Would a ten round magazine limit be OK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since your topic and post ask two different questions:
no, it's not OK.
Yes, it would bother me.

New York has already proven that 10 rounds is just a step on their way to their goal of zero.
 
dlb435 said:
I like hi-cap mags, I would feal a certain loss if I could not get them but I would be willing to give this up if it ment only a few extra people a year lived.
Click to expand...

Reduced capacity magazines MIGHT result in a few LESS deaths in the vanishingly small number of mass shootings that occur.

Reduced capacity magazines MIGHT result in a few MORE deaths in the very small number of self defense situations involving multiple assailants and extended firefights.

Would you accept reduced magazine capacity for the chance to save some in mass shootings while sacrificing others in self defense situations?

dlb435 said:
Just a thought here....what if all new mags were no longer "drop free"?
Click to expand...

Ever shoot a HK P7? The magazine has to be stripped out of the gun while the heel mag release is held back. With a bit of practice, you would need a timer to notice the difference in mag change times from guns with button releases and drop-free mags.
 
There is no compromise since we in the "gun community" get NOTHING in return. This seems like a one way street. Let's say for arguments sake that we in principal agree to the 10 round mag limit. Do we get a moratorium on gun control laws for 25-50 years? An abrogation of the NFA? The ability to buy Class III weapons with a simple background check? Really, what do we get? Since we get NOTHING there can be no compromise. Every time that they mention "common sense" it sounds like an infomercial hawking "great opportunity" for investors. As long as we get nothing we should agree to nothing.:cool:
 
There is no benifit for firearm owners to want, or even accept a mag restriction. It doesnt prevent or reduce crime. It does extremely little, if anything, and some say nothing at all, in reducing these "mass shootings"

Once we have a restriction in place though, its difficult at best to have it removed as well.

The only thing a mag restriction does do, is to "dumb down" the issue for those folks less informed.
 
Really OP? Your really asking that question seriously? If you want to look at how gun grabbers work I will direct you to the New Zealand arms code. Notice how more than 7 rounds makes a weapon in NZ an MSSA (Military-style semi-automatic.) This is the direction the gun grabbers are heading. In NZ even certain airguns are restricted. So in short, no magazine limits are not okay.

http://www.police.govt.nz/services/firearms/arms-code-section-3

WARNING: By putting a magazine which holds more than 15 rounds into a .22 semi-automatic rifle, or more than seven rounds to a centre-fire semi-automatic rifle, it changes its definition to that of an MSSA.


Military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) firearms
Are firearms that require an endorsement on your firearms licence (E endorsement) and are subject to special security conditions. Only an E endorsed person may have or use an MSSA and it is an offence for anyone without this endorsement to fire one, even under supervision. Only persons 18 years of age or older can have an endorsement for one of these firearms. A permit to procure the MSSA must be obtained from an Arms Officer before taking possession of it. MSSAs require greater storage security than for standard sporting firearms.

An MSSA is a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more of the following features:
•Folding or telescopic butt
•Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire
•Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more than 7 cartridges for others
•Bayonet lug
•Military pattern free standing pistol grip
•Flash suppresser

You need a permit from the Police to obtain one of these firearms.
 
No, I would not be happy with a 10 round limit. All it takes is just one time
of needing more to prove that. To paraphrase good old Joe.
 
I find the "if it save just one life then it's worth it" argument to be irritating to no end. First and foremost, this argument is based on flawed logic and assumptions. There is no way that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that a ban on so-called "high capacity" magazines would save lives.

Take Sandy Hook for example: If we suppose for a moment that 30-round magazines were illegal at the time of the shooting, how do we know that the shooter would not have used illegally obtained/fabricated/modified magazines that held 30 rounds or simply carried more lower-capacity magazines? Even if he was restricted to lower-capacity magazines, how do we know that the number of people shot would've been any lower? Sturmgewehre has an excellent YouTube video in which he demonstrates the time difference between firing 20 rounds from one magazine and 20 rounds from two magazines loaded with 10 rounds each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&index=17

As you see in the video, the difference was only about half a second. That small amount of time is of little consequence to someone like the Sandy Hook shooter who has 20 minutes or more to exact his evil intentions on unarmed and helpless victims.

Furthermore, this argument completely ignores the fact that so-called "high capacity" magazines can and have been used in lawful self-defense thousands, if not millions, of times. There is absolutely no guarantee that 10, 7, or any arbitrary number of rounds will be enough to stop any threat that may present itself. If we take the 1986 Miami Dade Shootout as an example, it took several trained FBI agents 12 rounds to finally stop the murderous rampage of Michael Lee Platt. That was one man who was not under the influence of mind altering substances; multiple attackers and/or ones under the influence of strong drugs could potentially take even more rounds to stop. Because of this, a ban on magazines holding more than an arbitrary number of shots could potentially prove deadly for people trying to defend themselves if the circumstances are right.

More offensive still, this argument is a very subtle strawman that insinuates that anyone who opposes the proposed measure is against trying to save lives when nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the police, and society in general for that matter, have no legal duty to protect me, but there is no practical way for them to do so. Because of this it is my firm belief that the ultimate responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones rests upon me. I choose to mitigate the risk of violent attack to myself and my loved ones as much as possible by arming myself and preparing to defend myself and my family if necessary.

As such, the arguments for gun control basically tell me that my right to defend myself and my family is less important than the safety, or more accurately the feeling of safety, of a person who chooses not to take the same precautions that I have. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that I bear responsibility for the feelings of someone who has the same opportunity to provide for their own safety that I do but chooses not to do so. I'm sorry if I seem callous, but such people are not, nor should they be, my concern.
 
To be the devils advocate, the anti's can also use that same video to argue

"As you can see though, it only takes about half a second to switch magazines, so what's the problem if we limit them to 10 rounds or less? The difference in time doesn't make a difference then, so why are you complaining?"

I don't agree with the above statement, but I've heard it so many times already. I'm just getting tired of having to repeat myself saying, as Webley did, that it proves that it's absolutely a waste of time and money to pass a law that will ultimately be useless. Of course, the above statement is all the anti's will believe in.

But what do I know, apparently according to someone else I know, I'm very biased on the topic of gun control, despite all the facts and data I present them, and how many times I prove that their reasoning is an emotional knee jerk reaction.
 
"Just a thought here....what if all new mags were no longer "drop free"?
You could still get a hi-cap mag but when you pushed the mag release it would not just fall out. You would have to use two hands to hold the release and pull the mag out. This would slow a mass stooter way down but would still let me use hi-cap mags. Any thoughts?"

Yeah, your nuts. The other day my well maintained and highly cared for duty pistol went down while shooting/training. I had to rip the mag out and cycle the slid before putting in a new mag and then getting a round chambered and getting the firearm back in service. You feel free to weld your mags in place. I'll do it the right way. Who are you, have you ever fired a gun?
 
NO! NO! NO!
How about if the government limits cars and trucks to 50 hp & two gears! If we could save just one life.
 
If I hear one more congressman, leftist talking head, or commentator say "if it saves just one life then its worth it" I am gonna vomit


Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
 
No, I am not ok with this.
1. If previous mags are grandfathered, but can be used in public or on private property, they are NOT grandfathered.
2. These are not WMDs we are talking about they are small arms.
3. A significant percentage of pistols today that are "common use" are designed around magazines larger than 10 rnds.
4. A 25 rnd. mag for a 10/22 or a 30 rnd mag for an AR does not make them belt fed fully automatic weapons.

For the record, I don't even own an AR with higher capacity mags, but that does not mean it is not a right assured me in the constitution.
 
Yes, I've got lots of guns and enjoy shooting. I was interested in what kind of responses I would get to proposed gun laws.
Lets just say I was playing the devils advocate.
I was watching the political new this morning and I don't think there will be any AWB passed this year. Why?
First, there is no consesus among ban proponants as to what would be usefull or reasonable.
Second, lots of liberals are afraid of being voted out of office. Jumping on this band wagon could end up turning the senate over to the Rebuplicans.
Third, everyone knows this is more a mental health issue than a gun issue.

I know that lots of folks are concerned right now. (look at the run on ammo and guns the last few weeks) It just doesn't look like this is going to generate anything more than a lot of hot air.
We just need to keep up steady pressure to our elected leaders to stay the coarse. You don't need to scream or yell; just let them know that a vote for gun control will cause you to vote for someone else.

Thanks for giving your oppions. At least among the forum members it seems that any ban would be unacceptable.
 
If we agree to a 10 round capacity, we just gave in to phase 1. Anyone who agrees to this is a fool. They r coming for our guns... we need to fight this to the death.
 
Durring the last ban I was still able to get hi-cap mags but they cost a lot more. Even with the ban in place, it never caused me any loss.
Click to expand...
Then why do you think there is even a slim possibality that a ban would save even one life.
Did you ever think to really look at the other side of the coin James Holmes brought one 100 round drum and it jammed after 30 rounds and he stopped using the AR. You give him 10 10 round mags and he just swaps out the jammed mag or even more likely doesn't have a jam, since in my experiance 10 round mags are pretty dang reliable. I might also point out Harris (columbine) and Cho (Virginia Tech) show the effectiveness of multiple mags.
 
Originally posted by Kimio
To be the devils advocate, the anti's can also use that same video to argue

"As you can see though, it only takes about half a second to switch magazines, so what's the problem if we limit them to 10 rounds or less? The difference in time doesn't make a difference then, so why are you complaining?"
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument lies in the burden of proof. The burden of proof in this situation lies with the anti's to prove that banning >10 round magazines will benefit public safety to a degree that justifies the loss of liberty that said ban would represent. Because we've shown that >10 round magazines does not make a firearm substantially more deadly, and thus does not significantly increase the potential body count for a mass shooter, they cannot prove that such a ban would significantly improve public safety. This is why the anti's fall back onto emotionally-charged strawman arguments like "if it saves just one life," they cannot win a rational debate of the facts.
 
It will save lives because when a madman walks into a room of 20 with two 10 round mags to kill all - he will have to reload once.

If he walks into the room with a 15 round mag - he will have to reload ... :confused:

Wait, I'm confused.

The slippery slope practical argument is telling as is the push back against government intrusion into legally owned items protected by the BOR.

As Hairplug Joe Biden said you don't need a 12 round clip, why do you need those 11? If you can't do it in one, you should go to range and if in fact shouldn't own a gun.
 
It will save lives because when a madman walks into a room of 20 with two 10 round mags to kill all - he will have to reload once.

If he walks into the room with a 15 round mag - he will have to reload ...
Click to expand...

Exactly. When a madman has a room full of helpless victims and 20 minutes or more to carry out his evil plan, the tool he chooses is of little consequence. With that much time and no resistance, the Sandy Hook shooter could've wreaked a good amount of death and destruction with a single-shot trap gun if that had been all that was available to him. Rather than focus on the tools that were used, I think the far more productive discussion would be how to ensure that such madmen don't have large groups of helpless victims to shoot at in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top