How's this argument against magazine capacity limits?

I think the most cogent argument boils down to, "If the police need that many "bullets" to chase the guys who robbed me, why is it that I'm not allowed at least as many to protect myself from the robbers in the first place?"
 
I personally llike the "common use" argument. The "standard" AR mag, as designed, issued and regularly purchased is a 30 round mag. Anything less than that is a reduced cap mag.

What we need to do is correct the terminology evey chance we have. 30 rd mags are not "high cap" they are "standard cap". 100rd mag may be a "high cap" but they are so unreliable, very few use them.
 
hermannr said:
I personally llike the "common use" argument. The "standard" AR mag, as designed, issued and regularly purchased is a 30 round mag. Anything less than that is a reduced cap mag.

What we need to do is correct the terminology evey chance we have. 30 rd mags are not "high cap" they are "standard cap". 100rd mag may be a "high cap" but they are so unreliable, very few use them.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. And the same applies to handguns. A Glock pistol with a capacity of 15 rounds or a CZ-75B with a capacity of 16 rounds is not a "high-capacity" pistol or magazine. That's what it was designed to hold, so that's the "standard" capacity.

The whole reason police departments converted from revolvers to double-stack semi-autos was to increase capacity. Double-stack semi-automatic pistols ARE what is in "common use" today (to rely on language straight from the Heller decision). To tell us we can't use them is in direct opposition to the Heller decision.
 
Last edited:
You could not (as easily) tackle the guy on the reload if he does not shoot the gun dry - then there is still one in the chamber during the reload.

(one more to add to the list of scenarios, actions and outcomes being listed on this thread)
 
"You could not (as easily) tackle the guy on the reload if he does not shoot the gun dry - then there is still one in the chamber during the reload."
It is all but impossible for one to count the shots fired under the stress induced by a defense situation and/or attack. Rest assured when a person in either position notices a gun stop firing and sees a slide locked back he can well assume the chamber is empty. Unless his slide locked open with a round in the mag and/or chamber which makes the gun inoperable reguardless.
 
"It is all but impossible for one to count the shots fired under the stress induced by a defense situation and/or attack."
Click to expand...

I can't argue that emphatically about this, just throwing another into the realm of possibility. It would be easier to drop a mag with "some" left in it, and also the "mass shooter" may be (in his twisted mind) in one of the lower-stress gun situations there is - premeditated with static targets.

The shotgun with its "shoot once-or-twice", "load one-or-two" sequence may also be effective in this situation were psychos to make more use of it.

All else being equal, of course a reduction in the mag capacity of a gun will reduce its operational utility for a wide set of uses. We're now seeing how this is a very useful attack vector for incremental gun bans - in some states now the "10" is becoming 7, next stop 5?

One of the tools in this wave of gun control (on both sides) is misdirection, trying to make the other side not care, or focus on something else. I threw in one more for that list; but I acknowledge it's a marginal contribution to what is probably a marginal list.
 
I have read on multiple sources that the Sandy Hook shooter, while he had a large number of 30-round magazines, did not shoot any of them to empty. Reportedly, he shot about 15 rounds from each magazine.

Speculation (which I believe was attributed to the CT State Police) was that he was so accustomed to playing video games in which it's good strategy to do "hot" reloads when transitioning from one room or space to another that he more or less defaulted to doing the same thing in real life.

Okay, so 15 is more than 10 ... but it's half of 30, and it makes the fact that he was carrying 30-round magazines IRRELEVANT. If he could kill 26 people with mag swaps every fifteen rounds, how many lives could realistically have been saved if he had to swap every ten rounds? Probably ... none.
 
This is the argument i like to use. You have unknown number of perps trying to gain entry into your home. Your choice, a baseball bat, pistol your choice, AR-15 with 30 rnd. mag. You fail you and your family die. Now choose!
 
teamsteads said:
This is the argument i like to use. You have unknown number of perps trying to gain entry into your home. Your choice, a baseball bat, pistol your choice, AR-15 with 30 rnd. mag. You fail you and your family die. Now choose!
Click to expand...

I don't think that argument would work on the people we are up against. Most would probably counter "Well me oh my, I'd just try to reason with the fellows. I mean, they must've had it tough growing up & all."

Me, AR w/30 rd mag would be my choice but it isn't immediately accessible like the pistol is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top