Double edged discussions of magazine capacity

[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.