Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

defacto7

(14,129 posts)

1. Honestly, I don't know.

Reply to ellisonz (Original post)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 03:16 PM

Mar 2013

I will look forward to some argument on this proposition. I would think that a fixed magazine would slow things down more than just limiting rounds... but then again not having such weapons would slow things down even more.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fixed Magazines - Compromise? [View all] ellisonz Mar 2013 OP

Honestly, I don't know. defacto7 Mar 2013 #1

Oh I agree... ellisonz Mar 2013 #2

I don't know either BainsBane Mar 2013 #3

California has had this requirement for new weapons for two decades. ellisonz Mar 2013 #7

I think much lower magazine capacity limits, fixed or otherwise are what is needed. Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #4

Well if you can't change magazines rapidly... ellisonz Mar 2013 #5

It would help prevent mass shootings. More importantly impede gun sales. Hoyt Mar 2013 #6

I'm not sure what the is now, safeinOhio Mar 2013 #8

Problem is...... they've already figured a way around the "fixed mag".... rdharma Mar 2013 #9

The question is based on a false premise slackmaster Mar 2013 #10