My case for having Hi-Cap mags

P

pat701

New member
IMHO at least 50% of this nation lives rural. After 8:00pm the town P.D. shuts down. 911 calls get forwarded to the county sheriff dept for service and/or state police. At 3:00am when 3 thugs are kicking in your door and your wife a daughter are in the house in there baby doll P.J.'s a 45 minute response is a long time to wait for help as your family is being savaged by the thugs. This is the reason the people of America need/ have to have hi-cap mags. 10 rds mags are or not enough fire power. God forbid you need more fire power during the long wait for 911 response to your call for assistance.:eek:
 
God forbid you need more fire power during the long wait for 911 response to your call for assistance.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument is that it undercuts one of our other arguments. That a mass shooter could kill just as many people with 10 rounds mags, swapping guns and mags as he goes. If he can be just as deadly with 10 round mags, why can't you?

IMO... trying to justify mags based on that nasty word "need" is a losing battle. I don't have to prove a need to the government. I'm a citizen, I can buy whatever product I want to buy. If I then use it in a criminal manner, then the gov't can step in.

Instead of "need" on our end, the ultimate SAF question will be, "Under what authority CAN the gov't ban such things?" Factors such as common use, use by the police, prior legal possession of many millions of them nationwide, etc.

Gregg
 
The spree shooter is not being fired back at in the Newtown or Aurora style scenario.

I'm more likely to object to the stiplation that 50% of the country is Rural.

And need a shower after putting a hypothetical daughter in a hypothetical baby-doll.


It is not incongruous to say that high capacity magazines do not overly assist a spree shooter facing zero resistance while still providing benefit to a high-stress home defense.
 
If you really want to have an arguing point, try this one. I've already flummoxed a couple of anti's with it.

We all drive cars. And many, many people die in those cars every year. And the amount of foreign oil we import is a national security issue. The carbon they emit as well. So there is a "clear and pressing need for gov't action." We tried the nationwide 55 mph limit years ago. It actually "worked" if you mean it reduced traffic deaths and fuel consumption. But people didn't like it and gradually people just started to ignore it and drive way over the limit.

So that's where the problem lies. Those darn people that won't follow the rules. So what the President needs to do is "find a way" to REQUIRE every vehicle in the nation be fitted with a governor set to 55 mph. It's INSANE and DANGEROUS --- especially to the CHILDREN ---- that people actually buy cars with top speeds over 100 mph. Some "fringe types" even buy cars that can drive over 140 mph. Clearly there is no legal place in the US to drive such death machines so these radicals must be spending money buying them for some other nefarious reason.

If we put a mandatory governor on each car, we WILL save thousands of lives every year. "It's worth an infringement on some personal liberties if we just save one life!" Hey, we are talking thousands of lives. And how many fewer lives would be lost in pursuit of policies involving the importation of foreign oil? And the amount of carbon pollution would slow dramatically so that will save many thousands of lives as well.

Some lobbyists from the terrorist Car and Driver organization will make the laughable argument that a car needs to have higher maximum speeds so that they can easily pass other cars or even to avoid an accident in an emergency situation. Drivers should never be passing other drivers in the first place and their "emergency situation" is a scenario dreamed up by uneducated trailer park dwellers. There is no reason we should let their delusional rantings guide the policy of the US.

It is possible that we will run into so much political opposition to this idea that it will have to be approached in stages. The Administration has called a commission to make recommendations for how this situation can be resolved. We are hoping that we can release an Executive Order requiring all new vehicles be fitted with these governors. We will tell the public that they can keep their existing cars as long as they register them by VIN with the gov't. Of course our ultimate goal is to eventually pass legislation requiring governors on all those older vehicles as well.

Ultimately.. the most desirable outcome is to require all cars to have lower horsepower and therefore top speeds. A governor would be unnecessary if cars were required to be so low powered that "putting the pedal to the floor" will result in a maximum speed as low as politically possible. Some members of the Administration are known to actually prefer the eventual outlawing of cars altogether but the majority SO FAR believes that is unnecessary as long as top speeds are low enough.

But it is true that an ideal society would probably be one without cars. Where everybody rides a bike. What a beautiful and idyllic place that would be. The wild animals would come right out of the forests and eat food out of our hands. And every person around the world would treat each other like brothers!

Gregg
 
tulsamal said:
The problem with that argument is that it undercuts one of our other arguments.
Click to expand...

You are correct about the problem with entering the "need" discussion. The problem with not entering that discussion is that it leaves on answered the challenge of the assertion "no one needs a high-capacity magazine, or more than 10 rounds for legitimate self-defense".

There is another problem with answering the assertion of "no need". I have been in a situation in which a prudent person would have many more than 10 rounds. I did have many more than 10 rounds, and at the time I wish I had more.

However, in describing this event to a journalist who made the "no need" assertion to me, the reaction I received suggested that she placed me beyond normal experience and that I was therefore irrelevant.
 
tulsamal said:
The problem with that argument is that it undercuts one of our other arguments. That a mass shooter could kill just as many people with 10 rounds mags, swapping guns and mags as he goes. If he can be just as deadly with 10 round mags, why can't you?
Click to expand...

Mmm, this counter has been countered before but I wanna try it myself. If you're shocked awake to defend your property/loved ones at 3am you're unlikely to be wearing a tactical vest full of 10rd mags unlike some delusional nutjob on a planned "assault" or robbery.
 
After the election three guys at work came to me asking about 9mm handguns. I pointed out that .45ACP is also a good option, but they insisted that they wanted the high capacity of a 9mm because in a shooting situation even the cops hit their target only 10-20% of the time (a statistic I have read before myself). That's another factor that I believe infrequent shooters are looking at when making a purchase decision.
 
IMHO at least 50% of this nation lives rural. After 8:00pm the town P.D. shuts down. 911 calls get forwarded to the county sheriff dept for service and/or state police. At 3:00am when 3 thugs are kicking in your door and your wife a daughter are in the house in there baby doll P.J.'s a 45 minute response is a long time to wait for help as your family is being savaged by the thugs. This is the reason the people of America need/ have to have hi-cap mags. 10 rds mags are or not enough fire power. God forbid you need more fire power during the long wait for 911 response to your call for assistance
Click to expand...



When posts are put on this forum regarding carrying extra ammo . You always get quoted that most shootings only 3 rounds are fired so no need to carry extra ammo. So they woldent have a problem with 10 rd magazines. If you have 10 magazines with 10 rounds in each you would think enough.

Lots are happy carrying 1911-s with 7 rds or revolvers with 6.
 
When posts are put on this forum regarding carrying extra ammo . You always get quoted that most shootings only 3 rounds are fired so no need to carry extra ammo. So they woldent have a problem with 10 rd magazines. If you have 10 magazines with 10 rounds in each you would think enough.

Lots are happy carrying 1911-s with 7 rds or revolvers with 6.
Click to expand...

As one of the people who feels comfortable carrying a revolver, I would point out that, in my mind, concealed carry and home defense are two different things. When I'm out and about, I need only enough ammunition to allow me to get away from whoever is trying to harm me. I have no intention of standing in the middle of the street shooting it out with the bloods or crips. As Mike Irwin once said, my gun serves as the starter pistol in the mad dash fat man's tactical retreat.

When defending my home, however, things are a bit different. Should a group of home invaders start breaking my window in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be retreating because I've got nowhere to retreat to. My strategy for home defense is to try to barricade myself somewhere and keep the wolves at bay long enough for the cavalry (meaning the police) to arrive. In that case, I see a much greater need for a high capacity firearm and I keep a semi-automatic .223 rifle with a 20 round magazine as part of my home defense plan.
 
It is not incongruous to say that high capacity magazines do not overly assist a spree shooter facing zero resistance while still providing benefit to a high-stress home defense.
Click to expand...

This is so true.

They could come in awfully handy if someone is shooting at you, though.
 
When hunting "non-game" animals on private land in florida, there is no capacity limitations...

I would rather load one 30 round mag in the rifle to go hog hunting, coyote hunting or feral cat hunting than take up "Scooby Snack" pocket space with additional 5 round mags...

Hows that for LEGITIMATE HUNTING USES...

Brent
 
As one of the people who feels comfortable carrying a revolver, I would point out that, in my mind, concealed carry and home defense are two different things...

When defending my home, however, things are a bit different. Should a group of home invaders start breaking my window in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be retreating because I've got nowhere to retreat to. My strategy for home defense is to try to barricade myself somewhere and keep the wolves at bay long enough for the cavalry (meaning the police) to arrive. In that case, I see a much greater need for a high capacity firearm and I keep a semi-automatic .223 rifle with a 20 round magazine as part of my home defense plan.
Click to expand...

Great point. Just make sure you are empty-handed when the cops arrive, because they are "trained to shoot anyone holding a gun".
 
Tulsamal

Thanks a lot for giving the Government another really legitimate reason to take another one of our rights away. I've been saving to buy a new Corvette, but by the time I can afford it they probably won't exist because everyone will go out and buy them all in fear they will be gone soon, causing the dealerships to be completely out of stock.

No guns, no fast cars. What's next. Alcohol? Just think of all the lives that would be saved if we eliminated alcohol, or maybe just made it all 5% proof instead of 40% proof.

Uh oh, I think I just gave them another crusade to go after! :eek:

No guns, no fast cars, no alcohol. Well at least they can't take away being intimate with my wife. Oh crap.... :eek:
 
I have no intention of standing in the middle of the street shooting it out with the bloods or crips. As Mike Irwin once said, my gun serves as the starter pistol in the mad dash fat man's tactical retreat.
Click to expand...

What if you get cornered and cant get away.
 
Quote:
I have no intention of standing in the middle of the street shooting it out with the bloods or crips. As Mike Irwin once said, my gun serves as the starter pistol in the mad dash fat man's tactical retreat.

What if you get cornered and cant get away.
Click to expand...

Then I've already made a lot bigger mistakes with more serious consequences than what gun I carried.
 
Then I've already made a lot bigger mistakes with more serious consequences than what gun I carried.
Click to expand...

If its not that importent why carry. You can't prepare for every serinieo. But having a sensible amount of extra ammo is one you can. One extra mag for example.
 
He didn't say it's not important.

What he DID say, however, is that you should, no matter whether you are carrying or not, always be aware of your situation, including ways of extracting yourself in an emergency.
 
I have watched a couple of series of riots in Los Angeles, and those situations require both high capacity magazines and semiauto rifles.

Magazines because you may have multiple attackers (called a mob) and one misses occasionally.

Semiauto because engagement distances are short, and likely should be. With a bolt gun, you have to decide to fire at some longer distance, perhaps without seeing the clear intent, rather than waiting. This increases the likelihood of firing on people who may not actually pose a danger to you. Rioters don't usually wear uniforms.

Relatively short engagement distances also call for more rounds in the magazine, as time to act could be rather short. Taking time to reload multiple times might be a big difference.

Given the uncertainties involved, it is hard to predict with accuracy what anyone might need. Individuals should be free to select their path as they see fit.
 
The only strong argument would have to be somehow demonstrating that high capacity magazines are vital component of the arm thus being protected by the 2nd amendment. If a small magazine compromises the intended purpose of the arm than it would be an infringement.

That is my thinking anywayz.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top