Playing Devil's Advocate...magazine capacity

[jblomenberg16]

So, we all know the current discussion about restricting magazine capacity to <10 rounds. A lot of the discussion I've seen from my fellow pro-gun friends, as well as several youtube videos is that magazine capacity doesn't make a difference in an actual shooting engagement. I.e., if a person is set on shooting someone, they can fire nearly as many rounds with several 10 round mags as they could with a few 30's and there would be little improvement in safety to those being attacked.

Could the anti-crowd turn that against us? In that they may say "if you really need semi-autos for self defense, and mag changes only marginally affect rate of fire, what difference does a magazine ban make?"

My response would of course be that in a defenseive situation, we would be acting to end the threat as quickly as possible, and seconds lost during a mag change could mean the difference b/w life and death, since typically the aggressor has the initial advantage and element of surprise.



By the same coin, many of the anti-gun crowd are pushing for stricter back-ground checks AND restrictions on magazine capacity. My argument to them about magazine capacity is then "if you have confirmed the person is ok to own the gun by means of a tougher background check, why wouldn't they be also ok to own a high cap magazine?"


Of course, we all know this has little to do with facts, and everything to do with control, hence the apparent conflicting stances.



What say you, INGO?

 

[Classic]

What will Homeland Security use? What does LE use? I don't make the argument that 10 rounds is just as good, I argue that someone who is so determined that they would kill their mother to get weapons will do what they are going to do regardless of magazine round count. If government takes away everything that might POTENTIALLY be used by a madman then we won't have much left.

 

[richwin]

The only thing we don't know in a defensive encounter is how many shots it will take to stop a threat. Why should the government say 10 rounds is all you need to defend yourself? If the threat is drugged up and full of determination, it may take 15 rounds or more to stop that threat. I for one want to have the advantage of having more rounds than I need, rather than not enough.

 

[Scutter01]

I say that I'm tired of having to explain my "need" for a particular firearm or accessory. "Need" is not mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment. How about they explain why they feel entitled to take it away?

 

[HavokCycle]

yeah see you're not grasping the full picture. this has nothing to do with magazine capacity or stopping school violence with 'assault rifles'

realize, for a moment, the ultimate goal here. its not stopping violence, EVERYone has admitted that no more laws will assist that.

no, the ultimate goal, is to remove your guns. plain and simple. but they can't do that. its an enormous mountain that doesn't get washed away when it rains.

instead, its a slow river thru a gorge, given enough time it carves the grand canyon. right now its magazines. then it will be the weapons they go in. then it will be ALL weapons. now you're nothing but sediment washed out to sea.

 

[Manatee]

I would be willing to settle on maximum capacity authorized for use by ANY law enforcement officer or military equivalent within the boundaries of the USA. 10 rounds for me? 10 rounds for them.

 

[Scutter01]

I would be willing to settle on maximum capacity authorized for use by ANY law enforcement officer or military equivalent within the boundaries of the USA. 10 rounds for me? 10 rounds for them.

NO MORE COMPROMISES! We've already compromised to the tune of 20,000 gun laws in the US. Why are you so ready to give up even more?!? How about NO maximum capacity? Regardless of what everyone else has.

 

[Jeremy1066]

The ultimate goal is to completely eliminate ALL weapons. Magazines capcity is just a small stepping stone, but it will set precedence.

 

[drysdaleg]

I say that I'm tired of having to explain my "need" for a particular firearm or accessory. "Need" is not mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment. How about they explain why they feel entitled to take it away?

This

 

[Manatee]

Not exactly. I really don't care what you carry. I believe I can hold my own reloading a 1911. And I've had enough training with a double barrel shotgun to put out a large number of shells at a fairly quick rate.

But, if it makes everyone in law enforcement consider what 10 rounds means to them...well, maybe the issue will just drop.

I know it's been quite awhile, but we were able to handle 20 rounds mags fairly effectively in funny plastic guns in a very hot climate without much trouble. It's funny how the threats are smaller but the NEED is greater here in the 21st century.

 

[Scutter01]

But, if it makes everyone in law enforcement consider what 10 rounds means to them...well, maybe the issue will just drop.

Except history has shown that it WON'T just drop. The instant you say "I'd settle for..." then they'll wonder what ELSE you'll settle for. The only way to stop them is to stop settling.

 

[lovemachine]

It's like a fat kid and chocolate cake.

You give him a small bite, he'll come back for more as fast as he can, but will want larger bites.

No more compromises.

 

[Bunnykid68]

NO MORE COMPROMISES! We've already compromised to the tune of 20,000 gun laws in the US. Why are you so ready to give up even more?!? How about NO maximum capacity? Regardless of what everyone else has.

Reading that statement made me realize exactly how I sounded when my son heard me griping yesterday, and I approve because I have the same smile on my face he had.

 

[SSGSAD]

I would be willing to settle on maximum capacity authorized for use by ANY law enforcement officer or military equivalent within the boundaries of the USA. 10 rounds for me? 10 rounds for them.

Ok, but what about all the "other" mags., that are "out there", and the bg, uses them AGAINST YOU?????
I guess then we'll see, how quickly, WE can change 10 round mags.....

 

[IndyDave1776]

I say that I'm tired of having to explain my "need" for a particular firearm or accessory. "Need" is not mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment. How about they explain why they feel entitled to take it away?

 

[Scutter01]

Hang on, I guess it says "being necessary to the security of a free State"...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Need is irrelevant, legally speaking. I don't need fatty foods, but I don't have to justify my purchase of them.

However, since the question is how to enter into the debate, I offer this.

1) Offense. I can kit up how I choose. I can throw on a tac vest with 20 magazines if I choose to do so. I choose when and where to engage. I have the element of surprise, and if I'm even remotely good at what I'm doing I will have engaged multiple targets before "the herd" is even aware of my existence.

2) Defense. I can plan how to respond, but that's what I'm doing. Responding to a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation that is bringing violence to me, perhaps before I recognize the possibility. I am limited to the gear I normally carry or have at hand, I can't kit up prior to engagement. Given the realities of day to day activity, its unlikely I am carrying more than two, three on the outside, magazines. I do not get to choose how many people I may have to engage, if they are armored, etc.

Pretty clear that a high capacity magazine is much more useful on defense than offense.

 

[Sgtusmc]

The fact of the matter is that they are goading you into an argument for your rights. Its a jedi mind trick so to speak.

 

[Manatee]

I've got a couple questions to ask.

Within the borders of the USA,

How many times have you been fired upon?
How many times have you been assaulted?
How many rounds of fire did you return?

(Assumes you aren't a professional in enforcement)

 

[IndyDave1776]

The fact of the matter is that they are goading you into an argument for your rights. Its a jedi mind trick so to speak.

Absolutely right. A right is not subject to condition, limitation, or revocation aside from liability due to using it to cause harm to others (i.e., slander, murder, human sacrifice, and fraud are all illegal although they may be perpetrated through the use of speech, religion, or arms). Consequently, we have already lost when we start negotiating over something that is not negotiable.