Double edged discussions of magazine capacity

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/high-capacity-magazines-scrutiny-congress-returns-65345381?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_he d

The article discusses the move for limited magazine capacity. The negative is that they make murderous rampages easier to conduct.

The pros usually are that they are need for more intense self-defense issues. We note that the 5 is enough mantra and weapons of war description is found even in the 'gun' world.

So in the article, I found:



Alan Gottlieb, with the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, said large-capacity magazines are important for self-defense and can help when there are multiple attackers in a home.

"Plus, it only takes one second to switch out one magazine for another," he said. "There are lots of videos on how easy it is to do that."

So, the ban isn't needed because you can switch so quickly? But you just said you can switch so quickly, so isn't that ok for self-defense? That's what someone would say if they were opposed to the higher cap mags.

Can't have it both ways?

The stronger argument is the defense against tyranny but gun folks in the public eye don't go there.

[scjbash]

If you need to argue that with someone who doesn't get the defense of liberty aspect explain it like this. Mass murderers are attacking unarmed and largely defenseless people so the time it takes to change a magazine is largely irrelevant. It just doesn't matter much when shooting into a pile of people huddled in a corner. In a self defense situation against multiple assailants who are shooting back at you the time to change a magazine does matter, especially since it may be 2:00am when you're in your underwear, naked, or whatever and don't have another magazine on you to reload if you wanted to.

[fly out]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/high-capacity-magazines-scrutiny-congress-returns-65345381?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_he d

The article discusses the move for limited magazine capacity. The negative is that they make murderous rampages easier to conduct.

The pros usually are that they are need for more intense self-defense issues. We note that the 5 is enough mantra and weapons of war description is found even in the 'gun' world.

So in the article, I found:




So, the ban isn't needed because you can switch so quickly? But you just said you can switch so quickly, so isn't that ok for self-defense? That's what someone would say if they were opposed to the higher cap mags.

Can't have it both ways?

The stronger argument is the defense against tyranny but gun folks in the public eye don't go there.

In the self-defense context, where someone else has picked the time and place for your emergency, it is much less practical to need to have grabbed two spare magazines, and the gun, and to put those magazines someplace while using both hands on the gun, in order to have the same number of rounds as one standard-capacity magazine.

If you've grabbed the gun out of your safe, you'd probably be far better off using that second hand to grab ear pro.

The bad guy, who was likely ready for this, can have as many mags as he can carry. Apples and oranges.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I understand the issues of usage, I was just struck by the seeming contradiction that would be a weakness in argument.

[Duke]

I understand the issues of usage, I was just struck by the seeming contradiction that would be a weakness in argument.

Schumer wants body armor gone so active shooters can be shot more easily.

But also he wants you to not have a gun because shooting bad guys won’t solve the problems of bad guys shooting good guys ?


Same deal

[41magfan]

In the self-defense context, where someone else has picked the time and place for your emergency, it is much less practical to need to have grabbed two spare magazines, and the gun, and to put those magazines someplace while using both hands on the gun, in order to have the same number of rounds as one standard-capacity magazine.

If you've grabbed the gun out of your safe, you'd probably be far better off using that second hand to grab ear pro.

The bad guy, who was likely ready for this, can have as many mags as he can carry. Apples and oranges.

^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^

Magazine capacity is a moot point when the victim's can't or won't fight back and that's the issue in most active shooter incidents. The number of reloads isn't going to drastically change the outcome when nobody in the victim pool is fighting back.

[Bucky]

In the self-defense context, where someone else has picked the time and place for your emergency, it is much less practical to need to have grabbed two spare magazines, and the gun, and to put those magazines someplace while using both hands on the gun, in order to have the same number of rounds as one standard-capacity magazine.

If you've grabbed the gun out of your safe, you'd probably be far better off using that second hand to grab ear pro.

The bad guy, who was likely ready for this, can have as many mags as he can carry. Apples and oranges.

Exactly. The Berettas in my quick access safes have 20 rd magazines. There’s a spare near by, but I might not be in a position to take it with me.

[Bergeron]

I think it's important that we have strong pro-gun arguments, so thank you for this thread, Glenn E. Meyer.

My argument is similar to the previous two- it's the difference between Defensive Gun Use and an Active Shooter. The Active Shooter picks the time and place, and is typically attacking the unaware, unarmed, and innocent. The VT incident featured a 10-shot .22 pistol as one of the guns, and it was sufficient. Horrible crimes can be comitted with 100 year old guns in an Active Shooter setting. The Active Shooter event lasts over time, so the extra time needed for reloading is very small compared to the time of the even. Defensive Gun Uses, however, are very brief events, and the time for reloads is very significant compared to the time of the event.

About half of the Active Shooters have more than one gun, and almost every Defensive Gun Use kind of event will allow access to only a single firearm. Capacity matters to us, but not to them. The difference in effectiveness in the Active Shooter event between Guns that are 100 years old and guns that are modern is very minimal. The antis should be called out for foolishness when they make these arguments. Here's a person, walking around randomly shooting innocent people in the broad daylight, and they think the *capacity* or the *kind of gun* makes any kind of difference in reducing the carnage?! Ridiculous, disingenuous, and an argument made in bad faith.

While aiming for the moral high ground is not typical of the way that I argue, I do tend towards that technique when we're talking self-defense rights. I've worked in the offshore oilfield, and there's a lot of us out there who have had to leave a spouse and children at home at regular intervals, for whom the necessity of magazine capacity is more than theoretical.

[GardoneVT]

A more practical approach to take is one of logistics.

Setting aside the Constitution, civil rights, and the messy /arbitrary business of quantifying lethality ( is 30 rounds of 9mm “deadlier” then 5 rounds of 30-30?) it is economically and logistically impossible to restrict high capacity magazines. Assuming for discussion half the estimated 300 million lawful weapons in circulation use 10+ magazines , that’s 150 million magazines which have to be purchased (at fair market value!) , destroyed, and processed.

What agency has the manpower and budget for this massive undertaking? Even if one stood ready to do the scut work of acquiring, logging, categorizing and destroying (not converting!) millions of magazines - we are left with the task of funding the lawful purchase of these parts from the public. Not a problem when it’s a set of Check-mate Beretta mags. A set of Star Megastar 10mm mags that sell for $100 per? That’s a bigger issue.

Based on economics and human nature, it’s a foregone conclusion such a scheme would be rife with corruption and diversion of magazines to the black market. Unless the objective is to transfer magazines to the criminal underclass on the taxpayers dime, a magazine ban is simply unworkable. Like teleportation & interstellar travel, an effective magazine ban is materially impossible to execute. Regardless of one’s politics, gender or zip code.


I understand the issues of usage, I was just struck by the seeming contradiction that would be a weakness in argument.

To elaborate on an earlier point, arguing for high capacity magazines based on shooting incidents is a debate rooted in quicksand. This is because no two shootouts are exactly alike. The who, what, where, when ,why & how all change - and these variables impact the relevance of magazine capacity on the outcome.

Gunfight in an elevator between two assailants with .22 pocket guns? Capacity irrelevant. Bad guy stockpiles drum mags and pins down responding LE? Capacity very relevant. It’s also relevant when a home invasion is repulsed by a citizen who uses a drum mag in their HD weapon. It’s not relevant when a different homeowner repels a similar assault with a 5 round shotgun.

You can’t attach patterns to individual use of force incidents and argue for high capacity weapons ; it’s a quicksand game the other side can just as credibly play, since we cannot objectively connect magazine capacity alone to the lethality of an incident.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've said this before. The bans won't remove all the bad mags and guns. I think it clear from places with them, that they go underground. The effects are more insidious. If there was an AR ban and mag ban:

1. The guns become useless for most everyday uses. Saturday, I shot with about 60 ish folks. Most used guns that would be banned. Some of us used Ruger 9s for various reasons as they are fun guns. So competition with EBRs is eliminated. I'm not shooting a hidden gun in front of federal and local law.

2. You cannot hunt with them except illegally and that can run across game wardens.

3. Use in self-defense and you may win the SD but lose gun possession, mag possession challenges.

4. The accessory industry is trashed if it came to all are banned, no grandfathering.

5. There will be a cultural negative onus on them. Will new shooters buy them, no. Will a new shooter want a gun that sits in the basement or under the ground, no. Owners of such will evidentially be seen like smokers, to be pitied. Yes, pocket of gun culture will exist as there are pockets of folks who chew tobacco. Both will be yuk.

You might be turned in by your ex, your pissed off neighbor, your kid blabs at school. Your past ownership is noted from social media and a set of test and example cases are launched.

6. You leave a problem for your heirs. Do you want to stick your spouse or kids with a legal problem when you kick off? Do you expect them to go to the black market or just call the law to get them. That will erode the supply overtime. I have about 12 years left.

7. It might start a production surge in guns like the Mini-14s or Ruger carbines. That is unless the ban decides to take out all semis that are mag feed (which the smarter antis have proposed). They are well aware that after the AWB in 94, substitute AR patterns existed. I read 730,000 were made that didn't have the deadly thing that goes up. This time, the ban might be worse. Folks have noticed that in Canada and Norway, Mini-14s were used in rampages and they are being controlled.

So, the corrupt market will exist as it did for booze during prohibition and the drug market today. However, the effect is more subtle and the resistance mantra is fine but doesn't take into account the effects of usage. If you can't use the gun except for the 'revolution', so what if it is buried? Whether there would be the 'revolution' is another thread of endless length and varying opinions as to its reality.

The guns will be controlled for the present legal owners. Bad people will have them. Will it cut down somewhat on rampages as they take more effort to get - that's their argument. I like Killer Mike's argument on Bill Maher. He said something like: I just have a Biden shotgun useful out to thirty yards (yeah, I know, slugs, blah, blah) but the bad racist will still have his racist that can kill from 100 yards. I prefer to reach out to 100 yards, also.

So the logistics argument are understood, the effect will be different. There are probably quite a few full auto items out there that are not registered as NFA items. Don't see them at the range.

[Palmguy]

A more practical approach to take is one of logistics.

Setting aside the Constitution, civil rights, and the messy /arbitrary business of quantifying lethality ( is 30 rounds of 9mm “deadlier” then 5 rounds of 30-30?) it is economically and logistically impossible to restrict high capacity magazines. Assuming for discussion half the estimated 300 million lawful weapons in circulation use 10+ magazines , that’s 150 million magazines which have to be purchased (at fair market value!) , destroyed, and processed.

What agency has the manpower and budget for this massive undertaking? Even if one stood ready to do the scut work of acquiring, logging, categorizing and destroying (not converting!) millions of magazines - we are left with the task of funding the lawful purchase of these parts from the public. Not a problem when it’s a set of Check-mate Beretta mags. A set of Star Megastar 10mm mags that sell for $100 per? That’s a bigger issue.

Based on economics and human nature, it’s a foregone conclusion such a scheme would be rife with corruption and diversion of magazines to the black market. Unless the objective is to transfer magazines to the criminal underclass on the taxpayers dime, a magazine ban is simply unworkable. Like teleportation & interstellar travel, an effective magazine ban is materially impossible to execute. Regardless of one’s politics, gender or zip code.



My biggest problem with that argument is you're implicitly conceding that banning magazines is a good thing; and you are still precluding their use for the most part (for those of us who don't care to go to jail if we have to use a gun or if someone sees us using a mag at the range, etc).

[GardoneVT]

My biggest problem with that argument is you're implicitly conceding that banning magazines is a good thing; and you are still precluding their use for the most part (for those of us who don't care to go to jail if we have to use a gun or if someone sees us using a mag at the range, etc).

How is the conclusion a mag ban is logistically impossible agreeing with it?

[fly out]

A more practical approach to take is one of logistics.

What agency has the manpower and budget for this massive undertaking? Even if one stood ready to do the scut work of acquiring, logging, categorizing and destroying (not converting!) millions of magazines - we are left with the task of funding the lawful purchase of these parts from the public. Not a problem when it’s a set of Check-mate Beretta mags. A set of Star Megastar 10mm mags that sell for $100 per? That’s a bigger issue.

Based on economics and human nature, it’s a foregone conclusion such a scheme would be rife with corruption and diversion of magazines to the black market. Unless the objective is to transfer magazines to the criminal underclass on the taxpayers dime, a magazine ban is simply unworkable. Like teleportation & interstellar travel, an effective magazine ban is materially impossible to execute. Regardless of one’s politics, gender or zip code.


I don't see progressives batting an eye at spending whatever the price, hiring however many people it might take, if they thought they had the chance to rid the country of icky guns. They're automatically convinced they'll do it "right" because they believe themselves to be inerrant, so there is no downside, as far as they're concerned. Let's say that there are a billion magazines with a capacity above ten rounds. Even if they paid $100 per, that's only a $100 billion. They're nowhere near done tallying up spending wishes and they're north of $20 trillion. An extra 50 basis points for peace in our time and the lure of unfettered control?

In actuality, they're going to be budgeting something for taking the guns, too, so the number will be higher, but they'd budget $500 billion for this dream scenario, in a heartbeat.

[willie]

On mag capacity is 10 rounds an acceptable figure for us to live with? Change is around the corner. That's why I ask.

[Bucky]

On mag capacity is 10 rounds an acceptable figure for us to live with? Change is around the corner. That's why I ask.

It’ll be acceptable, until it becomes the norm. Then the push will be for 5 rounds as acceptable. And then...

[Duke]

Threads like this so quickly dissolve into sky falling hopelessness.

If we think it so unavoidable why not just given them all up or smash them now and save the worry ?

[Kyle Reese]

It’ll be acceptable, until it becomes the norm. Then the push will be for 5 rounds as acceptable. And then...Pretty much. Remember, there is no "compromise", as the other side cedes nothing and we always end up losing ground. They'll make demands, and after the next mass shooting atrocity, you can bet that they'll demand more concessions from us. Repeat a few times and we'll end up like the UK, gun rights wise.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[willie]

I agree that there is no compromise with these folks, and I understand their aims. However, we will have others negotiating for us, and I wonder where that will lead.

[Palmguy]

How is the conclusion a mag ban is logistically impossible agreeing with it?

I agree that buying back mags is logistically impossible but I don't think that's the argument to make...we're dealing with people who's sole mantra is pretty much "do something", even if you can't do everything, they'll take what they can get. A buyback certainly won't get every mag (or even most) but it still inherently criminalizes possession and the threat of that means that even if some people keep them or bury them, they are effectively off the table for "daily" use for all of us. They will take that as a win.

This conversation needs to be won by justifying the ownership and use of what we're talking about or it will be lost to incrementalism. If we skip past the "is this a good thing to do or not?" and start debating about how it can or cannot be done, we've missed the most important point.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There was Federal legislation proposed to forbid and negate state bans. It went nowhere along with the HPA and reciprocity. Fill in usual discussion of OrangeManBad and Moscow Mitch not giving a shit about proactive gun legislation.

[GardoneVT]

This conversation needs to be won by justifying the ownership and use of what we're talking about or it will be lost to incrementalism. If we skip past the "is this a good thing to do or not?" and start debating about how it can or cannot be done, we've missed the most important point.

If we’re framing this as a disagreement/ dispute with committed extremists ( I.E. gun control), then why are we trying to win them? Their goal is total disarmament, regardless of the facts. Shannon Watts ain’t changing her mind and neither am I. The best response here is static.

If the goal is to win over undecided people, pointing out common ground is best done on facts and numbers- not polemics and morality. Thus , logistics.

[BillSWPA]

I understand the issues of usage, I was just struck by the seeming contradiction that would be a weakness in argument.

The contradiction is easily addressed when considering the positions of attackers verses defenders.

The bad guys get to pick when and where the attack takes place, how many friends they bring with them, etc.

The defender might be out with one or more young children who will have to be controlled while returning fire. That means one hand is occupied controlling one or more kids while the other hand runs the gun. So, while the attackers get to use 2 hands for a reload, the defender may have to perform any needed reloads with one hand. There is a big difference in the speed of those reloads. For a defender, ammo in the gun = time in the fight in a way that is vastly different than for an attacker.

An attacker only has to carry his ammo load for the time leading up to the attack and the attack itself, and is going to come well prepared for whatever attack is planned. We do not know when the attack will take place, so we can only carry that which we can comfortably and discreetly carry throughout our day. The number of magazines we can bring is much more limited.

All of this of course assumes that those with bad intentions cannot obtain banned magazines. The ease with which users of illegal drugs are able to obtain their chosen illegal substance is instructive.

While a magazine capacity limit could be argued to hinder both the lawful and the lawless, it clearly impacts the lawful to a much greater degree.

[LOKNLOD]

How many rounds does a bad guy need to rob/rape/murder/otherwise ruin your life?

1? Maybe zero, actually, if you take his threat at face value.

How many rounds will you need to stop him if you chose to shoot?

You don't know. Maybe 0, maybe 1-2....maybe 11 or 12. You get a vote, but you don't get to choose* how Mr. Badguy reacts.

This is why there is no logical end to mag capacity restrictions - they'll always want more. There will always be enough capacity to do harm. There may not always be enough to stop it.

It's disingenuous to say mag capacity doesn't matter. It does. But it matters infinitely more to the victim defending themselves than it does to the bad guy. And while any "mass shooter" is going to use as large a capacity as they can easily get, unless theres someone to stop them, they can shoot up a mall with a double-barrel 12 gauge and do as much damage as they want. Until they get stopped.

It's just another form of the overarching theme of "there ought to be a law to (attempt to) control everyone else's behavior because I refuse to take responsibility for my own well being". Package it up in small pieces that seem reasonable to the easily-swayed masses, and take another chunk of the pie.

It seems "reasonable" to lots of otherwise not-necessarily-anti-gun folks. These are really the folks we need on our side - not true-believers disarmists, but well-meaning but ill-informed folks. If someone is "pro-gun, but..." and they're okay with CCW or self defense but "5 is enuff!"? Put their [beloved but frail female of choice] in a dark parking lot after work or home alone late at night, with 2-3 potential attackers. How many rounds do they want her to have in the gun she has available? If they answer anything less than "all of them" then you can probably write them off as a lost cause. At least maybe they'll think it through eventually.



*If you're a dedicated PFer of the Mr. White school and can land 'em twixt the eyeballs on demand from the draw while running, maybe your vote counts double...

[fixer]

Magazines in general can be switched rapidly even by inexperienced users. Quick enough that the chances of a take down during a reload are essentially nil.

Such facts are neither a justification for or against higher capacity magazines.

Its almost tautological...that mag capacity is not meaningful.

You don't need higher capacity mags, therefore, ban them.
But I can switch rapidly, so banning them makes no sense.

This is a road neither side of the argument, academically speaking, will find gold with. It is simply non sense.

[Palmguy]

If we’re framing this as a disagreement/ dispute with committed extremists ( I.E. gun control), then why are we trying to win them? Their goal is total disarmament, regardless of the facts. Shannon Watts ain’t changing her mind and neither am I. The best response here is static.

If the goal is to win over undecided people, pointing out common ground is best done on facts and numbers- not polemics and morality. Thus , logistics.

The logistics argument (by itself) completely leaves open a world of hurt for us. Even if your logistics argument convinces those in the middle, they would likely see grandfathering mags that are currently owned and prohibiting future sales as a completely reasonable compromise.

A whole lot of people are asking "why does anyone need x?" - by all means make the logistics argument, but we need the justification argument as well.

[BillSWPA]

The population that does not care one way or the other about guns but wants their kids to come home from school at the end of the day are the ones who will ultimately decide this issue during the next election. Many if not most of them are persuadable with good arguments. We have to be sure we have the good arguments. The other side has a position that sounds good in a sound byte, and that is about as much attention span as many people have.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCinVA]

So, the ban isn't needed because you can switch so quickly? But you just said you can switch so quickly, so isn't that ok for self-defense?


In self defense you are repelling an assault.

Active shooters are conducting one, usually unopposed.

The time it takes them to change a magazine is trivial because they are still in control of the space and don't face effective opposition.

That's a considerably different situation than running dry in the middle of an active gunfight.

People who say there is no difference are fucking retards who know dogshit about any of this.

The single greatest factor that determines body count when an active shooter manifests is TIME. Specifically the amount of time until his proposed slaughter turns into a gunfight. The shorter that length of time, the lower the body count.

[Pistol Pete 10]

Hi cap mags are necessary, we will need them to fight those who come to disarm us. Some of us use them for certain shooting games. I have 5 round mags for my ARs that I usually use but I also have some 30 round mags to use for self defense should it become necessary.

[Ed L]

Someone, I believe it was Massad Ayoob, made the point along the lines of 'I want to have the same safety equipment that the police have to defend myself against the same violent criminals that the police have to deal with.'

I will one up it and say I want to have the same firearm that a SWAT team uses to deal with violent criminals because I am not going to have a team backing me up. For me that is an AR-15 and a H&K VP9/P30/Glock/I dunno (maybe Beretta :).

[olstyn]

H&K VP9/P30/Glock/I dunno (maybe Beretta :).

Just say "reliable 9mm pistol with 15+ round capacity" - it's easier. :)