the crazy guy down by limiting magazine capacity doesn’t make sense, to me. Aside from the fact they won’t follow the law, if no one is able to fight back they can take all the time they want reloading. Some people may get away but their goal is to kill as many as they can, not necessarily kill everyone. - Blue Dog - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:12 pm: No. Many modern firearms have standard capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds including the Glock & XD family of pistols. The Glock model 19 has been the #1 choice of new female shooters who purchase a firearm for personal defense. That firearm would be banned under this bill. My girlfriend recently upgraded from her trusty .357 Six shooter to a Glock because burglaries around Springfield are increasingly involving multiple intruders instead of one. - Brendan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:13 pm: Does the ban include a prohibition against owning them? If not, then the law is meaningless. - Don Gwinn - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:22 pm: Nope. Although they’re high-profile, emotional events, crimes in which these magazines play any part at all are extremely rare, and even in those rare instances, they don’t make the decisive difference. Look, we’ve already seen this movie and we know how it ends. Remember the ten years between 1993 and 2003? Remember how the killers at Columbine and Jonesboro were not stymied by the federal “Assault Weapons Ban” that limited magazines over 10 rounds to law enforcement and the military only? We tried it and it didn’t work. We can try it again, if we’re that desperate to “Do Something,” but it will be just as pointless this time. I understand the impulse to try something, anything, when we see something horrible on the news. But it’s an impulse to infringe the rights of millions of Americans in the vain hope that this time it’ll somehow have an effect. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:31 pm: I voted No. This isn’t solving the underlying problems of mental illness, gang violence, and guns in the wrong hands. It’s a basically meaningless, easily worked-around measure that is unlikely to have any impact on crime. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:44 pm: No. In my opinion it will do nothing but punish the already law abiding gun owners, and I’m sick of being treated like a criminal by political opportunists, do-gooders and busybodies. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:08 pm: RonOglesby: “Anyone that has ever been in a real gun fight have never said ‘I wish i had fewer bullets’. Really? Unless RonOglesby is a former cop or military veteran, I doubt very seriously that he has EVER been in a “real gun fight,” nor will 99.99999% of Illinois law abiding citizens. Of course, I understand if RonOglesby/titan ect have plans to become drug dealers, or are truly crazy paranoids and feel naked without a gun linked up to unlimited rounds of ammunition, then by all means, Illinois lawmakers shouldn’t pass reasonable gun legislation. After all, it won’t be long before the men in little white suits will be knocking on RonOglesby/titan ect front door, and they need to be able to protect themselves. - SO IL M - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:15 pm: No. It does absolutely nothing and is a waste of time and effort just to make Legislators appear to be doing something that makes people feel good. It also adds one more thing to the list of what to buy in MO, KY, or IN. - titan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:17 pm: ===- Louis Howe - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:08 pm: === You haven’t been paying atention. Ron discussed his background previously. And I have recounted my late mother-in-law’s (successful, thank God) defense of her home against a late night 2 attacker home invasion. - Way South of I-80 - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:20 pm: I voted yes - because what the Newtown families said….he left the small ones at home and took the large one with him for faster killing and that a few children were able to get away (and escape being killed!) while he was re-loading. - The unknown poster - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:21 pm: It is a knee jerk feel good emotionally driven piece of drivel that will do diddly squat to prevent another mass shooting. - The unknown poster - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:29 pm: The correct response would be to keep firearms out of the hands of homocidal maniacs. - justbabs - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:39 pm: I voted yes but then realize it will only work if it is a national program. We are not an island and that leaves us subject to the availability of these items all along our borders. As Chicago has proven, we need a national program. I’m all for that. - The Dude - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:42 pm: I voted no because Dick Cheney should have the right to shoot as many hunting buddies as he wants. - kimocat - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:49 pm: All you folks that think it is such an imposition to have large magazines banned — then you should be in favor of requirements for responsible gun ownership. You should be for universal background checks, registering your weapons, taking and passing basic courses in gun operation and safety, and strict liability laws that will penalize those who do not keep their guns safe and out of the hands of children. So do you? - anon - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:51 pm: No. Going from 13 to 10 will have virtually no effect whatsoever, with the exception of a new product line And billions in sales for gun manufacturers. Yet another piece of useless legislation to make people FEEL like they’re doing something when they’re just selling smoke and mirrors to donors and low-education voters. This is the kind of garbage that kills faith in government actually doing something helpful. Way to go. - dupage dan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:06 pm: kimocat, that’s not the gist of this post. Please help me understand how gun registration would help prevent mass gun tragedies. How would making law abiding citizens take gun safety courses have prevented murder and mayhem at the hands of a lawless monster? If all those things had been in place, do you really believe that it would have prevented the tragedy? - doc - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:41 pm: Criminals do not follow the law, that’s basic. No criminal is going to care about a limit on the size of the magazine or clip. They will find and purchase whatever size they want, just like they find and purchase illegal guns now. Once again all that is being done is a ‘feel good’ bill that will restrict the rights of honest citizens and put them at greater risk. I read an interesting comparison recently, a pro and anti gun advocate were arguing about gun registration and bans. When the pro-gun asked the anti-gun how any of it would have prevented the tragedy in Connecticut, the answer was, “It wouldn’t but we have to do SOMETHING!” The comparison is this, a man an his wife are driving on the interstate and the ‘check engine’ light comes on and the car dies. The man manages to pull over to the side of the road and they both get out. They both check the engine looking for leaks, overheating, loose wires, etc. but are unable to find anything. Finally the man turns to his wife and says that he is going to change the right rear tire. She asks what good that will do and he responds, nothing but we have to do SOMETHING. People need to actually think the problem through. You will not end mass murder by banning anything, you simply redirect the problem to something else (Boston is one example). You cannot end accidents by banning anything, there are more automobile accidents/deaths than gun accidental deaths every year. If people are reacting out of fear of guns simply because they are guns, then the problem isn’t with the gun. - kimocat - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:48 pm: Dupage - yes the post was about magazines, of which a majority of commenters oppose regulation. I was simply suggesting, that being the case, then would you also go for laws that require more responsible gun ownership, rather than leaving that up to the individual’s discretion. In the past year I have watched “law abiding gun owners” in my vicinity accidentally shoot a man walking through the woods, thinking he was a deer, kill a man in a bar for disrepsecting him, leave guns loaded with kids around and lost another child as a result. None of these people were criminals before these deeds happened. But they were not “responsible gun owners.” And I am tired of wondering when the next one might shoot me. - Harry - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 8:13 pm: The criminal can plan his activities, the innnocent victim or bystander has to make do with what’s at hand when the criminal strikes. A limit on magazine capacity harms the victim or potential Good Samaritan more than the criminal. - Anon - Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 7:36 am: 10 rounds is an arbitrary number and it still takes very little time to switch magazines. If civilian police need them to defend themselves, so should ordinary citizens. Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-joxi63xs - Blog Posts by maria0228 - www.GameInformer.com - Friday, May 24, 13 @ 6:19 am: Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Question of the day - qinger.blog-2007.com - Blog Premier blog : signature pieces for the classic pandora canada - Friday, May 24, 13 @ 6:19 am: – Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.