Double edged discussions of magazine capacity

[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.