High-Capacity Ammo Magazines Should Be Banned, Senator Says

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg will ask Congress to approve a ban on ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. Do you agree with his proposed bill?

In the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced plans to reintroduce high-capacity magazine ban legislation in the 113th Congress.

Lautenberg’s bill, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It also would ban ammunition magazines that could be readily converted to accept more than 10 rounds.

“In light of yet another horrific shooting tragedy, it is clearer than ever that there is no place in our communities for deadly high-capacity gun magazines and I will keep working to pass my bill to reinstate the ban on them,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “If we don't pass a high-capacity magazine ban this year, it will be the first bill I introduce when the new session of Congress begins in January.”

New Jersey’s senior senator cited the Newtown shootings—in which the gunman used a high-capacity rifle in his murderous spree, killing 20 children and seven adults—as reason for the reintroduction. But it goes beyond the Dec. 14 shootings to other mass killings in recent years, he added.

“These high-capacity magazines, which were used in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, and so many other tragedies, were designed for one purpose only—to shoot and kill quickly,” Lautenberg said. “We must take immediate action to ban high-capacity gun magazines and assault weapons so that we can prevent the next massacre.”

Lautenberg introduced the same legislation in the current Congress. It stalled after getting referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar House of Representatives bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), fizzled after getting referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also pledged immediate action in the 113th Congress, but her bill would go further in seeking to ban all assault weapons, plus high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Almost immediately after the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown, public and online debate over gun control laws raged. Some posit the shooting rampage wouldn’t have been as deadly if the Sandy Hook Elementary School staff had firearms. Others decry laws that allow access to such high-powered weapons.

President Barack Obama weighed in when he visited Newtown on Sunday, saying, “No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this.”

Tell us: Do you support a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines? Would a ban go too far or not far enough?

M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:00 PM
You are trying to bring up things that are not controlled by laws. Drinking and eating are legal. You need licensing in order to posses a firearm and a prescription from a doctor for medical marijuana. You are correct that excessive drinking and eating are huge problems, but they are not in the same category. There are no laws with regards to eating and drinking and the amounts you can consume.
Michael Giovanni T December 27, 2012 at 07:02 PM
But something I dont get is why people are blaming the tool used and not the crazy person. I mean from what the news said he had no training and never shot a gun. I dont know what true or not cause every hour the news changes its story. But I have friends in the military they said it was hard the first time to actually shoot a human being but in there situation its kill or be killed. How he was able to gun down people let alone children is beyond me. I have guns in a safe and guns through out my house hidden and one on me at all times. I know I can leave my guns out and my children would never touch them unless someone broke in and tried to hurt them.I have ar styled rifles cause its a sport rifle to me.its easier to hold and shoot . I have read some comments who think our government would never harm us. Has anyone read some of the "conspiracies" that were proven true? Something bad happens and people want "safety" so they give up their rights. Thats not a fair trade .why do you think immigrants come here I have friends that love our freedoms and tell me stories about their home country.in america we take our freedom for granted
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Mike, well said! People who are against legal firearm possession don't see it that way unfortunately
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 07:20 PM
I have yet to see anyone say that they are 100% against the "legal possession of firearms", and I'm tired of the debate being framed as pro-gun people versus "anti-gun" people. That's an oversimplification that is completely false. Are most people in favor of legalized guns for responsible citizens? Of course. The question is in the gray areas. For those of you who are so amped up about the thought of certain automatic or semi-automatic weapons being banned... Do you think you should be permitted to own a bazooka? How about an anti-aircraft missle? Limiting the capacity of the magazine attached to an AR-15 drives you bonkers, but I don't see you protesting for the right to own a tank. Or grenade launchers. I don't get it. I really don't. In terms of "blaming the tool", what a stupid line of reasoning. I tired of that crap too. Yes, a crazy person was carrying and using the high-capacity magazine that allowed him to mow down 20 innocent children and their teachers. The issue is this: Had he needed to reload 10, 15, 20 times - would there have been fewer casualties? The answer is most likely yes. Talk to the moms and dads of the last kids shot and ask them if that matters.
TCG December 27, 2012 at 07:23 PM
You need a license to operate a car. To get that license you must pass written and driving exams in addition to paying a series of fees as well as background check (I believe). Further the car itself must be registered and inspected periodically. And, of course, it is illegal to operate the car under the influence of alcohol which is under far more strict "conceal and carry" laws than are guns. To compare automobiles to guns is to reveal an almost childlike misuderstanding of the debate. We have many rights...among them the right to free speech. Yet even that right is restricted. Why then, is it only the second amendement permitted to be parsed (it was written in order to allow for the forming of a militia to protect against the British army) and to be pure without any restriction on the type of arms permitted? Why is it the only right to which no reasonable restrictions may be applied? It's a one word answer: money. Only 4 million Americans belong to the NRA and every poll shows a majority of them favor reasonable gun laws. But the boys who run it are in bed with the politicians and that means game over. So keep debating. When the dust settles and the families in Newtown have taken down the decorations in the bedrooms of their dead children...absolutely nothing will have changed. The carnage will go on and on. It's violence and death and vengence. And that is what Americans live for.
freedom December 27, 2012 at 07:26 PM
Michael i think the problem is these 'tools" are too easily obtained by crazy people. also some people arent always "crazy" they can be completely normal who can legally obtain guns and then just snap one day.
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:39 PM
100 % against the legal possession of firearms? What are you talking about? That makes zero sense. If I believe in legal possession why would I be against it? Of course you shouldn't be able to purchase a bazooka or anti-aircraft missle. Both of your comparisons are ludicrous. You can't own either one just like you can't purchase a fully automatic firearm. The design of those specific weapon systems are designed to inflict mass casualty in a military sceanario. Every small arm in existence does not have that capacity. A tank? Come on! Another ridiculous comparison. These are not gray areas and they should not be compared. If you compared a fully automatic firearm against a semi automatic different story. Lets play it your way though. After the ban then what? When it happens again, then what? Will we still blame the capacity or firearm type? Again the Virginia tech shooting, 32 dead, 17 injured with handguns. Instead of blaming the criminal, or mentally insane, which you agreed with, blame what he used. And in the future when a knife is used to kill many, will you want a ban on the amount of knives people own? So easy to sit back and dictate what I can own as a responsible person isn't it!
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:45 PM
And a reloading issue? That must be a joke! This is America, we don't punish the many because of the few!
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:48 PM
Sorry TCG that is not what Americans live for. Talk for yourself and don't generalize the people of this country.
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:48 PM
And your freedom of speech on this post doesn't seem to be at a loss
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 07:50 PM
I was referring to your 2:12pm post. You referred to people who were "against legal firearm possession" and I agree, it makes no sense. No one is advocating a total ban here. I just want to make this clear: You would argue that an AR-15 outfitted with a 60 or 100 round capacity magazine isn't designed to inflict mass casualties? What is it designed to do, exactly? Assure you that there is not one edible morsel left on the deer you just lit up to high hell? My point is this: There are a lot of weapons out there. We can all agree that some should not be available to the public. We can all agree that some should be. But there is ample reason to debate whether some of the semi-automatic weapons we've seen used repeatedly in these types of attacks should be banned - or at least whether high capacity magazines are a starting point. This isn't about stopping all attacks or making a perfect world. We can't. But we can try to reduce the fatalities. To your knife comparison - perfect. There was a knife attack in China the day of the Newtown attack. 20 wounded. 0 fatalities. That's the point. Reduce the carnage.
tony g2010 December 27, 2012 at 07:50 PM
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 07:54 PM
And just to let everyone in a a bit of information, the mentally ill have been involved in almost every mass shooting in this country. Some have been under the care of a mental health professional. Amazing how no one brings the true problem, our mental health system. Lets just blame the guns because its the easiest thing to do and will suit our needs the quickest. Nice job!
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 08:01 PM
Tony, it's pointless to post possible ideas. These people only see it one way and its unfortunate. These people who post have no ideas, they just want to band aid the issues and direct them at the wrong people. Again it's unfortunate!
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 08:20 PM
The problem is you are trying to ask someone like myself who spent many years in the military and currently carry a firearm, what my intentions would be with something of that capacity? Problem is, I'm sane and look at the capacity as a means of not needing to reload that much. It's not about how many people I can kill or injure because I have 60-100 round magazine. Because I'm trained, it has to do with minimal magazine changes. Now, to the insane, different story. They want carnage! That's what I'm saying. We have already been through the Brady bill, we have to think of something better. We've been through the bans already, haven't worked. What we haven't done is revamp firearm licensing and cross checking mental health records which of course would be a violation of HIPPA. So lets keep going after the firearms which has already been proven not to work. The knife attack in china? If 20 were dead, then what? We can't use the odds of surviving a knife attack in our favor. In my line of work, a knife and gun are equally deadly. There is no separation.
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 08:24 PM
M., I don't blame you for not catching my earlier posts on this, but you're wrong. I totally agree that this issue is going to require addressing more issues than just gun control, and mental health services are at the top of the list. But the discussion at hand stems from an article about banning high-capacity magazines, which is why it keeps coming up. I've said this before and I repeat, I personally think you should have to undergo mental health screening prior to getting certain guns. Like the police and military, make sure people can pass, and test regularly. School security is of utmost importance, but I don't know that the answer is arming teachers and/or administrators. I have a lot of friends who are teachers, and they don't want to carry guns. And if weapons are sufficiently locked up so kids can't get to them, I'd be hard-pressed to believe a teacher could get one out in time to use it. Security guards? Maybe. More plausible to me than teachers with guns. My point is, everyone is talking about ways to deal with this problem, and it's not JUST about the guns. But they are a huge, HUGE component of the problem.
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Oh and M., I hope you're at the forefront of the movement to try to get these mental health screenings and services paid for. Because a HUGE reason for the mental health crisis in this country is that no one wants to ante up when it's time to shell out some money. Realize that if we don't invest in mental health care, this will happen again and again.
dumb n dumber December 27, 2012 at 08:38 PM
"The knife attack in china? If 20 were dead, then what? We can't use the odds of surviving a knife attack in our favor. In my line of work, a knife and gun are equally deadly. There is no separation." now thats just an assanie comment. IF 20 were dead, then what? the whole point is they arent dead, if the psycho in china had an AR-15 the outcome would have been a lot worse. a knife and gun are not equally deadly, thats like saying a rock and a grenade are equally deadly. yes you can kill some one with a knife or gun but it is a lot easier to kill someone with a gun. a gun you can kill from a distance unlike a knife, you lose a lot of credibility when you make dumb comments like that.
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Valid points and I agree. What am I wrong about exactly?
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 08:56 PM
Dumb n dumber, nothing I post is ridiculous. I carry a gun for a living. What do you do? If an AR was used and 20 people didn't get killed what would you say then? We can banter what ifs all day long. There no absolute in life that everyone who gets shot will die. Stop watching movies! You obviously do not understand about lethality when comparing a gun with a knife and I wouldn't expect you to if you aren't in the line of work. With that said, if you don't understand what someone says, ask what they mean. What I said, isn't as you put it "assanie." There is nothing wrong with my credibility. You just don't understand what I'm talking about.
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 09:00 PM
M., the reason that previous bans haven't worked is that weapons manufacturers have gone out of their way to work around them. Frankly, I'm afraid you're right - any half-ass ban with loopholes and exceptions will produce very few results. Which is why I think we need to take much stronger action. I think the regulation of guns needs to be completely ramped up, and it will never happen. Never. The NRA was once a gun enthusiast and safety organization. Today, it is essentially a super PAC meets lobbying group for the NRA. They now have so many people paranoid that the government is coming for them, it will never happen. Our children will continue to be slaughtered by maniacs who can buy horrifically dangrous instruments of war at the drop of a hat. It's beyond depressing. Incidentally, you might find this interesting. I am certain you're not a Huff Post guy, but it's an incredibly in-depth look at this issue and frankly, supports your point that gun bans of the past have been of relatively little impact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/proven-way-end-slaughter_b_2341815.html
dumbing down December 27, 2012 at 09:05 PM
i understand what you say but you are completely wrong. an AR-15 is much more leathal than a gun and sorry for being blunt but anyone who would say they are equally lethal is an idiot. saying knife= AR15 is like saying 5=7
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 09:08 PM
You're wrong that it's pointless to post ideas, or that people "on the other side" are only obsessed with the gun issue, nothing else. That's all I was referring to here.
dumbing down December 27, 2012 at 09:10 PM
ps- i served in the military so dont try explaining knifes and guns to me. youre probably just a rent a cop or mall security. a psycho can spray bullets from a distance at the speed it takes to hit a trigger with an ar15. a psycho with a knife has to be with in arms reach to harm someone.
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 09:11 PM
You have no idea what I'm talking about which is totally understandable. Lack of knowledge on your part doesn't make me an idiot. And personally, most people who post don't understand. Just for the record using sign on names like dumb n dumber, or dumbing down, doesn't show me much when you try and post intelligent comments. Really doesn't do you justice.
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 09:13 PM
Again if you don't understand something, ask a question! Name calling is juvenile and typical from certain people!
Jersey December 27, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Yeah, M., I have to say - you cannot equate a knife and an AR-15 in terms of how many people you can take out within a given time period, especially to a relatively untrained kid or crazy person. I'm sure a well-trained Marine could kill 5 people in less than a minute with a knife. I don't think you could say that of most of the perpetraters of these mass shootings. More importantly, give that same Marine an AR-15 with a 100 capacity magazine and he could probably take out 50 in a minute. OK I'm pulling thosenumbers out of my a$$ but you get the point. Out of curiosity, if it were proven that these attacks would be less lethal.... Meaning, on average, fewer people would die, if the shooters had no access to those high-capacity clips, would you favor a ban then? I have to tell you, a lot of hunters and gun enthusiasts out there are saying they don't need 100 (or even 30) rounds to get the job done, whether they're hunting, shooting targets OR defending their homes.
M. Justicel December 27, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Did you ever hear me mention anything about distance? Exactly my point you don't understand what I'm talking about. Of course at great distances an AR is more lethal. Is that what happened in CT, no. By the way, I'm no mall or security cop and I've been in my job for over 20 years.
TCG December 27, 2012 at 09:22 PM
M Justice, I too am sane. Why can't I own a car that goes 200 mph? Or buy beer that is 15% alcohol content? Or use my freedom of speech to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater? Why is it only gun owners who should have ultimate purity in a law that stems from an amendment which is utterly mischaracterized as to eliminate the first half of the language contained therein? And if the government can ration the days on which I purchase gasoline, why can't that same government ration your the number of rounds in your magazines? Because Americans are in love with violence. The same gratuitously violent video games and tv shows and movies are seen all over the world. Yet with only a few exceptions, America is the only country where the slaughter of children is ok because there simply cannot be a limit on how many rounds are permitted in a magazine.
Adam December 27, 2012 at 09:29 PM
It seems like a lot of folks buy assault type weapons in order to guard against an oppressive government. Just understand that in Iraq during the 1980's, 1990's and currently, just about everybody had a weapon, including AK47's, and there were 26 Gun Shops open and doing a brisk business in Baghdad. All of these weapons did not prevent an oppressive government under Sadam Houssain, or prevent a dictatorship. No, it takes more than such weapons guard against a possible oppressive government. Assault type weapons and high capacity magazine clips should be banned in the USA-they really serve no purpose.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something