Welcome!

Welcome to the modern shooter, where i will offer my views on the shooting industry. Hick, dumbass, republican, i've been called all the dirty words, but know i'm a happy gun loving/dem/hippy/ect. and your thoughts of me don't matter, but your thoughts on gun rights do, and i'm more then willing to debate it out.
cheers!

Ramifications of Tucson, AZ Tragedy concerning High capacity magazines.

 The modern day American gun owner has life pretty good. Current federal regulations allow us to own weapons of almost every caliber, sans explosives and fully automatics, Older Readers will remember a time when things weren't so easy, and citizens of Chicago, new york, and other cites that only allow criminals to own firearms ,can testify first hand to the effect over-baring regulations.

Recently, there have been many high profile cases that may start to reverse the tide of gun control to return to a time of regulating cosmetics and magazines once more. The hot topic on all of the major media outlets shortly after the tragedy in Tucson, AZ was how the mentally unstable shooter had carried a high capacity magazine in his glock. Reports highlighted the 33 round magazine as being what enabled Jared Loughner to commit mass murder. Some states have laws against the sale of such magazines, but they are easy to obtain out of state or through mail-order. A quick check on a sporting-goods store shows they carried hundreds of different magazines of assorted capacity and caliber.

33-round glock magazine.

Most hunting laws limit capacity of a rifle to five rounds, more then enough for black-tail hunting, Yet higher capacity magazines are normally cheaper then five rounders, the product of military surplus and market trends. While if the shooter would have been limited to five rounds, he would have had to reload much sooner, the psycho could have picked up a AR-15 with a beta mag god forbid.

Does this mean we should all be limited to single shot rifles? Or at least limit the sale of high capacity magazines? I don't think so, for a few reasons. First and foremost, it is utterly foolish to be forced to modify, or purchase accessories, to hunt with your factory gun. It equates to another fee for the gun owner to go hunt, or to even legally posses his gun. With times as tough as they are, paying $20 more for a 5-round magazine can stop you from getting a additional tag.

Common surplus magazine, doesn't meet  Oregon hunting laws, retails for .99 cents. compliant magazines start at $15 and go up to $40.

As much as anti-gun groups would like you to believe the opposite,No one is firing wildly at deer with AK-47's, most hunters who would choose a modern sporting arm would use it for it's exceptional accuracy and power, and do his best to take a clean kill. “Spray and Pray” doesn't put meat in the fridge, and in my experience, never happens on a hunt. Most shooters have more common sense then that.

The Real justification for high-capacity magazines is a rather innocent one, fun. Take a look at the Ruger 10/22, one of the most popular target/plinking rifles around right now. Most owners I know made it a point to pick up 25 round magazine or two when they purchased those rifles. There purpose was not a nefarious one, unless shooting through a box of ammo twice as fast is a evil to anyone but the poor pop can down range. For roughly the same cost as a standard nine round, the higher capacity magazines double you fun per load. It is not the job of our government to regulate the rapid expenditures of rim-fire ammunition and the subsequent feelings of joy, as it is not there job to regulate our magazine capacity.

Ruger's new 25-round factory magazine.

Government regulations such as these lead to more punishment and fines upon the modern sportsman, all because of the actions of one man, who should have never been able to obtain a handgun in the first place. We are forced to shoulder the burden as responsible gun owners. As legislation and bills make there way through the pipes, we can not have one tragedy shake up the foundation of our gun rights.