The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing. There is no hard data, it's purely an arbitrary limit derived out of thin air. This would be like placing a daily word limit on free speech in the "public interest" of reducing "hate speech". After all, there has never been any need ever for anyone to have more than say 100 free speech words per day! So it would be perfectly reasonable to limit you to 100 per day in the public interest of reducing the literal ear violence of your potential "hate speech".
So why not 11 rounds? Next year it will be 9. Equally as arbitrary, and in their mind, should be equally as justified as long as it's always the same or LESS than they want to allow. Eventually it will be just one single round, which can only legally be allowed for the purpose of ending yourself and silencing the wrongthink.
I'm no legal scholar, but I could have sworn I've heard of case law and/or precedence before that deals with attempts to institute arbitrary limits on constitutionally-enumerated rights. It just seems like the very definition of a "slippery slope".