Living proof of the inefficacy of magazine capacity legislation.

J

jimpeel

New member
Since I can't find any reference to THIS VIDEO anywhere on the board after numerous searches I will post it now.

Boone County, Indiana, Sheriff Ken Campbell illustrates though live fire exercises the inefficacy of magazine capacity legislation.

He first has a professional shooter fire rounds from two fifteen round magazines, then three ten round magazines, and finally five six round magazines. The times are then noted.

He then has a novice shooter do the same exercise.

Both shooters are able to discharge all thirty rounds in under thirty seconds.

He does the same exercise with a "defender" trying to sprint twenty-five feet to attempt to tackle the shooter during the reloading process. This is done with the professional and novice shooters. The "attack" fails.

The exercises are repeated using rifles with the same results.

A very interesting study which belongs in every pro-Second Amendment defender's video library.

A note: Notice the importance of counting one's shots when reloading magazines. They shoot 14/16, 9/10/11, and 5/6/6/6/7.
 
Ammo so to speak for 'our' side.

It's VERY good, IMhO that he included a novice shooter in the video.

If you are AT ALL open minded on the issue it would convince you of the futility of a magazine ban.

I'm not sure you'd get an anti to sit through it. I just found out when our (MN) state legislature was supposed to be listening to both sides comment on some of the gun issues some of the anti legislators got up and left after the anti-gun folk made their points and never listened at all to the pro gun side.:(

Thanks for posting the link to it.
 
Another video you might want to view is HERE and ridicules Biden's comments that women should get a shotgun because they are easier to handle than an AR-15.
 
After watching this video, I have to say that the evidence is not THAT convincing.

1) "Jim" appeared to shoot perceptibly faster during 10 round and 6 round magazine tests, possibly due to demand characteristics- the idea that a subject who knows what the researcher is trying to prove will consciously or subconsciously aim to do so.

2) While "Jim" is advertised as an expert, I don't think "Christy" could be called a novice. She appears to have some training and experience with a firearm.

This is annecdotal evidence, with a sample size of 2. While the drill itself is a good design, if I were an anti, I would want to see a larger sample size, perhaps in a double-blind, matched pair situation (i.e. match participants based on self-disclosed firearms experience and confidence, removing any possibility of expectation).

Sorry, I spent way too many years in college discussing and conducting research- it still rears its head once in a while...
 
Living proof of the inefficacy of magazine capacity legislation.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, then I guess these real life examples would prove the efficacy of such legislation because shooters were tackled while trying to reload.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/article_628459b1-d0cb-5d51-ab3c-aa54db54d96f.html

Loughner in AZ at the Gifford's shooting

Kip Kinkel was tackled while reloading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Kinkel

Several others were stopped, tackled, subdued upon running out of ammo. It would seem that not all shooters show up with multiple magazines. For example...

Trying to reload mag...http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/82435837.html

Ran out of ammo...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Valley_Mall#2005_mall_shooting

At the Luby's incident, at least two people were killed while attempting to rush the shooter, ostensibly at least one was during a reload including Gratia-Hupps father, although Gratia-Hupp herself was able to escape while the gunman was reloading.

This is just a quick summary list, but what it shows is that indeed, the period of reloading can be a period of opportunity for the intended an actual victims. Police know this and train for it as well. So the above video isn't proof per se, but only shows that attacks during a reload may not be successful. We know this from real life, of course. And of course, gunmen like Cho can cover all bases by carrying multiple guns and stopping attackers during the reload with the second gun.

So the video is interesting, but as a hypothetical test, it is just that and its results certainly are not uniformly mirrored by real life.
 
I liked the "New York Reload" demonstration. Just goes to show that where there's a will, there is probably a way.
 
A shooter with a brace of eight black powder pistols -- forty-eight rounds -- could wreak havoc without even having to pass a background check or fill out a 4473.

One may walk into any store which sells black powder firearms -- which are not classified as "firearms" -- and buy as many as they wish without any problem whatsoever. No paper work. No background check. No report of multiple purchases.

If that ever happens -- and I pray it does not -- the fallacy of magazine size limits and bans of specific firearms will come to the fore and the best the antis will be able to do is a call for bans on all firearms and the inclusion of black powder firearms as "firearms."
 
I have to agree with JimmyR entirely and then add a little.

Think about it, the trained people who are respectable and responsible citizens prove that there is little use to magazine restrictions. They are window dressing that doesn't effect anything. However, the homicidal maniacs that commit these atrocities, tend to be less trained and poorer. In effect, magazine limits are prejudice against lower income and less than able-bodied civilians.

Joe blow next door would have severe problem with 4 intruders in his house with having to switch between 3 10 round magazines. However, a properly trained military vet in the same circumstance (or a rich guy with the time to train and practice) would have less of an issue.

(obviously 4 intruders vs 1 with ten round magazines is completely unfair in all circumstances, however that is not the point I am making.)
 
He proved his point, however I can see antis taking this the wrong way. If they realize that the high-capacity magazine ban won't work because people can reload pretty quickly, they may just use that as fuel to say ALL guns are bad and they ALL need to be banned as this video clearly demonstrates their effectiveness with or without restrictions.
 
He proved his point, however I can see antis taking this the wrong way. If they realize that the high-capacity magazine ban won't work because people can reload pretty quickly, they may just use that as fuel to say ALL guns are bad and they ALL need to be banned as this video clearly demonstrates their effectiveness with or without restrictions.
Click to expand...
This isn't plausible with the current supreme court rulings.

And far more importantly, magazine restrictions have never been about efficiently reducing crime. Neither was the AWB or NFA act. They have, and always will be, about the piecemeal effort to reduce the right through word play and technicalities. They think they can backdoor ban firearms through double speak and technicalities. "Sure you can own firearms through the 2nd amendment right, but they have to be single shot muzzle loaders". At that point, the 2nd amendment will be reduced to a Curio and Relic level of enforcement.
Then they can repeal it.

Real life example:
There was this woman with greenpeace who was advocating for safer fishing and creating off shore, "no-fishing" habitats in the pacific. She gave me the old "we're over-fishing and killing wildlife etc" speech and told me that bottom feeding nets are immoral. I simply asked her questions, and then she said the most profound thing she will ever say in her life as an altruistic social work. (Below find paraphrasing)
"We didn't lobby the governments in Europe to get laws to force these corporations to stop using these nets. We advocated hiring more people to fish through simple casting. It would help the economy, create jobs, and they would be taking a moral stance. Eventually all of the European country fishing corporations stopped using these nets and progressed to a more peaceful means of conducting business. Then we got the fishing nets banned."

I was so utterly and completely shocked that she admitted one of the most evil and vile forms of coercion known to man, promoting social and technological regression as moral absolutes. Once there was no more common usage, they could get the efficient ways banned.
 
Great video. Though it's more anecdotal than anything, I think it proves the point, and shows, visually what we've been saying every time a magazine restriction looms over us.

He proved his point, however I can see antis taking this the wrong way. If they realize that the high-capacity magazine ban won't work because people can reload pretty quickly, they may just use that as fuel to say ALL guns are bad and they ALL need to be banned as this video clearly demonstrates their effectiveness with or without restrictions.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, the anti's final purpose is an all out firearm ban. However, they have the hurdle of the 2A, and SCOTUS rulings to get by, and will not be able to get what they want at this point. Handgun ownership is protected. Handgun as a self defense tool is protected. This video will not give them anymore ammo than they already had (which is very little, to be honest). In short, this video is more for those neutrals in the fight, the people that don't know/care either way. Anti's will always be anti's. People like us already knew the results of that video before we even watched it.
 
I agree with both of you. I wasn't trying to imply that their immediate goal may change, as I do know that there are many hurdles to overcome before an all out ban would happen, but I also know that incrementalism is the way of antis.

I was mainly trying to point out that the video has the potential to backfire even if it isn't on such a large scale.
 
I think the New York reload and the 1911 qualification tests were the most damning pieces of evidence there. The magazine reloads with the glock and AR, not so much
 
if I were an anti, I would want to see a larger sample size, perhaps in a double-blind, matched pair situation (i.e. match participants based on self-disclosed firearms experience and confidence, removing any possibility of expectation

Sure, but that would make you a thinking anti- rather than a kneejerk one, and you would be open to rational arguments that might change your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top