Why 10rds? Why not 20rds? How many rds is "high capacity"

[cwillour]

Update: So I can save you the reading, I withdraw the question. I just hope we do not get worse restrictions railroaded through if pro-2a legislators refuse to partake in productive negotiations. (I am thinking of the Stimulus and Healthcare Reform bills.)

I am generally against any restrictions, but I am more worried about pro-2a folks missing the conversation entirely and an arbitrary limit being enacted without regard to real-world defense techniques and strategies.

I hate to say it from a personal rights standpoint, but if it came down to a 20rd cap on new magazines in exchange for for national carry and protections against further restrictions, I might go for it. I am really not interested in hearing the "shall not be infringed" side, as I largely agree, but I also suspect the SC would uphold a capacity ban as long as it did not infringe upon certain practical uses (such as personal defense.) What I am wondering is what is: if a cap looks likely to pass, what is a realistic number that does not have a significant impact on SD training?

Why 20? Well 10 is arbitrary as well, but leaves many mid and full-sized handguns (the kind suited for greater accuracy in a SD environment) with artificially wasted space. At 20rds, very few defensive handguns would be impacted in this way.

Additionally, 20rd AR mags are widely available and are almost as suitable for home defense (and other uses) as the larger magazines. Similar logic could be applied to most other detachable magazine rifles. As with the handgun mags, my thought is to allow the capacity to be limited only to the point that functionality is not lost or needlessly hampered.

Am I wrong in worried about a bill being passed w/o participation? After all, our non-participation allowed the other side to arbitrarily define hi-capacity mags as 10rds or more and I have never seen any science to indicate why >10rds should be defined as "high capacity". Would it impact your thought process if that arbitrary definition was changed?

 

[Mosinguy]

Why would you be "ok" for a small restriction? No restrictions. No compromise.

 

[eldirector]

What is the "in exchange" I keep hearing about. Has anyone with any authority actually offered anything at ALL "in exchange"?

All I have read about is the further erosion of rights by the federal government.

What would I define as "high capacity"? Maybe (just maybe) belt-fed. Though, that is "standard capacity" in a Ma Deuce.

 

[cosermann]

Why not 1 round?

It's not the number of rounds that's relevant. It's the premise that this can even be a subject of discussion/legislation.

Remember - the gun control crowd has been LOSING the rational argument for years. It's only in the aftermath of a situation like this, when EMOTIONS are running high, that they have a chance leverage them and possibly pass gun control legislation in an irrational, KNEE JERK manner.

Also, remember. . .
It has NOTHING to do with the children.
It has NOTHING to do with crime.
It has NOTHING to do with safety.

Those are all just PLAUSIBLE COVER for political action such as we will witness.

The ultimate goal is CONTROL of the populace through the effective BANNING of firearms. Little by little. Inch by inch.

Make no mistake.

 

[cwillour]

Why would you be "ok" for a small restriction? No restrictions. No compromise.

Mostly because the SC has already cleared the way for some restrictions. If a restriction is determined to be likely to pass, shouldn't we participate in the discussion in order to limit the damage. I am not saying we are at this point today, but it is something I think about.

I am thinking about the mistakes made in the Healthcare Reform debate. By not participating (even once it started to become clear it would pass) all opportunity for significant input was lost. If we wait until the other side has the votes to join the discussion, their willingness to consider our input is understandably low. Ask yourself, are you happier knowing that one side stayed out of designing HCR even we begin to feel the burden, or would you have preferred actual discussion possibly resulting in a more effective form? For me, if I am going to have to pay for something, I at least want it to work.

Much of the same thing happened earlier with the stimulus package, same result.

The other side may not like our position, but if we have defensible criteria (framed by SC rulings) we can start to shift the debate subject and maintain more strength in negotiations. Remember, much of the public (including many "soft-line" 2a supporters) accepts the one-sided statements we are hearing as "debate" on the subject, while many of the same folks have a hard time understanding our position.

To say it another way, if opposition to restrictions (in the house and senate) starts to erode do we build a retaining wall or do we just try to beat the ground back into shape?

 

[Captain Morgan]

Hell, why stop at 10? Why not drop down to 6, since that's what most revolvers carry? That's what several anti's are clammoring for. We have Kroger, so no need for hunting for food anynore, therefore long guns aren't needed by any civilians. We'll allow you to have a revolver for self defense only. Will you be ok with that as long as we let you carry it everywhere?

 

[Bubbajms]

I think the 10 round idea was a thought by the 1911 guys.. who needs more than 7 anyway, right? That's what my ol' pump shotgun takes!! :P

 

[SSGSAD]

Why not 1 round?

It's not the number of rounds that's relevant. It's the premise that this can even be a subject of discussion/legislation.

Remember - the gun control crowd has been LOSING the rational argument for years. It's only in the aftermath of a situation like this, when EMOTIONS are running high, that they have a chance leverage them and possibly pass gun control legislation in an irrational, KNEE JERK manner.

Also, remember. . .
It has NOTHING to do with the children.
It has NOTHING to do with crime.
It has NOTHING to do with safety.

Those are all just PLAUSIBLE COVER for political action such as we will witness.

The ultimate goal is CONTROL of the populace through the effective BANNING of firearms. Little by little. Inch by inch.

Make no mistake.

THIS, I agree 100% ..... Been saying this for YEARS .....

 

[printcraft]

Nobody really needs more than 2.
Coach guns for everyone.

 

[lovemachine]

Nobody really needs more than 2.
Coach guns for everyone.

Beware of the man with 1 bullet. He knows how to use it

 

[Mosinguy]

Look ma, I'm a radical extremist!

 

[ghuns]

20-30 rounds is "standard" capacity in my book. Anything less is "reduced" capacity.

 

[eldirector]

Well, back to the definitions.... My thoughts:

Standard Capacity - whatever the firearm ships with from the factory. So, my XD Compact would be a 9 or a 12 (+1) Standard

Extended Capacity - Anything above Standard.

Reduced Capacity - Anything below Standard. The plugs used in shotguns for waterfowl, for instance.

The arbitrary numbers are completely meaningless.

 

[cwillour]

20-30 rounds is "standard" capacity in my book. Anything less is "reduced" capacity.

In a rifle, I definitely agree. Not certain about most handguns though. I have a hard time thinking a 33rd mag in a Glock 26 (or a 22rd in a Glock 27, to stay w/in your 20-30rd guideline) looks like it was designed to be used that way. Personally, to each his own though.

OTOH, if more Congressionals decide we need to restrict 30rd mags (or if the Dems pick up 17 more seats in 2014) we may not have a choice on the 30rd mags and an arbitrary limit is likely to be set.

My question is whether we can start to redefine the "high-capacity" discussion based upon current self-defense weapons and techniques.

 

[Mosinguy]

Well, back to the definitions.... My thoughts:

Standard Capacity - whatever the firearm ships with from the factory. So, my XD Compact would be a 9 or a 12 (+1) Standard

Extended Capacity - Anything above Standard.

Reduced Capacity - Anything below Standard. The plugs used in shotguns for waterfowl, for instance.

The arbitrary numbers are completely meaningless.

Standard capacity for my AK: 30 rounds.

Standard capacity for my Suomi: 71 rounds.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

After all, our non-participation allowed the other side to arbitrarily define hi-capacity mags as 10rds or more and I have never seen any science to indicate why >10rds should be defined as "high capacity".

Ummm, what?

Bill Ruger is responsible for 10 rounds. In 1989 the 5 round limt was tossed around. Bill "Honest Man" Ruger proposed 15 thinking it would save his Mini-14 and Mini-30. 15 was used as a magazine limit in a couple of states.

10 began to be used as a compromise in a number of states and then became federal.

 

[sepe]

I'm sorry I can not take part in your poll as you left no viable option. I don't feel that there should be a restriction on magazines but I most definitely don't want people to think of me as a radical extremist because I welcome differing opinions if the other person is open to an honest conversation or debate. If they're not, I simply see them the same as the idiots with the same opinions as me that are afraid of differing opinions.

 

[arthrimus]

There's no such thing as a high cap mag. There are just mags. Can someone tell me why a 10 round mag is less dangerous than a 30 round mag. 10 round mags are less than half the size of 30s, so couldn't a murderer simply carry more 10 rounders? Changing mags on most guns is a 1 second inconvenience, does anyone think that that extra second is going to have an appreciable effect on the death toll when the victims are unarmed?

Of course not, this is a false solution, and it's only real purpose is to chip away at gun ownership entirely. When mass shootings still happen with 10 round mags they will reduce it to 5, 4, 3, how about a 2 round mag? Nope, there is no compromise to be had here. Magazine capacity doesn't hurt anybody, it just weakens the general public against an opposing armed force.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Why do I not believe in compromise on this issue? Because guns are NOT the problem. We can limit the size of magazines, but it won't fix the core issue, which is that crazy people do crazy things. We need to find out what is causing people to go on killing sprees, be it one person at a time or 20 people at a time. If we limit the magazine capacity, they'll just carry more magazines and reload more often. Then everyone will clamor that the magazine limits didn't fix the issue, so it clearly must be the fault of the semi-automatic gun. Then a new ban will take place and we'll be sitting with revolvers. Then a guy will walk in with 5 or 6 revolvers strapped to him and kill multiple people with those evil revolvers. Then there will be a cry for a complete gun ban. Sure, it might take many years for it to happen, but do you really want that? Fact of the matter is, we need to get down to the core issue and stop fixing the symptoms!

 

[Mosinowner]

No compromises..... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED