Diana Degette explanation on why a ban for high capacity mags

[Monky]

It was a Glock .40

Only professionals carry a Glock .40.

[dwalker460]

Only professionals carry a Glock .40.

Thats right, its a High Power Police Pistol right? Need to get all this new terminology down before I embarass myself

[Rucker61]

This has me wondering. They say he first used a 870 shotgun. If he fired 7 rounds through it and was using 00 buck then that right there is 63 9mm pellets. I wonder how many people shoot were hit by these rounds? He also transitioned to the S&W .40 after the AR jammed. How many of these rounds caused hits? It could very well be that these two guns were more destructive then the AR and it's 100 round mag. Just wondering. It will be intrusting to see the police report and see what really was the cause of the most damage.

I saw in the Denver post that one victim, who lived, was hit by all three weapons.

[T-Jet]

What 'head to toe protection' did he have on? From what I've heard it was a load bearing rig.

[HoneyBadger]

“Yes, the second amendment grants Americans the right to own a gun. But the second amendment does NOT grant people the right to walk into a theater with a high-capacity ammunition clip and kill or maim scores of their fellow Americans."

Don't we already have laws prohibiting this type of behavior?

[kanekutter05]

What 'head to toe protection' did he have on? From what I've heard it was a load bearing rig.

Exactly...misinformation abound. Just like her assumption that "the notion that someone is going to pull out a gun and be able to shoot this man is completely ridiculous" is itself completely ridiculous.

[Rucker61]

I just sent this:

"Ms DeGette,
I'm not an owner of an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic military style weapon, but I used to be. I'm a military veteran and an active shooter, and tend to vote Democratic about 99% of the time. I, like other gun owners, are as equally horrified by the tragedy in Aurora as you are, but I'd like to address your recent statement with regards to high-capacity magazines. I didn't own one when I was an AR-15 owner, mainly due to cost: the magazine itself is expensive and it would encourage me to shoot more ammo at my paper targets, and ammo is expensive. However, I don't feel that banning a magazine based on size is going to get you to the goal you evidently seek, of making the public safer.
The military uses standard 30 round magazines in their selective fire weapons, and if the 100 round magazines were more "dangerous", don't you think they would use them? Sure, the government might not pay for them, but our individual soldiers has a strong sense of self-preservation and have shown that they don't mind spending their own money in that goal.
Secondly, many of the victims were killed or wounded by the shooter's other two weapons, neither of which held more than 17 rounds. Without knowing the full details of which weapons inflicted what damage, I think you're being a bit dishonest in pointing out the high-capacity magazine as the chief enabler. When more details are forthcoming, try to validate with an expert the difference in suffering we would have seen between the actual weapons and magazines used compared to the buckshot-laden shotgun, an AR with say 3 30 round magazines and the .40 cal Glock pistol. I'll bet that you'll find very little difference, and in fact a true expert will likely find that less suffering was inflicted by the shooter using the 100rd magazine than could have been, as it jammed during the shooting, as they are known for doing.
Lastly, your expert will likely tell you that most murders and assaults in this country are caused by criminals using illegal handguns, most of which hold between 6 and 17 cartridges. Why don't you focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals if maximizing public safety is your goal? Eliminating high capacity magazines has been shown in the past to have no discernible effect on crime, and since any law that might pass will in all probability have a grandfather clause, what really will you have accomplished?"

[flan7211]

Are we really going to allow them to install another AWB or mag ban? What could we do to stop them?

[jake]

It was a Glock .40


You have to be careful with the magazine limit thing, as what it really is is a distraction to avert attention from thier true agenda, and is one of those things that a "reasonable" person sits back and says, "yeah I cant see how that would hurt anything to ban those" and just goes along with it, not realizing they open the door to further and further sanctions.

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

[Whistler]

Hypocrisy. She would have you believe the BG is capable of wreaking havoc unmolested despite limited mobility and visibility but an armed law-abiding citizen is incapable of any effective counter-action. As a representative from Colorado you would think she would be aware the site of this tragedy was posted as a "gun-free" zone and that if "someone" "possibly had a gun" they would be in violation of ineffective laws already on the books.

Many others are also saying – just like they always do – that if someone in the theater had a gun, they could have shot the gunman. To the people who say that, I would say that, first of all, Colorado has a concealed carry statute – so it’s possible someone did have a gun in that theater.