Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2008/February

Hi cap mag info

Asams, once again you and I seem to have a difference of opinion. It's the same old story, I'm all for providing as much info as possible, and you seem to want to hide info.

As I stated in my revision summary the information that you got rid of is useful information that should be included in the artcile. The referenses to the 1994 assault weapons ban is very pertinent as well. Although the Federal ban is now gone, a few states have their own bans and define hi cap mags by statute. The article as i stands now after your last revert leaves one who is not knowledgable about firearms wondering what exactly is meant when they hear the term "hi capacity magazine".

The old large capacity article stated the following:

A Large capacity magazine is any magazine that holds more ammunition then other standard magazines of its type. What defines a large capacity magazines varies from each type of weapon. Anything from 11 to 100 could be considered "large" depending on what type of weapon.

Large capacity magazines were defined under US law as any ammunition feeding device for use in a firearm that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Their sale in the USA was restricted to government and law enforcement officials by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which came into force on 13 September 1994. This law expired on 13 September 2004.

These devices are sometimes referred to as "Normal Capacity" or "Standard Capacity" magazines because many firearms were originally designed to operate using a magazine with the capability for more than ten rounds.

It should be noted that is also because the term 'large capacity magazine is considered pejorative by many gun rights supporters, for the item described had been simply a normal capacity magazine for many decades since the first use of the double column magazine design in 1935 in the Browning Hi-Power semi-automatic pistol, at least until re-defined by legislators favoring gun control over gun rights in the gun politics debate.

There's a ton of useful information in there that you arbitrarily discarded. I have no problem with the merge, my beef is with getting rid of all this useful information. Sf46 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point completely. This information is political rhetoric. The reality is that this is all in the article on the assault weapon ban and does not need to be in a FACTUAL article. The term "High Capacity Magazine" is pejorative and arbitrary and has no basis beyond the political. No information was discarded, this isn't the place for what is, essentially, a political diatribe. Direct people who care to the political article and don't muddy up the facts. --Asams10 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The portion as it WAS written in this article was far from political rhetoric. While personally hated the Ban, I think it is very notable that the term didn't exist (that i know of) before the ban was put into effect.

The old version:

The term high capacity magazine is a term used to describe magazines with a certain arbitrary capacity. This term is generally used as a pejorative and has no definition beyond the media and various legislation enacted within several jurisdictions in the United States. This term originally referred to "extended" pistol and rifle magazines which hold more than the "standard-capacity" factory-designed magazines, and/or "double-stack" magazines which have higher capacity than a "single-stack" design. However, in various jurisdictions where ammunition capacity is restricted to a set limit, many double-column or detatchable rifle magazines as originally designed by the factory have more than this limit and are banned as "high-capacity" in those jurisdictions. The term currently has a pejorative connotation because of its common use by the media in connection with violent crime. It has no universal definition; the term is largely defined according to state and local legislation enacted within the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban in effect from 1994-2004 defined "high capacity" as holding more than 10 rounds if removable, 5 rounds if fixed. Some state and local jurisdictions and the media still enforce this 10-round limit. Other jurisdictions ban more than 15, 18, or 20 rounds allowing more "standard-capacity" magazines, while some states have no restriction on capacity allowing use of "extended" and "drum" magazines which can hold many more rounds. These magazines are generally regarded as novelty items as they hinder concealed carry but often find use in competitions and home defense situations.

That's providing info not ramming political views or discarding info. So if I understand your position, you would not be opposed to a link to the Assault Weapons Ban for someone to hopefully get the information they want from there since you refuse to allow them to get it here? Sf46 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, read it again and came to the same conclusion. Absolutely no bearing on magazines at all. It's a political sematics discussion if you'd step back and be honest about the situation. Leave it where it belongs, in the highly confusing world of gun politics and keep it out of the factual article. --Asams10 (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The information wasn't covered in the assault weapons ban page. I added it there to some extent, and will be adding a link in the Hi cap section to that page. As I said asam, we've had this discussion before about discarding info and everytime that i can recall you were overruled by consensus and/or administrators. Why are SO afraid of people having information? I choose not to engage in an edit war with you and to have the information made available to people by this round about means. Sf46 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the personal attacks. I'm not even going to defend myself against those, just what's the deal? It's not discarding information, it is a matter of being selective about what goes into an article. This is an article about magazines, not political rhetoric. I'm not attempting to censor anything, rather I'm being intellectually honest about WHERE the information needs to be. There is no such thing as a 'high capacity magazine' or 'large capacity magazine' beyond political rhetoric. --Asams10 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks here, just stating what I see. I think I can live with what we have here. Also, a state or federal law defining something DOES make it "such a thing". A law is a little bit more than political rhetoric. Sf46 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cuz we all know the Federal and State governments are infallible (sarcasm of course). The Federal law has been repealed and the state laws vary tremendously. --Asams10 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What rifle was the First to use a Magazine successfully?

I believe that this is an important question that has yet to be determined on this page. I think that his page would benefit from a history section on magazines. However, I don't feel I am qualified to write it. Did James Paris Lee create a magazine loaded rifle before Mauser? Consider this plaque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.98.184 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a discussion topic, it's a forum for this Sock-Puppet to put his picture. --Asams10 (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)