One reason why we need more than 10 rounds...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've come to realize that in attempting to "justify" my need for anything, I've generally lost an argument.

I stick to the old stand by of
"I am a free American citizen and can own whatever the hell I feel like so long as my budget and current law allows."

But to the above, I can atest to not realizing you are hit until much later.

It took Doc pointing out to me that I was bleeding and I had a shredded knee pad before I realized my knee was hit. I thought I just banged it getting out of the Humvee.

But regardless of combat effectiveness, my right to own what I want to is not subject to the whims of the Brady Campaign, Piers Morgan, or MSNBC nor thier loyal subjects.
 
Working at the Cavern Club of Beatles fame (1960 till 1964) one Rather hectic night, some older customers were let in, newer staff.

Fight started, I got what I thought was a punch in the back, carried on fighting.

Threw the offenders out in the street, myself and another older person (almost thirty!) resumed our stint on the street entrance.

My partner on the door said, "What's that on your back?" the whole of my shirt was dark, the lights made it look black.

When I started going weak, off to the Emerg. Small wound, to the left of my right kidney!

Dr. said "Inch to the right, you could have had in a big problem"

I got stabbed twice in those 4 years.
 
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this argument could be equally effective to gun control advocates in swaying people toward their ideals. For instance, we say that 5 extra rounds doubles our chances of successful self defense, but someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the OP's statistically sound basis for contradicting the round limitation argument, but I just wanted to point out that this could be swung both ways. I know that I would feel much safer with as many rounds as I could reasonably have in a magazine than naively hoping that criminals actually have only 10 rounds in their magazines.
 
...someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%.
Click to expand...
They could, but they would be hard pressed to back it up with facts.

In an offensive situation, at least to some extent, the shooter can plan his reloads as Cho did in his shooting at VA Tech. He would go to the door of a classroom and shoot from the door until his gun ran dry. Then he would withdraw to reload, backing up his empty gun with a second one that was loaded in case anyone tried to exit the room. When reloaded, he would resume.

In a defensive encounter, one doesn't have quite the same luxury because it's not generally possible to withdraw to safety to reload--especially with multiple armed attackers.

Cho, killed more college students using only 10 round mags than Lanza was able to kill elementary students using full-capacity magazines.

Anyway, the point wasn't that the calculation results would end the debate once and for all, the point was to provide a reasoned response when people ask the question about why a law-abiding person could possibly need more than 10 rounds.

The argument will never be cosed because it's not always about the facts. Still, it never hurts to be able to provide a sound response when a question is asked by the opposition.
 
SHE3PDOG said:
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this argument could be equally effective to gun control advocates in swaying people toward their ideals. For instance, we say that 5 extra rounds doubles our chances of successful self defense, but someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the OP's statistically sound basis for contradicting the round limitation argument, but I just wanted to point out that this could be swung both ways. I know that I would feel much safer with as many rounds as I could reasonably have in a magazine than naively hoping that criminals actually have only 10 rounds in their magazines.
Click to expand...

Except that criminals don't care about magazine limits and would have 30 round mags if they wanted them regardless of what the law said.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.
 
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this argument could be equally effective to gun control advocates in swaying people toward their ideals. For instance, we say that 5 extra rounds doubles our chances of successful self defense, but someone like Piers Morgan may say that 5 less rounds would reduce victims of gun violence by 50%. This isn't to say that I don't agree with the OP's statistically sound basis for contradicting the round limitation argument, but I just wanted to point out that this could be swung both ways. I know that I would feel much safer with as many rounds as I could reasonably have in a magazine than naively hoping that criminals actually have only 10 rounds in their magazines.
Click to expand...


You took to long to say they don't listen to reason and are completely ignorant.
 
John, that is a pretty good point. I'm not really sure how well you could convince gun control proponents of that concept, but that seems like solid logic which, as Chuck pointed out, most gun control advocates don't really understand; they would rather hear ill-conceived emotional outbursts. I'm sure that for every argument we can think of, regardless of how soundly lodged in statistics or facts it is, there is an opposing one built upon misconceptions.

As previously stated, I'm not for this kind of illogical thinking (gun control); I'm just trying to think about it from both angles to look for holes that can be exploited with undesirable results. I know I don't want to lose my current or potential future firearms because of the bad deeds of a few evil or insane men.
 
I'm not really sure how well you could convince gun control proponents of that concept...
Click to expand...
Those who have made up their minds can not be convinced. But there are many who have not made up their minds.

The information in the first post can be used to:

1. Silence those who are only parrotting a question they've heard others ask and who are expecting to get no response.

2. Convince those who haven't made up their mind.

3. Demonstrate that there is a rational reason based on realistic situations for having more than 10 rounds.

As I said before, this won't end the debate, and that's not why I posted it. I posted it because it's always better to be able to answer a question intelligently than to respond with silence and a blank look.

There is no magic bullet and no magic shield. Just as in the world of weapons and countermeasures, when someone develops a weapon, a countermeasure to defend against it usually isn't too far behind and a new weapon that defeats that countermeasure will be on the horizon. But that doesn't mean it's pointless to develop countermeasures--in fact it's critical to do so.
 
Agreed, on all accounts. I had not really thought of the "parroting" bit, but that is very true. Someone who is just spouting off information that they have memorized without their own introspection into how they really feel about the issue may very well be offset by statements like this, and that is a good thing for us.
 
I would offer the following argument to gun banners, which - as JohnKSA noted - they would find unpursuasive if their minds are already decided.

If they are thoughtful, however, they may consider the matter more deeply:

The best answer to the question: "Why does any citizen need an AR-type rifle with 30 round magazines?" was actually provided by Abraham Lincoln who said: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it" (Abraham Lincoln, April 4, 1861).

100 years later Lincoln's statement was echoed by Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, who clarified: "...the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible" (Humphrey, 1960).

The Second Amendment exists because an armed citizenry is our last, best hope of ensuring, again in Lincoln's words: "...that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth".

That is why responsible citizens should own AR-type rifles and 30 round magazines. No one needs more than 10 rounds to hunt deer. But one needs more than ten rounds to overthrow a government.



This is the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the living room being marginalized by many on both sides of the issue.
 
The reason I give to non gun people why I carry a Glock 19 with a loaded capacity of 16 rounds, is simple. I carry Insurance on our Jeep, not to get into an accident, but just in case, the Pistol carry is the same.

If never needed, it ain't so heavy, does not hurt, in fact I do not even feel it.

Many weapon deployment in the word of self defense, requires more than 5 rounds, and for that reason you will not find a Chief Special in my pocket.

The spare 17 round magazine, that's just for balance.
 
As soon as we start trying to answer why we "need" more than ten rounds we have lost the battle.
Nobody "needs" most of the stuff we own. As Americans, we have a right to purchase and own whatever we can afford.
 
I agree with your reasoning.I just hope you e-mailed your thoughts on this to your state representatives, as they are getting ready to vote on Bill S.150 assault weapons ban. Support the N.R.A. and the N.G.R.A.
 
Whenever I hear people or politico's say 30 round magazine is not necessary, I think about a guy like Reginald Denny during the LA riots. He could of used one or two in my opinion.
 
Whenever I hear people or politico's say 30 round magazine is not necessary, I think about a guy like Reginald Denny during the LA riots. He could of used one or two in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Reginald Denny isn't the best example on this point. First, it injects a racial component into the discussion that isn't helpful.

But mainly, it's not really on-point, because Denny wasn't a case of running out of ammo. Denny didn't even have a gun at all.
 
As soon as we start trying to answer why we "need" more than ten rounds we have lost the battle.
Nobody "needs" most of the stuff we own. As Americans, we have a right to purchase and own whatever we can afford.
Click to expand...
That plays well when you're preaching to the choir.

If you're trying to sway a fence-sitter, you may have better luck if you start by proving it is possible to demonstrate a need and then work around to the real crux of the matter.
 
LRchops
IT IS SIMPLE, we need high cap mags and ammo because we are subject to the same dangers as cops and the military.
Click to expand...

I actually think the reverse of this. Bear with me here. I hear people often say "well, that sort of magazine capacity should only be held by police or military." I argue that the police could get away with 10 round magazines while I can't. My arguments, in no particular order:

1. Criminals avoid the police.
For me: Criminals look for victims among the civilian population. I'm a civilian and I don't look physically imposing at all.

2. The police usually choose condition of the engagement. Patrol cars choose the time/place of their traffic stops. Or they receive a radio call and they know that they are going to dangerous situation such as a robbery in progress. They already know if other police are responding to that same call and how far away they might be. They prefer to outnumber the bad guys and they can wait for help to arrive. They can call for backup before proceeding in many circumstances if they don't feel comfortable.
For me: if I've met a criminal, things have already gone completely wrong. I don't do any criminal type activities and if I meet a criminal or a band of bad guys, they have probably the initiative since they have picked the time/place of our encounter. I'm a step behind and probably outnumbered.

3. Police have radio and active backup already mobilized. If the patrol officer feels endangered, a call for backup will bring all available help immediately.
For me: i may or may not have time to call 911. I might be immobilized. I might have to make an immediate decision to put my life in danger against superior numbers to save a family member.

So, for me, a normal capacity magazine (usually more than 10) just makes sense for citizens who are quite probably in an inferior tactical position in a criminal encounter. For police officers, they might not need that additional magazine capacity as they have several levels of tactical advantage and support.

I'm not trying to downplay the dangerous nature of police work nor saying that I don't appreciate that they do a job that I can't (see the bit above about not physically imposing). Nor am I saying that police should be limited to 10 round magazines. I'm just stating how encounters between me (the average joe) and a criminal/s appear fundamentally different from a tactical perspective than for a police officer/s and a criminal/s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top