What is with all of this hype with High Capacity Magazines?


PDA






GuyWithQuestions
May 15, 2007, 03:57 PM
I hear about people complaining all the time about high capacity magazines. My handgun case says "Not legal in California" and some people think my gun is an assault weapon because it holds more than 10 rounds. :scrutiny: I hear about what's going on in Illinois and how they're trying to force Springfield Armory to limit their magazine capacity to 10 rounds? I go to the Brady website and they say that there was this one cop who this one time said there's no reason to have more than 10 rounds on you because in self-defense people tend to shoot multiple times at their killer. The Bradys said that some people have a tendency to empty their magazines before they stop shooting. I don't get it? Many experts say to keep shooting until the deadly threat against you has stopped. From research I've done on legitimate self-defense situations, a lot of people make the mistake of only shooting one time and then are killed because the threat wasn't stopped. All these other areas say that "one shot stops" with handguns is a myth and Hollywood isn't that accurate. I thought that many courts have ruled that the number of rounds fired is irrelevant, only whether deadly force was justified in the first place and if the victim stopped shooting once the threat clearly stopped. So let's say the worse case scenario, someone who's about to be murdered starts shooting away at their would be murderer. The victim doesn't understand "stop once the threat clearly stops". What's the worse of the two evils, a murderer who murders his victim because the victim doesn't have enough fire power for self-defense or the victim who shoots a few more rounds into the would be murderer than necessary?

If you enjoyed reading about "What is with all of this hype with High Capacity Magazines?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
strat81
May 15, 2007, 05:47 PM
Stop trying to understand the anti-gun mentality. It WILL make your head explode.

Jkwas
May 15, 2007, 05:51 PM
Laws made by people who have little to no understanding of what they are legislating. Sad.

Autolite
May 16, 2007, 12:12 PM
The magazine capacity laws perform the same function as ALL other gun laws and that is to create the illusion of public safety. Politicians, those with functioning brains, understand the concept of illusion. They know that no gun law will prevent criminals from carrying out their nasty deeds, however, they also know the the general public "feels" safer with the laws in place. No career minded politician is going to admit that guns laws are an ineffective facade ...

ArfinGreebly
May 16, 2007, 12:27 PM
I remember being asked why "anyone needs more than six rounds" on the same day that a home invasion by three men was reported.

After pointing out that home invasions often employ multiple bad guys, the response was . . . "Why would you need more than a couple of shots for each bad guy?"

Well, come spend an afternoon with me at the range . . .

quatin
May 16, 2007, 12:33 PM
Because in case of a mass shooting a "smaller mag" will mean more reloads and less time shooting people and therefore less casualties. Just like no guns will mean a less efficient method of mass killing and less casualties.

Big Calhoun
May 16, 2007, 12:36 PM
It's all hype. The way I look at it, the capacity of a magazine is just another selling point for gun control. I.E. the more rounds you can hold, the more death you can deal out. I find it ironic that in most shootings I read about, the victim is usually only shot once or twice. Go figure.

ChrisMG
May 16, 2007, 12:47 PM
I copied this from the Gun Facts PDF (Page 64):

Myth: High capacity guns lead to more deadly shootings

Fact: Much of this myth comes from the fact that the general availability of high-capacity
handguns briefly preceded the rise in the crack cocaine trade, which brought a new kind of
violence in local drugs wars.

Fact: The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the
increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. Indeed, the number of shots from revolvers
(all within 6-8 round capacity) and semi-automatics were about the same – 2.04 vs. 2.53.324 In a
crime or gun battle, there is seldom time or need to shoot more.

Fact: Fatal criminal shootings declined from 4.3% to 3.3% from 1974 through 1995, when the
increase in semi-automatics and large capacity handguns were rising at their fastest rate.325 Fatal
shootings of police officers declined sharply from 1988 through 1993.

Fact: Drug dealers tend to be “more deliberate in their efforts to kill their victims by shooting
them multiple times”.

www.gunfacts.info (awesome resource!)

slow944
May 16, 2007, 01:02 PM
I was just reading about a couple of 17 year olds that attempted to rob a store and after fireing a couple of shots the clerk pulled his gun and shot one of them and fired at the other who escaped and then tried to shoot the police when they came to arrest him. Both of them had guns and you know they didn't buy them in any gun store or gun show, they either stole them from someone or they bought them off the street from some other criminal. So bans on Hi-Cap mags and all the other Touchy-Feely stuff that Politicians do is just to get votes.

Jim K
May 16, 2007, 02:40 PM
The anti-gun gang has one goal - a complete and total ban on ALL private ownership of firearms. Some even want a total ban on all firearms, including those issued to the police and military. (A disarmed armed forces would seem silly to anyone but a dedicated anti-gun nut, but they say arms might be issued to the army if the country were attacked.)

The idea is gradualism. Rather than trying to just ban guns, and send the army to kill anyone who owns one, most anti-gun crazies have opted for an incremental approach, banning one type of gun or one type of accessory at a time, and exploiting what they perceive as weaknesses.

The "high cap" magazine is seen as a weakness to be exploited with "who needs 30 rounds?" Maryland has a 20 round limit on magazines; larger ones can be owned but not bought or sold. But now the anti-gunsters are proposing a 10-round limit. In states with a 10-round limit, they are asking for a 5-round limit, banning most revolvers as well as limiting magazines. If they get a 5-round limit, they will propose a two round limit or a ban on anything but a single shot, and then only for hunting by a person who can pass a battery of tests on hunting skills.

Another neat approach is the proposal to ban "military weapons not suitable for civilian use." The proposal will be billed as a "reasonable measure" to ban machineguns and bazookas. But it would extend to all types of guns and gun actions ever used for any purpose at any time by any military force. So all bolt actions, all lever actions, all pump actions, all break open actions and all single shots would be banned, along with all muzzle loaders.

Jim

ArfinGreebly
May 16, 2007, 02:47 PM
. . . "military weapons not suitable for civilian use."
Which, ironically, is the inverse of Miller.

Miller lost, if I recall, because his sawn-off shotgun "served no valid militia purpose" (or some such phrasing) -- meaning "you can't have one 'cuz it's not suitable for military applications."

fletcher
May 16, 2007, 04:07 PM
Having more than 10 rounds is dangerous for the same reason being 18 makes you responsible.

SkiLune
May 16, 2007, 04:13 PM
Just political posturing. The pols are trying to make it look like they are actually doing something.

Rumble
May 16, 2007, 04:40 PM
I think ArfinGreebly's and quatin's comments suggest two important characteristics about individuals who make arguments against so-called "high capacity" magazines.

First, there is a misunderstanding of the effectiveness of a handgun. The question of why anyone would need more than, say, 6 rounds assumes that a) handguns are death rays, so one bullet is all you need; and b) it's easy to successfully hit your target shooting a handgun. Before I got into shooting, I admit that I believed similarly, and wondered why anyone would "need" guns that had 30-round magazines or whatever.

The second, and what bugs me more, is that the argument that lower mag caps mean fewer casualties implies that a low number of casualties is no big deal--it's only when the numbers get big that it's a problem. That if Cho had killed only a couple people at VT, then it would have been a tragic, but un-trumpeted, murder-suicide news bit.

I've said it before, but that particular argument pathway is like the old joke about "now we're just haggling over the price."

GuyWithQuestions
May 16, 2007, 05:14 PM
Well I can understand if someone says that a few casualities is bad, but a lot is worse and it's good to place limits on the gunman from taking down a lot of casualities. What I don't get is when I do a google scholar search and find out that the police only hit their target about 1/5 of the time in high stress situations and that the idea of one shot stops is a myth. This is from scholarly sources, not popular magazines. Police practice a lot, that's an assumption I make. A non-LEO citizen may be less skilled than the police and so the citizen may miss a lot of his/her shots, and so will need to have an adequate amount of rounds. Since the bad guy can keep on attacking after being shot, it's important that the law abiding citizen be able to defend oneself by being allowed to shoot until the threat stops.

GuyWithQuestions
May 16, 2007, 05:19 PM
What I also don't understand is that the Brady website says that a lot of citizens have the tendency to keep on shooting after they've shot the bad guy. I don't get that logic? Isn't it recommended to keep on shooting until the threat stops and that's a life or death mistake some people make?

SkiLune
May 16, 2007, 05:29 PM
I don't get that logic?

Well, that's a good thing .........because it is illogical. The banners believe that when you put a gun in a good person's hands, he/she will suddenly become a homicidal maniac, rather than a man/woman who simply wants to to be able to defend him/herself if the need ever arises, while waiting for the police to arrive. Pretty straightforward.

I wonder if the "antis" have ever taken an NRA style Home Protection course, or read any of Ayoob's work.

Glockman17366
May 16, 2007, 05:33 PM
"What I also don't understand is that the Brady website says that a lot of citizens have the tendency to keep on shooting after they've shot the bad guy. I don't get that logic? Isn't it recommended to keep on shooting until the threat stops and that's a life or death mistake some people make?"

Cops do it too... You read about this quite frequently.
I'd guess it's the adrenaline doing the shooting, actually.

Anyway...folks, I always use the term "Standard Capacity" and I correct those who use the term high capacity for a standard issue magazine. For a Glock (as an example), I could see the G18 extended magazine (33 rounds) being called a high cap, but not the standard 12-17 round (depending on calibre) that comes with the gun.
Please join me on this...and correct your own usage and those of others...especially elected folks and those who rail against gun ownership, in general.

Along those lines...
Please stop calling AR 15 and AK 47 rifles (and others) "assault rifles". These semi-automatic rifles with detachable mags are nothing more then sporting rifles.
An "Assault Rifle" is a selective fire or full automatic weapon.

Anti-rights poeple use scary terms to describe firearms. It's our job to help them learn their errors and help those on the fence (of this issue) to understand the truth about firearms.

SkiLune
May 16, 2007, 05:34 PM
Oh, and more to your point, they believe, as someone pointed out earlier, that handguns are like Star Trek phasers or something. LOL. I suppose some here think of the much maligned 9mm as a stun gun.;)

lee n. field
May 16, 2007, 05:40 PM
Magazine bans l are just one out of pick list of items they want. It doesn't have to actually make sense, it just has to sound good. The long term strategy is to incrementally infringe RKBA until it's essentially gone.

I hear about what's going on in Illinois and how they're trying to force Springfield Armory to limit their magazine capacity to 10 rounds?

They (the usual suspects) aren't specifically trying to limit SA. They're trying to do this for everybody. Springfield itself, should the ban pass and they choose to stay, would be inconvenienced. XD magazines are made elsewhere, and others could be contracted out if they're not already.

Anyway...folks, I always use the term "Standard Capacity"
Please stop calling AR 15 and AK 47 rifles (and others) "assault rifles".

Ditto. Stop using VPC's rhetorically loaded terms. "Standard capacity", "full capacity", "normal capacity" are all better. Today's hunting rifle was the infantry man's issued war rifle up through WWII.

DoubleTapDrew
May 16, 2007, 05:46 PM
What I also don't understand is that the Brady website says...

They also say 50 caliber guns will shoot down aircraft and knock trains off the tracks.

Just because I'm only planning on driving 30 miles doesn't mean I'm only going to put 2 gallons of gas in my car.

ConfuseUs
May 16, 2007, 05:50 PM
Police practice a lot, that's an assumption I make. A non-LEO citizen may be less skilled than the police and so the citizen may miss a lot of his/her shots, and so will need to have an adequate amount of rounds.


Actually, some police practice a lot and are very good shooters. Others practice a little and are average shots, and a shocking number of police shoot once a year (qualification) and no more. Those police are poor shots.
In short, police are NOT blessed with super powers of marksmanship that the non-LEO citizen cannot acquire. A higher proportion of LEOs are unskilled with firearms than you would expect.

AS far as magazine capacity, un-informed people think that limiting magazines to 10rds will make mass shootings harder. However, if you ever sit down with a gun and a pile of 10 rd magazines and spend 20 min. dropping mags and slapping new ones in you'll see that it doesn't matter much at all. Magazine capacity means nothing in relation to how much ammo you have loaded into magazines already.

Where magazine capacity can count is if you have thugs kicking down your door. Suppose in this situation you have only a 9mm. A 10rd mag is adequate, but a 15-18 rd magazine is better.

A situation where magazine capacity doesn't matter much: The same thugs are kicking down your door and you have a 9mm hicap pistol and a 12 guage shotgun with 4 rds of buckshot. I will take the 4 rds of 12 guage buckshot in that situation first, as will many others.

nezumi
May 16, 2007, 06:13 PM
The reason is simple. Suppose you're a Bad Guy. You'll want a gun with a large magazine. If you can't get one of those in the US, you'll go to some other country to get it and, as long as you're there anyway, commit your crimes there.

On the other hand, supposing you're a Good Guy, you don't need a gun at all because the police are just a phone call (and ten minutes) away. Once you call 911, you're safe.

DoubleTapDrew
May 16, 2007, 06:55 PM
you don't need a gun at all because the police are just a phone call (and ten minutes) away. Once you call 911, you're safe.

I hear the new Verizon Bradyberry phone casts a inpenetrable shield of ignorance around you when you dial 911 and hit send! :p

ServiceSoon
May 16, 2007, 08:39 PM
Miller lost, if I recall, because his sawn-off shotgun "served no valid militia purpose" (or some such phrasing) -- meaning "you can't have one 'cuz it's not suitable for military applications."

Except, weren't shotguns used in the trenches during one of the world wars?

Happyshooter
May 16, 2007, 09:55 PM
Miller decided that sawed off were not army guns, because it was a one sided case. The prisoners were already freed and the NRA was still too pro-gov to show up instead of them, so the only party to the case was the .gov, who lied about the .mil use of sawed off shotguns.

Zen21Tao
May 16, 2007, 11:09 PM
Ok. Here is the deal. Anti-gunners practice incrementalism to get there agenda passed 'little-by-little' because they know they can't get to their ultimate goal in large chunks .

Consider this famous scientific experiment. Bring a pot of water to a boil then throw a frog in. It will immediately jump out. However, put the frog in the pot and turn the temp up little-by-little and it will stay there and get cooked.

The antis have found this also holds true for infringements on personal rights. When they come out with attempts at wide spread bans they are resisted strongly by the majority. However, when they seek small pieces of legislation they claim to be "reasonable", many more people are willing to allow them this small victory. However, they always find excuses to come back for more and more.

When it came to attacking military style weapons to make 'soccer moms' feel more secure the antis needed a way to identify and vilify the weapons they wanted ban. What they did was thumb through gun magazines choosing weapons that had a military appearance and then presented these semi-auto rifles along side of the full autos they look like in order to confuse the public between the two, often talking about them interchangeably. To further make semi-auto military LOOKING rifles appear less like semi-auto hunting rifles and more like machine guns, they focused on the magazine capacity. Most semi-auto hunting rifle used low capacity magazines for practice reasons (lighter weight, more maneuverable, etc) while machine guns use large capacity "clips."

The antis expect the public to be too ignorant to understand that it only takes a matter of seconds to swap a magazine. When it comes down to using two 15 round magazines compared to three 10 round magazines, the latter only requires one additional magazine swap that only takes a matter of seconds. And what about a 10 round .45 cal magazine compared to say a 12 round magazine?

Again, magazine capacity is nothing more then a gun grabber ploy to vilify a type of weapon and make it appear less like other weapons so they can get away with another small victory on the way to their ultimate goal.

.cheese.
May 16, 2007, 11:16 PM
I go to the Brady website and they say that there was this one cop who this one time said there's no reason to have more than 10 rounds on you because in self-defense people tend to shoot multiple times at their killer.

ROTFLMAO!

Mrs. Brady: And this one time, at band-camp... this cop came... and he said that this one time he realized that people don't need more than 10 rounds of ammunition... and it was like totally cool and he was totally right

2TransAms
May 16, 2007, 11:34 PM
Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?

.cheese.
May 16, 2007, 11:36 PM
Oh man..... I just recently read the history of this....

Now I gotta find it again.

.cheese.
May 16, 2007, 11:46 PM
I give up.... I can't find it.

I'm pretty sure it was either on the Glocktalk website, or on the Smith and Wesson Forum.

PH/CIB
May 17, 2007, 12:18 AM
Lets say I shoot one 33 round Glock 9mm magazine or four ten round 9mm magazines, the only difference is the 2 seconds required to switch out each empty magazine with a new fully loaded one,,,for a total of 6 extra seconds (first 10 round magazine is already in the gun )and 7 extra 9mm rounds with the four 10 round magazines. I don't think the two seconds between the magazine changes is going to save anyones life.

ConfuseUs
May 17, 2007, 04:32 AM
Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?


and


Oh man..... I just recently read the history of this....

Now I gotta find it again.


"No honest man needs more than ten rounds in his gun." Bill Ruger Sr.

At least, I think that's where the 10 rd limit for AWB '94 came from.

That's why

"No honest gun-owner needs a Ruger."

SkiLune
May 17, 2007, 02:46 PM
"Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?

Just don't let the Brady Bunch know about +1, or else the magic number w/b 9.

benEzra
May 17, 2007, 05:00 PM
"Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?
They originally tried to go with a six-round limit for handguns, 5 for rifles, and 3 for shotguns, IIRC (see Brady II and the original DeConcini AWB bill). I assume the 6-round limit was to avoid outlawing traditional revolvers. Problem was, a 6 round limit would have outlawed practically all pistols, so they decided to go with ten rounds--still ridiculously low (over-10-rounders date from the 1860's), but a limit they probably considered more achievable.

john1911
May 17, 2007, 05:54 PM
Hi-cap bans are just the first of many small steps designed to outlaw civilian gun ownership.
These politicians use events like the Va. Tech shooting to push an agenda. The current mindset in this country would have allowed the same result no matter if the shooter was using a single shot handgun. Hiding and cowering will not save your butt! The only cure for violence is greater violence to those that would do evil.

Leif Runenritzer
May 17, 2007, 06:27 PM
Something i saw as someone's signature once:
No honest man needs a Ruger.

This is a good thread. Also, i'm reminded of FerFAL's survival stories wherein he says that doublestacks are ideal for multiple attackers, and being attacked by another car while you are driving. But these are but hypothetical justifications. What it comes down to is freedom and rights. If you're a freedom-loving individual, not needing a right is no reason to give it up. Especially if it's to be given up for no good reason.

kikr
May 17, 2007, 08:59 PM
I remember when Clinton was governor of Arkansas and him and Hitlery tried to ban all weapons that had over a three round capacity in a tubular magazine.

The Brady folks don't know jack about weapons except that all their bodyguards carry them.

I have an "assault rifle", a "patrol rifle" and a couple of sporting rifles. My assault rifles have detachable High Capacity magazines that are the standard for that WEAPON. My sporting rifles mostly have tubular magazines that hold adequate rounds for that sport.

All the PCness is touching but I'm going to maintain that my assault rifle is for killing people, and my sport rilfes are for killing animals, my pistols with high capacity magazines are for insuring that I have a weapon on my person at all times to aid my defense untill I can retrieve my assault rifle or to fall back on if my assault rifle should fail.

ctdonath
May 17, 2007, 11:18 PM
the Brady website says that a lot of citizens have the tendency to keep on shooting after they've shot the bad guy. I don't get that logic?I wouldn't entirely discount the notion.

The mind does strange things when it gets forced into horrible situations it doesn't know what to do with. Someone who has never seriously thought through shooting an assailant may very well not know when to stop. The untrained mind may enter the state of very simple processing: "life in danger ... have weapon ... attack attack attack attack attack attack...". Don't underestimate the ability of people to do irrational things when they're scared out of their minds. Do not take "fight or flight" lightly, as either can be easily taken to an extreme to ensure the threat is passed.

That said, so what? If an innocent is on the verge of being killed by a criminal, do you think s/he would, being a normal person in understandable circumstances, want as much ammo as possible? Do we really value the criminal so much as to, under our current cushy non-threatening situations, place limits on the innocent? Of course not.

There will be flaws with any solution. Better to err in favor of the innocent's ability to fight back.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is with all of this hype with High Capacity Magazines?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!