Do we really need the Hi Capacity Magazines?

Carry what you want. Carry what you can and what you feel is necessary. If you're content with 7, carry 7. If 30 makes you feel better, by all means do it.



------------------
NRA Life Member
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners(MCRGO)
 
I will preface this by saying that I do own standard capacity magazines, but in all honesty the ones I have are all I will have unless prices come way down. I just cant justify spending $100+ for a 15 rnd. magazine when I can get 6 10 rnd mags for the same money. $100 for 60 rnds, or $100 for 15 rnds. That math is pretty easy for me to figure out. Besides all I ever use my standard capacity mags for is range shooting since I find it to be a real pain to constantly reload mags.



------------------
Compromise is not an option

"Semper Fidelis"
 
we don't really NEED a lot of things. But whats the point in having a gun designed around 15 rounders, and then stick 10 rounders in it.

It's the same logic as the anti's use, "Who really needs more than 10 rounds?" ... "Who really NEEDS 7 rounds? Who really NEEDS a gun anyways?"

Why limit yourself? 7 rounds simply isn't enough for ME. I've spoken to several cops who said they burned up a 15 round magazine while just shooting for cover... I doubt I'll ever be in that situation, but why limit myself? I realize that 15 rounds with no hits from a cop is pretty sad, but you never really know what's going to happen. If you did, you probably wouldn't have put youself in that situation.

Ben

------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target" http://ben.gunsnet.net

[This message has been edited by Ben (edited September 07, 2000).]
 
Why should we not have them?

Aside from size and weight considerations, more ammunition is better than less.

If you want an example, take a look at the NYC shooting where four cops fired 40 rounds at a guy (and only hit him 6 times). And that guy didn't even have a weapon. If the police need 40 shots to stop an unarmed man, then I don't want to know how many round I'll need if I encounter an armed predator.
 
Interesting thread; thanks to all the previous posters.

I oversee operations analyses for major tactical aviation weapons systems. If I applied standard OA techniques to this question, I am certain the probability of reasonable marksman requiring more than ten rounds (particularly in non-LE scenarios) would approach zero. In fact, I am sure enough of this that I frequently carry -- dependant on circumstances -- a revolver with no speed loaders or speed strips.

This said, the amount of ammunition an individual carries is his own business -- not the government's. I may opt for a Ruger GP 100 with only six rounds in my immediate neighborhood and under current "no riot and not much serious crime" conditions. Someone else may look at the same situation and decide it warrants three high-cap magazines. My "bottom line" is simple: This should be an individual choice, not the government's.
 
Looks like I echoed a lot of other people's thoughts on this topic. I guess that's what I get for not reading the responses and just jumping on the "Post Reply" button ;)

Ben

------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
http://ben.gunsnet.net
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikul: ... the NYC shooting where four cops fired 40 rounds at a guy (and only hit him 6 times). And that guy didn't even have a weapon ...[/quote]Let's see? Highly trained LEO (the assumption is that they are better trained than regular gun owners because they are trusted with firearms and less restrictions are placed on them as to where they can carry and the type of weapons that they can use) scored 6 out of 40 hits. That a hit ratio of 15% and this was against an unarmed individual who wasn't shooting back. If that individual was shooting back the LEOs would have been running, dodging, seeking cover, etc.; and chances are this would have negatively impacted their hit ratio -- instead of being 15%, it might have been only 5-10%. A less trained private citizen would be expected to do worse. Let's be generous and use the bottom number of 5%.

Using this logic, a private citizen would need twenty rounds to score a single hit. Now, I would like to think that my shooting abilities are a little bit better but going by pure numbers alone, ten rounds would appear to be not enought and YES we do NEED hi-cap (full cap) mags.
 
Do I need them? I certainly do. Who decides what I need or don't need? Shouldnt it be me?

Follow me on this one here:
Pistols are made to accept full capacity magazines with 13,15 or 17 rounds. Then the Government says you cant have more than 10 rounds because you dont need more than that.
Obviously now, since you cannot legally carry more than 10 rounds, you start wondering why you are carrying that hefty Glock 17 or perhaps a CZ75, when you can go to a smaller pistol that has been made to accept 10 rounds in the first place.
Now the Government can decide you no longer need more than 6 rounds( if they can do it once, they can do it again). So now you wonder why you are carrying a hefty 10 round pistol when you can carry a 6 shot snubnosed revolver. And this will keep going on until,
we are disarmed completely.
So need is a personal thing, I have to have the right to choose what I want, no one should bully me into it.
Regards,
Anand
 
What FUD said. That is the crux of the tactical side of the argument here. The constitutional arguments above are very valid as well, of course.

- gabe
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Thomas:

If my pistol is made to carry 15 rounds, I see no reason to carry only 10.
[/quote]

Exactly. And besides we may not NEED them, because 10 rounds or 20 you are still going to shoot someone. And I am talking about self defense here. So does banning standard capacity magazines do anything to stop people from getting killed?(now I am talking about murder) No. If a gang member is going to shoot a gang member, it doesn’t matter how many rounds he has, he is going to do it.

So, short answer yes, long answer no, with a 'but'.

[This message has been edited by MrBlonde (edited September 07, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FUD:
Let's see? Highly trained LEO (the assumption is that they are better trained than regular gun owners because they are trusted with firearms and less restrictions are placed on them as to where they can carry and the type of weapons that they can use) scored 6 out of 40 hits.[/quote]

Bad assumption. Most departments require less practice than I get. Our County Sheriff's Department requires sworn deputies to shoot the PPC course (a no-brainer compared to the average IDPA event) twice a year. Part of the reason you get stuff like the NYPD firing 40 rounds for 6 hits is that most departments don't train long or hard enough on marksmanship. They have so much other stuff to train on -- laws, procedures, etc.
 
Bad Assumption? I don't think so David.

The typical gun owner (maybe not the typical TFL member, but the typical gun owner) buys a gun for protection, shoots it a few times and then leaves it in a nightstand for months or even years before touching it again.

I can name a handful of people right now right off the top of my head that fit that profile. A few years ago at my father's funeral an old school buddy of mine came to pay his last respects and we started talking since we lost touch with each other over the years and I suggected that we get together one day and go shooting and he replied that he would like that since the last time he went was when me & him went together about half a dozen years ago. This gun owner had not fired a gun in half a dozen years.

I believe that this type of individual is in the majority and I would hope that most LEOs are better trained than that.

Speaking for myself, I suspect that my own training/practise is also lacking. I go the the range every third or fourth week with two or three guns. I fire them under slow fire conditions at 75 feet and then I shoot them under rapid fire conditions at 25 feet. Again, I would hope that the average LEO has better skills, training & practise than that.
 
Do I "need" "high Capacity magazines"?? HE!! YES!!!! I need to have anything and everything that the Government is afraid to see in my hot little hands!!! Especially weapons. An armed people is feared by tyrants!!!!!

------------------
Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent

"Glock 26: 17 rounds of concealed carry DEATH comming your way from out of nowhere!!! THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY!!!"
 
To borrow from the often cited "car" analogy so popular with the antis:
I can buy a Ferrari, Corvette, etc. that will easily double the legal speed limit in most states. I don't "need" a car like that, but I sure as heck want one.
How come I'm allowed to purchase a vehicle with an engine so powerful that it can only be for the sole purpose of breaking the law :)
 
A very close friend of mine was a homicide detective for nearly 20 years in a major southern city and told me the following.

When they switched from revolvers to hi capacity, excuse me that is normal capacity, handguns, the ability of the LEOs to shoot effectively decreased dramatically. Why? There seemed to be the feeling that there was a lot of spraying and praying going on. Since they had several rounds they felt like they could just shoot and some would hit the BG.

The thought of my original post was whether or not we were buying into the advertisement of the gun market. As mentioned above, I personally like to have all the rounds on me that I can. But, some of you "older" members felt very comfortably armed 15 years ago with a s&w 38 or 357 revolver. And for those 1911 fans, it has only been recently when you could even get a 10 or 15 round style 1911. Did you feel less secure with only 1 or even 2 8 round mags?

Again, my point is not to argue whether it is constitutional, a right, a freedom or anything else but do we really think we need that many rounds. You ought to be able to carry what you want when you want and where you want. Period!

If those highly trained LEOs took that many shots to hit someone that wasn't shooting back then I had better pack it in and just start carrying a couple of frag grenades.

Thanks for all of the posts and interesting thoughts

------------------
The best weapon for self defense is the one you have when the need arises!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sks:
Coronach, all locks taken off, my security system has been dismantled, no more guns in the house, insurance premiums done away with and guess what I've got money. :D
[/quote]

Not for long, you now have no protection. I see a guy torching your house, and look out for that guy with the gun in the next room! :)
 
Originally posted by Guyon:
Hi-cap mags? What are hi-cap mags?

Oh, you mean the "standard" mags designed for the pistols? Be careful here. "

Great point!!! Reminds me of Bill C. saying that the recently passed bill eliminating the Estate Tax would "cost too much". Excuse me? a tax reduction costing to much? We tax payers would be saving all the tax reduction. Lets call it a "tax savings" not a "cost".
Click to expand...
 
[If those highly trained LEOs took that many shots to hit someone that wasn't shooting back then I had better pack it in and just start carrying a couple of frag grenades.]

Be careful....grenades are now classified as "Weapons of Mass Distruction"
 
I went and talked to my life insurance agent the other day, I got about three times more coverage than the minimum required. Err on the side of caution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top