Would a ban make you reconsider your EDC?

[gtrlspl]

The other day my friend asked if he could borrow my SIG P220 (my EDC) to shoot this weekend because he is considering buying one. He normally carries a SIG P226, so other than caliber and magazine capacity I do not see many differences between the guns. His only reason for the change is waiting to switch up calibers and in his opinion the only real handgun calibers are 9mm and .45ACP. This lead to another conversation.

If there were a ban on magazines over 10 rounds, but this ban not only banned the manufacture and sale of magazines over 10 rounds, it also banned ownership of any magazines over 10 rounds. Let's also say because of this there is no provision for magazines for pre-ban magazines and they too are now illegal; Would you reconsider your EDC? I know some people choose there EDC based on magazine capacity and will take a smaller caliber because of the increased capacity.

 

[rockhopper46038]

No. An enactment of a ban on magazine capacity (were it to occur) would not impact my EDC choice in any way.

 

[HavokCycle]

i have several EDCs, that i choose based on my feeling in the morning, they range from an AK, full-size G22 to subcompact .357 and .32, the latter two being legal under a NY type ban - all of which i'm fully competent with.

however, if you're asking if guns were banned outright, i'd likely stick with my subbies, for the sheer factor of not attracting attention to myself.

 

[g00n24]

That's actually a pretty good question. Assuming there would be no grandfathering of >10rd mags I think I would consider jumping up to a .45 from a 9 or 40. I know differences between pistol calibers is splitting hairs as far as ballistics go, but I carry a .40 (most of the time) because it has more rounds than the same size pistol offered in .45.

I have no problem controlling recoil from any of the calibers so I think just to get the most out of the equipment available I might jump up to a .45 from my current EDC should that be the circumstance.

 

[Vince49]

No

NO. My current edc is a 10+1 G30. A ban might make me consider switching back to the 15+1 G22 though.

 

[SERparacord]

Nope, I'm old and set in my ways, ban or not.

 

[katfishinking]

no change here. my .45 is compliant, and capable either way. besides, if that doesn't stop them, ill probably throw the gun at them and run the other way.

 

[HavokCycle]

no change here. my .45 is compliant, and capable either way. besides, if that doesn't stop them, ill probably throw the gun at them and run the other way.

throw the bullets first

 

[darrent]

Well, it could be an excuse to buy another gun. Never let a crisis go to waste

 

[Shift Zombie]

Yes, I would use it as an excuse to buy the revolver I want.

 

[9mmfan]

If the ban is going to be retroactive, I would start carrying my G20. Ten rounds of big 10mm would be alright to me.

 

[lucky4034]

yes... it would probably push me to lean towards a Conceal Carry single stack .45... probably an XDs

 

[LANShark42]

That's what I like about my SR9c. I could keep the 17 round mags for the nightstand and carry it with the 10 round mags. Perfect solution...

 

[shibumiseeker]

The AWB of 94 is why I carry a Glock 29. If I was going to be limited to 10 rounds I figured it was best to have the most power I could get in a smaller package.

Point in fact, the AWB of 94 is why we have a lot of the compact guns in higher calibers now, they got their genesis then.

 

[EM45HP]

I don't think these 1911 owners count since they chose 7 round mags to begin with.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, the Sig P220 is already by EDC, so no. My backup is a 5 shot .38 revolver, so also no.

If my department allowed it, I'd be carrying my 1911, so still no.

Other than my issued and buy back Glock, I don't think I've got a handgun that would be affected.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I'd probably switch to my ar with 30 round mag at that point.

 

[aaron580]

I will remain to carry a glock with a high cap mag. Just about every cop I've talked to about this is in agreement with me.

 

[PaxRomana]

A retroactive non-grandfathering mag ban isn't happening on the federal level. Ex post facto laws aren't constitutional, so "The Laut's" bill is DOA. States could do it but not likely. And....no, not changing a thing regardless.

 

[Sylvain]

I would not follow arbitrary limits on magazine capacity who could endanger my life and the life of my loved ones if I ever have to use a firearm in a self defense situation.
I dont plan on switching my fire extinguishers for smaller ones either, that would be putting people's lives in jeopardy as well.

If a law like that was passed it would actually be time to carry more rounds in your gun, not less.