Active shooter thread

[Brisketexan 106910]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

We don't know what either of them had in terms of handling firearms previously, but to my eye, it appears they were both pretty proficient.  And deadly.   But lets by all means continue to focus on one fucking rifle/round.  Seems par for the course for everything else we do. 

Well, see....that's the fucking point.  They WEREN'T particularly proficient.  Any jackhole who spends 20 minutes watching Youtube videos can figure out how to use a 9mm auto handgun with a big mag, or an AR-15 with a high cap mag, to inflict lots of damage.  They require next to NO training or proficiency.  They are literally "point and shoot" easy items.

So, maybe let's make them harder to get?  Particularly for people hearing voices and shit?

[cactusflinthead 27627]

But wait there's more! He's Syrian!

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about we just implement red flag laws so a guy known to his entire family to be delusionally psychotic can't go in and buy a weapon meant to inflict mass casualties.

Awesome.  Now what's in them?  You and I just had a conversation about what is the most proficient mass killing tool on the internet.  If I didn't know you, that might eek me out a bit.   Red flag?

We need to close gun show/f2f ease of accessibility, 100%.  If you can't pay the extra 20$ to a FFL, then you literally can't afford one box of ammo.  

We need to tighten up the rules we ALREADY have on the books; needs to be foolproof.  No more "charleston loophole" issues.

Ban mag over 15 rounds, wgaf.  

What else.

[UpperWestside 6282]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Since Slorch already thinks he doesn't live in a society, I move that we deport him to an uninhabited island.

I am not going to use him as an example, but this is the crux of so many issues we have in this country. We live in a society and so many people seem to not be fully able to grasp what all that entails. 

[Helobious 9821]

19 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Remind me what firearm Charles Whitman used?

And yes, people who are proficient with arms can do alot of shit with whatever they have.

 

Someone always posts something like this, and it’s always amazingly stupid. It’d be like me posting a vid of Aroldis Chapman hitting someone in the face with a 102 MPH fastball and saying “see? Look how deadly people are with baseballs”. You’re talking about uniquely talented, highly trained individuals. That doesn’t describe at all the majority of the antisocial losers that overwhelmingly commit these acts. Most of them aren’t particularly skilled with weapons (the LV shooter almost smoked himself out of his room during his shooting), so they select weapons that make it particularly easy to kill lots of people at once. Whitman was a military trained sharpshooter, he could do serious damage with whatever gun you handed him. That’s not the case for most of these guys.

[cactusflinthead 27627]

Catch up. He's moooslim, that's all the motive he needs

[henrygandorf 29227]

25 minutes ago, slorch said:

Who says we aren't doing anything?

Raise better fucking kids.  but hey, the guilt complex in America says that's impossible, so let's look to the guvamint for solutions, right?

so if my well behaved kids get shot by someone else's troublemaking kids then we shrug it off and punish the parents?

seatbelts are in place to protect the driver in the case that he/she is driving dangerously, or someone else is driving dangerously, or there's just a horrible accidental situation that is nobody's fault.

it's literally impossible to force parents to raise better kids or to make sure kids behave or don't end up with some sort of mental disorder or at the very least get angry some day.  it's not literally impossible to get rid of guns.

but sure, let's attack every other angle of this and go 12 rounds over which guns are and are not more lethal than other guns.  they're fucking guns.  they're all lethal on purpose.

on a broader note, why do people think that we finished evolving as a country and a society in the late 1960's?  are we just done?  starting then, everything now just gets blamed on "well, that's the way it's always been."  no more meaningful amendments, no more progress, we're finished.

[Brisketexan 106910]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Awesome.  Now what's in them?  You and I just had a conversation about what is the most proficient mass killing tool on the internet.  If I didn't know you, that might eek me out a bit.   Red flag?

We need to close gun show/f2f ease of accessibility, 100%.  If you can't pay the extra 20$ to a FFL, then you literally can't afford one box of ammo.  

We need to tighten up the rules we ALREADY have on the books; needs to be foolproof.  No more "charleston loophole" issues.

Ban mag over 15 rounds, wgaf.  

What else.

There have been numerous draft red flag laws.  All require real judicial due process.  Many of them make good sense.  I think that if they are particularly focused on making it hard for nutbars to go out and acquire a weapon (see both recent shootings -- both went out and bought the weapon right before the shooting), that would be big.  If the bar is higher for people who already own guns, I'd be fine with that as well, as that's a more intrusive step -- actually taking my firearms away from me as opposed to putting a block on my ability to purchase one.

National comparison registries.  All kinds of other stuff we can do along those lines.  

None of it.  Not one thing.  ZERO will happen.  Because that's the language of the "Second Amendment people" in this country.  Any laws that might impair in any way anyone's ability to instantly acquire whatever firearm they want must be opposed, 100%.

The problem isn't me, it isn't you.  It's that the folks who control the "pro gun" side of the debate will not accept any restrictions.  Any.  ZERO.  NONE.  That is the only acceptable path.  It's madness, and it's going to end up costing guys like you and me our right to own any firearms someday.

[Willfully Horn 8266]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

Because the fuckfaces that jerk off on this site thinking only right wing white folks do stupid shit have to check their judgements a little bit.  

Until right wing folks stop supporting a guy who wants to overturn elections, they have little room to call foul.

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about we just implement red flag laws so a guy known to his entire family to be delusionally psychotic can't go in and buy a weapon meant to inflict mass casualties.

But muh freedoms!!!!

[Trey3216 15452]

34 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah.
 

Now do yesterday... 

[lemonlime 5503]

44 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I read his post as suggesting that we don't have firearms regulation that keeps us safe from gun violence. That doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of firearms regulation at all.

Her.  And bingo.  There are some regulations.  But they obviously aren't keeping this shit from happening on a regular basis.  And there's a huge segment of the country and a huge amount of money invested in stopping any regulations that might actually help fix things.  Not 100% fix. But actually target the problem.

[henrygandorf 29227]

25 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

obligatory...

 

part 2 is also great.

 

[Trey3216 15452]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Until right wing folks stop supporting a guy who wants to overturn elections, they have little room to call foul.

Hey, I didn't support the guy, but I do happen to be white and own guns.  Guess I'm in the potential mass murderer column just because.  

[GW Hayduke 1957]

14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The Constitution allows for people to keep and bear arms and that’s fine.  It says nothing about regulating their sale and trade. There needs to be a national registry and a complete ban on nonregulated sales of firearms and ammunition. There needs to be a waiting period, real background checks, and red flag laws.  Hell, there needs to be evidence that you passed a standardized, subsidized psychological evaluation and gun safety course. And there need to be stiff civil and and criminal penalties for trading in weapons outside the system. Strict civil and criminal liabilities if your gun is used in a crime and it was not sold legally or reported stolen. Strict criminal and civil penalties for possessing an unregistered weapon or one without a serial number.

Lets start with that and then you can have all the registered AR-15s you want. 

This is good. I would add the training, background check, and psychological evaluation should be rolled into a licensing system.  I would add that the licenses should only be provided to those with a demonstrated need.  If someone has no need for a semi-automatic weapon, they don't get one.  

Buy back programs, registrations, and licensing.  Decrease the amount of firearms in the population.  Track the firearms we allow in the population. Ensure only those with a need and basic level of competency have access.  

[Helobious 9821]

5 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Hey, I didn't support the guy, but I do happen to be white and own guns.  Guess I'm in the potential mass murderer column just because.  

Considering how many minorities get put in the potential criminal column “just because”, I’d say that’s a fair enough trade.

[henrygandorf 29227]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's madness, and it's going to end up costing guys like you and me our right to own any firearms someday.

[hobbes2702 13485]

27 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Brisket.  You dont have to be a world class pigeon shooter.  The point is I can buy a dove gun and fire 7 fucking rounds of buckshot in high succession at 200# targets.  You can, anyone can.  The point is that isnt a boogey man gun.  It's something you and your kids own (SA shotgun).    I know you've loaded up an 1100 and fired it off as fast as you can.  

Nevermind, fuck it.  Ban all the AR's.  Expend all the political capital you can, and wait 6 months.  Let me know what happens. 

Doing nothing seems to work. 

[Trey3216 15452]

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

Considering how many minorities get put in the potential criminal column “just because”, I’d say that’s a fair enough trade.

Glad to see how far we've made it.   

[Neonmoon 38130]

I've been out of pocket today, what part of the mass murder gun argument/control are we on?

1. Thoughts and Prayers

2. Second Amendment says it's forever

3. Protect my family

4. Personal Responsibility (I'm a good gun owner)

5. Slippery Slope (what will they take next, YOUR FREEDOM?)

6. I like guns (this can be divided between 'I like to hunt with my kids" and "fuck yeah, merica pew pew")

7. We need Mental Health reform not gun reform

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Neonmoon
forgot mental health

[DigglerontheHoof 21552]

14 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Hey, I didn't support the guy, but I do happen to be white and own guns.  Guess I'm in the potential mass murderer column just because.  

Yep and so am I.   

Deal with it. 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

This is good. I would add the training, background check, and psychological evaluation should be rolled into a licensing system.  I would add that the licenses should only be provided to those with a demonstrated need.  If someone has no need for a semi-automatic weapon, they don't get one.  
Buy back programs, registrations, and licensing.  Decrease the amount of firearms in the population.  Track the firearms we allow in the population. Ensure only those with a need and basic level of competency have access.  

Citizen must demonstrate need for a license granted by the federal govt for the right to keep arms?

Think even the craziest 2A opposition would have a hard time squaring that circle.

[lemonlime 5503]

16 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Hey, I didn't support the guy, but I do happen to be white and own guns.  Guess I'm in the potential mass murderer column just because.  

Certainly a good example of what snowflakes white men are.

[Constant 6887]

Obligatory: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

[fattyflattie 4640]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem isn't me, it isn't you.  It's that the folks who control the "pro gun" side of the debate will not accept any restrictions.  Any.  ZERO.  NONE.  That is the only acceptable path.  It's madness, and it's going to end up costing guys like you and me our right to own any firearms someday.

But you forgot to mention the other side of the spectrum, the 0 gun folks, of which there are several on this board.  I'm not sure of their numbers, and they are certainly outnumbered by the gun nuts, but they share blame in this.  SJL and Feinstein bills that are so over the top, pure red meat and pure political statements share blame in this.  NRA holds a hefty blame in this.  Non-common sense ideas like having your ex-spouse sign off further the divide.  I'm not worried about losing my guns.  I bought a couple of AR's this Jan in case they get banned and grandfathered.  They'll either get grandfathered or appreciate significantly and contribute to my Perazzi fund, either way I don't really care. But the rest of them, not worried in the least.  Like you I can afford whatever tax, license fee, insurance, ammo premium whatever they want to come up with.  My career criminal record consists of a speeding ticket 19 years ago, and an MIP.  All but one of my non-inherited arms are "in the system" so to speak, so I'm not really worried there either.  I'm not afraid of red flag laws for myself, I'm concerned our govt. can't get it right.  My literal only concern with red flag laws is if they ever came and took my shit for the review period, that one of those shitheeled cops would ding several of my custom stocks in the process.

 

25 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Someone always posts something like this, and it’s always amazingly stupid.

The only thing I find amazingly stupid is the people that can't decipher the point.  Which is you are focused on the wrong boogeyman.  

[horn4life 3838]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yes, you are correct that if you take out most of the mass shootings perpetrated by non-white people, then you get a very different narrative and picture. 
 

 

Non-Random doesn't mean black or brown.  But many of the shooting that are gang related do happen in clubs.  I took out the non-random.  But eloquent defense, haha.

[fattyflattie 4640]

13 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep and so am I.   

Deal with it. 

I'm trying to muster up a single fuck, but am unable to.  

[Llano Estacado 1257]

How about we just implement red flag laws so a guy known to his entire family to be delusionally psychotic can't go in and buy a weapon meant to inflict mass casualties.

What’s your Law Dog take on red flag laws?

To me;
Prior restraint : 1st A :: Red Flag : 2nd A

Not saying family and friends shouldn’t have a means to update or flag people to LEO or in the NICS check for mental health, drug dependency, etc. but even the most optimistic among us can admit it does open a due process nightmare.

Citizen Doe reports Citizen Smith should have their rights infringed. Gets even more convoluted in domestic violence and restraining order situations.

[Neonmoon 38130]

 

Crazies have come out to play

[GW Hayduke 1957]

3 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

Citizen must demonstrate need for a license granted by the federal govt for the right to keep arms?

Think even the craziest 2A opposition would have a hard time squaring that circle.

 

Yes.  Licensing isn't a drastic concept. 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing

I'm adding the need component to it.  If someone isn't able to demonstrate a need to have a semi-automatic firearm, they might be able to demonstrate a need for a small caliber firearm with a low rate of fire and low ammunition capacity.

[Bozo_Casanova 26852]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

7. We need Mental Health reform not gun reform

 

We need both, but the first one would make a hell of a lot more difference than the second one. And progressives who pretend that we have have a healthcare crisis but not a mental health crisis when the issue of guns comes up are a little like environmentalists who pretend that we have an environmental crisis but not a sprawl problem when the issue of apartments in their neighborhood comes up. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

30 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Catch up. He's moooslim, that's all the motive he needs

Pshaw, it's obvious he is a food addict. Never shop hangry.

[fattyflattie 4640]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yes.  Licensing isn't a drastic concept. 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing

I'm adding the need component to it.  If someone isn't able to demonstrate a need to have a semi-automatic firearm, they might be able to demonstrate a need for a small caliber firearm with a low rate of fire and low ammunition capacity.

Cool.  Can the NRA determine the "need" guidelines?  Or you have a politician lined up for that?

[henrygandorf 29227]

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 minute ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

What’s your Law Dog take on red flag laws?

To me;
Prior restraint : 1st A :: Red Flag : 2nd A

Not saying family and friends shouldn’t have a means to update or flag people to LEO or in the NICS check for mental health, drug dependency, etc. but even the most optimistic among us can admit it does open a due process nightmare.

Citizen Doe reports Citizen Smith should have their rights infringed. Gets even more convoluted in domestic violence and restraining order situations.

 

Every state has Emergency Holds for Mental Health Stabilization. We've had them for years. 

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201500205#

Show you every state, who can initiate, who needs to review, and how long they can be held. 

Quote

All states and Washington, D.C., allow a person to be placed and held in a health care facility for treatment, observation, or stabilization without consent. Current laws vary on how and for what reason a person can be held, whether or not judicial review of the emergency hold is required, how long a hold can last, and the rights to which a person is entitled during and after the emergency hold. The most prevalent reason for an emergency hold is being a danger to oneself or others, and the most common maximum length of time permitted for the emergency hold is 72 hours

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26852]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Every state has Emergency Holds for Mental Health Stabilization. We've had them for years. 

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201500205#

Show you every state, who can initiate, who needs to review, and how long they can be held. 

 

anybody want to tell him?

[Brisketexan 106910]

4 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

What’s your Law Dog take on red flag laws?

To me;
Prior restraint : 1st A :: Red Flag : 2nd A

Not saying family and friends shouldn’t have a means to update or flag people to LEO or in the NICS check for mental health, drug dependency, etc. but even the most optimistic among us can admit it does open a due process nightmare.

Citizen Doe reports Citizen Smith should have their rights infringed. Gets even more convoluted in domestic violence and restraining order situations.

 

Being that none of the serious red flag legislation that has been drafted and considered would result in your guns being taken away/your right to buy a gun being taken away based only on a report, you're arguing against a straw man.  Every one of the proposed laws would require varying measures of due process, depending on the context, degree of action to be taken, etc.

If my family goes to law enforcement and reports that I'm hearing voices, have talked about taking action against the people out there who are stalking me, etc.....then yes, there ought to be a mechanism for a court to conclude that yep, Brisket is as crazy as a shithouse rat and shouldn't have access to firearms.  But it won't be based on the word of my wife alone.  There will be a process.

We should keep erratic crazy people from having access to firearms.  We can do that while having due process.  We do all kinds of shit that restricts rights, so long as there is due process, and the restriction is a legitimate exercise of police power.  This isn't exactly virgin ground.

[Dark Horse 2430]

We have numerous crises overlaying each other because we refuse to really address any of our issues. They include, but are not limited to, mental health, education, extremist ideologies, extreme wealth inequality, and easy access to weapons that cause mass casualties. 
 

 

[horn4life 3838]

The problem is the specific ability to bribe the GOP with campaign donations to enact laws that hurt the American citizenry.  After Reagan got shot the GOP and the DEMs banded together to ban assault weapons (and yes I know more about guns than most and do not need some bullshit lesson on what is and is not and assualt style weapon.) The GOP specifically bent and allowed weapons with no other purpose than to kill people, to be sold to everyone. IN fact the need to protect the right to sell the military style weapons was so great NO restrictions could be placed upon them, even if you are a little looney. Even if a little looney, and wanting to carry the gun around in public.  It's all good.  

It's just fucking dumb.  And I own plenty of guns, enjoy shooting them, and no I shouldn't be allowed to own an AK/AR/SKS or any high velocity high magazine weapon.  A shit ton of the right wing loons that own weapons for sure should not be in possession, and that goes for the dramatically smaller number on the left as well.  

The bottom line is the mass killings in large part would not happen on near the scale if not for the specific desires of the GOP and those that donate to them.  I think the Dems should just start calling these events another GOP sponsored random mass murder.  Another GOP sponsored mass murder. Another GOP sponsored Mass murder...

Do I think there are too many guns out there to make banning the weapons realistic? Nope.  Put a 5 year prison sentence on possession of such weapons 5 years from today.  Offer to buy the weapons back.  If you want to possess an AK/AR/SKS after then, have at it.  Put up a $5000 reward for folks to report on illegal possession of said firearms.

Unfortunately the Presidency of Donald J. Trump showed us how the federal government could slide into a non-democratic government with the endorsement of the same folks that brought you GOP sponsored mass murder... so even good logical thinking has it's risks.

[Brisketexan 106910]

1 minute ago, Dark Horse said:

We have numerous crises overlaying each other because we refuse to really address any of our issues. They include, but are not limited to, mental health, education, extremist ideologies, extreme wealth inequality, and easy access to weapons that cause mass casualties. 
 

 

Why do you want to take action to mess up a perfect thing?  Remember, we're THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, so if you want to change anything, you are saying that we're doing something that's not perfect, and we will NOT listen to your treasonous attacks on the US of A!

I exaggerate only slightly for effect.  Seriously, every thing about our country, as it exists at this exact moment, is sacred and inviolable, and I will defend to the death and storm the Capitol and take out treasonous congresscreatures to protect THE CONSTITUTION (which I define as "the way things are at this moment" -- it has nothing to do with any actual legal concept)!!!  

Nothing will change.  Nothing.  Ever.  We have held multiple national referendums on this subject, and the decision is clear: we LIKE IT THIS WAY.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Cool.  Can the NRA determine the "need" guidelines?  Or you have a politician lined up for that?

Why would anyone defer to the NRA for anything?  

We elect politicians to develop laws. We employ government agencies to develop rules and regulations.  

[fattyflattie 4640]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Why would anyone defer to the NRA for anything?  

We elect politicians to develop laws. We employ government agencies to develop rules and regulations.  

That's fine, we can just swing back and forth depending on who's in office like everything else in this country.  Executive order here we come (again). 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Being that none of the serious red flag legislation that has been drafted and considered would result in your guns being taken away/your right to buy a gun being taken away based only on a report, you're arguing against a straw man.  Every one of the proposed laws would require varying measures of due process, depending on the context, degree of action to be taken, etc.

...

There will be a process.
We should keep erratic crazy people from having access to firearms.  We can do that while having due process.  We do all kinds of shit that restricts rights, so long as there is due process, and the restriction is a legitimate exercise of police power.  This isn't exactly virgin ground.

Agreed, just ensuring you think holds should be temporary and easy to flag, resolve, challenge the process.

Been a while since I read up on them, when Connecticut’s was challenged in court and upheld.

ExLEO gun nuttiest of uncles was all excited ACLU came out against one state or another’s sometime in the last couple years.

Now convoluting the things for a National red-flag you have Oklahoma with their anti RF bill, 2A sanctuary bills in multiple locals, and what ever is being proposed in TX’s next session.

[wildcat09 29584]

16 minutes ago, Dark Horse said:

We have numerous crises overlaying each other because we refuse to really address any of our issues. They include, but are not limited to, mental health, education, extremist ideologies, extreme wealth inequality, and easy access to weapons that cause mass casualties. 
 

 

Yes, you correctly note a lot of serious problems. But have you considered that addressing them would be good for all Americans and that our government is only supposed to serve a couple dozen extraordinarily rich people?

[GW Hayduke 1957]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That's fine, we can just swing back and forth depending on who's in office like everything else in this country.  Executive order here we come (again). 

Removing the filibuster so that democrats are able to pass meaningful laws would decrease the need for executive orders and decrease the authority they currently wield. 

I believe there are several other major legislative actions that are higher priority.  Meaningful gun control isn't at the top.  I think HR1 should be towards the top.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act.  Once we make the feds more representative of the US population and our federal legislation more responsive to the desires of the US population, passing things like meaningful gun control will be much easier.

[Don Johnson 4847]

43 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Now do yesterday... 

 

What's really ironic is how many of the above retweeted this today...

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

Curious if our congresswoman will walk any of that racial rhetoric back?

[wildcat09 29584]

Dude looks pretty fuckin white to me.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Dude looks pretty fuckin white to me.

The US Census says he is white.  But really it shouldn't matter.  

[Pato del Muerto 53514]

37 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I've been out of pocket today, what part of the mass murder gun argument/control are we on?

1. Thoughts and Prayers

2. Second Amendment says it's forever

3. Protect my family

4. Personal Responsibility (I'm a good gun owner)

5. Slippery Slope (what will they take next, YOUR FREEDOM?)

6. I like guns (this can be divided between 'I like to hunt with my kids" and "fuck yeah, merica pew pew")

7. We need Mental Health reform not gun reform

 

I’ll take slippery slope, inasmuch as it relates to banning “assault style weapons” and what it accomplishes. 
 

Whether you are specific and Ban ar-15s only, or ban a defined class of weapons, my guess is that even if you are able to keep those out of the hands of bad actors these shootings will continue with whatever the next gun of choice is. So then you ban them, and then what’s next, and so on. At best, you reduce the casualties by some margin but the eventuality is you ban all guns (and also somehow confiscate the vast majority of them- good luck)

 

so as you say, mental health is the answer. 
 

if people started driving vehicles into crowds every week or every day, would the response be to ban certain vehicle or ban all vehicles?  
 

it’s mental health. 
 

so I have no issues with registration (many gun owners would “lose” their registered guns to the bottom of a body of water anyway) that includes mental health evaluation and safety training. I have no issues limiting mag capacity to 8 or 10.  I have no issues with limiting rate of fire if such a thing is mechanically possible. 
 

sport guns don’t need those things. Self defense guns don’t need super high cap mags.