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

[parsimonious]

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.

Pretty much, Ruger was the rep. of SAAMI. They thought that if they set the
limit it wouldn't be too bad. It didn't work, it got cut to 10.
This shows that there is no negotiating with the gun grabbers.
Bill tried it, and regretted it, and became one of the most controversial
subjects in firearms history.

 

[ViperJock]

Gun restrictions are purely arbitrary based on emotion and or a desire to be a tyrant. Either way you can't reason with them.

 

[arthrimus]

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!

To be honest, I don't think there is an issue to be fixed. We have over 200,000,000 adults in this country, and only a couple of them snap and do something like this per year. Statistically speaking we're looking at a non issue. I hate to sound cold and calculating when lives have been lost, but when we talk about legislation that effects 200,000,000 people, we should be cold and calculating. Logic is calm and enduring, emotion is volatile and temporary. We must answer these calls for a solution with the math that proves that a solution is not called for.

 

[cwillour]

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.

Learned something there reading about Ruger. I knew he supported the cap for business reasons (bad idea that it may have been) but not that he was part of the design of the 10rd limit.

So, while I still do not see anything saying that SD criteria (i.e. practical requirements for the proper use of techniques being taught at the time) where used in determining the limit, I do see the reason not to offer a starting point.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I think one round should be sufficient for most circumstances. With one round a person could defend their life, kill an animal to eat or blow your own brains out rather than watch your grandchildren loaded onto cattle cars and shipped to reeducation facilities.

 

[MadBomber]

No compromise, no restriction, no ****ing negotiation.

If someone doesn't like the US Constitution and wants to see any part of it changed, fine, have at it. There's a mechanism in place for change. Until then, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is not up for barter like an old washing machine you want to try and trade on Craigslist.

I swear, it makes me absolutely sick to see people willing to trade off parts of the Constitution. It's like telling the bully "please don't bother me anymore, I'll give you my lunch money, just don't hurt me".

Well **** that and to hell with anyone willing to bargain on this issue.

 

[cwillour]

No compromises..... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Yes, the Constitution uses those exact words, and the Supreme Court has determined that such statements in the Constitution have limits -- they have allow limits to assemblies by permitting permit requirements and there are real limits to free speech (yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or slander, for example.)

As I said, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that certain regulations around firearms are (and likely will continue to be) acceptable. The question is the scope and impact of those regulations.

As the SC has acknowledged that the 2a covers SD usage, I would think that framing any proposed limits in such a manner would at least better position a challenge.

In retrospect, maybe it would be better to stay adamant against magazine capacity limits and use data (provided such data is being collected) to attempt to overturn such a ban should one be enacted.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You are negotiating with yourself when you set magazine limitations.

The proper way to negotiate is to say "I will give up my demand that the government give me a free M240B if we elminate the NFA with federal preemption."

 

[cwillour]

To be honest, I don't think there is an issue to be fixed. We have over 200,000,000 adults in this country, and only a couple of them snap and do something like this per year. Statistically speaking we're looking at a non issue. I hate to sound cold and calculating when lives have been lost, but when we talk about legislation that effects 200,000,000 people, we should be cold and calculating. Logic is calm and enduring, emotion is volatile and temporary. We must answer these calls for a solution with the math that proves that a solution is not called for.

I happen to agree. One of the problems I have is that this is not being done effectively.

Instead , we have the few that have chosen to speak talking about the impact armed opposition may have had. Many of the folks I interact with regularly stop listening there as they have no desire to provide such opposition themselves and do not believe others would or could (and such a sentiment appears to be present in much of society, including many NRA members and other normally pro-2a individuals.)

So both sides are stuck making emotional appeals and only one side is making an appear that sounds like a viable solution to much of the voting public (even though we might both agree it is not a solution.)

OTOH, the math also appears to say that means-restriction is partially effective as a deterrent (i.e. it appears to deter impulsive actions more than planned actions.) My problem with means-restriction is that it proactively places a burden on all in an attempt to mitigate the actions of a few (and too often fails to prevent the worst of the actions.)

 

[Sylvain]

Dont use the nomenclature BS used by the media and the anti-gun people, at all!

Dont use "high capacity" magazine, they are just magazines.Dont use "assault weapon" guns, they are just gun as "assault" is a type of behavior.You cannot describe an object with it.
You can both defend and assault with a gun, same way you can with a fork (does it become an "assault" fork? Is it more evil than a regular fork? Is a defensive fork a harmless fork? Can you use a "defensive" pepper spray to attack someone?).
All my guns just use normal or standard magazines.
Glock pistols dont use "high cap" mags, they use standard capacity magazines as they come with the gun, the 33rds Glock mag is ALSO standard capacity and not "high cap" as it comes standard with the G18.

Stop trying to define things that dont exist and that will later be used against you.
If you are willing to call some of your mags "high cap" mags then you are willing to lose them.

I dont own ANY assault rifles with high cap mags, just guns with mags.

 

[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.)

You are negotiating with yourself when you set magazine limitations.

The proper way to negotiate is to say "I will give up my demand that the government give me a free M240B if we elminate the NFA with federal preemption."

I learned this as the "peel-them-off-the-ceiling" approach. Last I knew, it was understood to produce the highest peak results and the best reception when a deal closed, but at the cost of a lower closing rate and more premature terminations where better result would otherwise have been reachable.

I agree with you when you say that you first have to negotiate with yourself prior to setting a negotiation starting point, whatever that point may be. You have to weigh the odds of getting the results you want versus the odds of them walking away from the table and your not being a part of the deal.

As I (hopefully) pointed out before, now may not be the time to put forward any proposal or counter-proposal. I just hope that the opportunity to enter negotiations is not missed and we end up with a lesser result (again.)

 

[NomadS]

Standard capacity is 20-30 round magazines. Low capacity is 8-10. Restricted capacity is 5 or less. High capacity would be around 100 rounds (dang drums jam anyway).

Stop letting the left define the terms.

 

[cwillour]

Stop letting the left define the terms.

I agree and this is somewhat of what I was attempting to express, but apparently failed to communicate properly. I was positing is that if things move so that further restrictions look to be unavoidable, things might be better if our side forced the conversation into using different terms and definitions (which we would talk about and justify -- casting their terms as arbitrary, by comparison.)

 

[davedolli]

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!!! well stated +1 Any one who wants to compromise our second amendment rights should read these words many times until they understand it.

Dave

 

[ghuns]

To be honest, I don't think there is an issue to be fixed. We have over 200,000,000 adults in this country, and only a couple of them snap and do something like this per year. Statistically speaking we're looking at a non issue. I hate to sound cold and calculating when lives have been lost, but when we talk about legislation that effects 200,000,000 people, we should be cold and calculating. Logic is calm and enduring, emotion is volatile and temporary. We must answer these calls for a solution with the math that proves that a solution is not called for.

I heard a guy talking about the previous AWB on NPR last night. He was a Dr with a public health background, so I was pretty sure which direction he would go. But I was quite surprised when he said that the AWB basically did nothing. It had no measurable effect on violent crime whatsoever. So I'm feelin pretty good, cheering the guy on, like a one man amen chorus, but then he proceeds to say that what we really need is a much stricter AWB. One that limits mag capacity, bans specific weapons, with no grandfathering. Why, you ask? When he previously admitted that it really has no net effect. His reasoning was that while the effect cannot be measured in numbers, it would make us, as a nation, "feel" better. We would collectively "feel" less scared. We would all "feel" safer.

Sadly, this debate, like the ones we had after 9/11 will not be about facts and logic. It will be about "feelings". Just as taking apart the 4th Amendment made people feel safer after 9/11, chipping away at the 2nd Amendment will do the same today. It's really a win-win for big-gov types, they get to make a large percentage of the population feel good, and beat down a smaller percentage who still wish to be free.

 

[jamil]

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?

Okay, let's go for a limit of 100 rd mags. Anything more is too cumbersome and perhaps unreliable.