Double edged discussions of magazine capacity

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/..._headlines_hed

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/..._headlines_hed

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.