Who needs a gun with more than 10 rounds in the magazine?


PDA






BullfrogKen
January 27, 2013, 02:18 AM
He does.



http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/35271-2/disabled8619.jpg




This is a picture Oleg Volk posted here in 2008.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=352407





This is Joshua B. I met this young man in 2006.

His right hand will not allow him use of it to perform a magazine change. He shot the National Tactical Invitational - a dynamic, self-defense shooting event - that year with a Browning Hi-Power using a 17 rd mag. He went through the shoothouses, did Force on Force with the roleplayers, did everything every other competitor did.

Limiting magazine capacity would put guys like Joshua at even more of a disadvantage if he had to defend himself. Very often an assault on a victim involves more than one attacker. And we do not train to simply shoot one round at an attacker and wait to see if it worked before we shoot him again. We train to shoot several rounds at a threat as fast as we can.

Restricting him to 10 round magazines would mean he'd have to get out another gun if he shot all 11.

Like he's shooting here. That revolver is his back-up gun, for when he runs out of the 18 in his Browning Hi-Power or if it jams.


If you like this picture, I understand Oleg sells it as a poster. You can visit his site and purchase it.
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/disabled8619.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

If you enjoyed reading about "Who needs a gun with more than 10 rounds in the magazine?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
4v50 Gary
January 27, 2013, 02:25 AM
One should never assume that criminals operate independently. There are no shortage of examples of criminals working in teams.

Now, consider the effectiveness of bullets. The rule I was taught is, "They don't work." Never count on one bullet to stop an assailant. When one is faced with multiple assailants, it stands to reason that the less you need to reload the better one is.

chris in va
January 27, 2013, 02:29 AM
I will add, it's not a 'need' issue. The .gov has no business regulating a citizen's needs. History shows it's a path to genocide and/or incarceration.

JERRY
January 27, 2013, 02:45 AM
only morons want gun control.

i'll take the hit for non H.R. comments.

folks like the one depicted here need all the "advantages" they can get and anybody wanting to limit their ability to defend themself can go you know what to themselves.

that man shoots better than a few folks i know with all their abilities, i will stand with him and for him.

Pete D.
January 27, 2013, 07:05 AM
"Need" is a dangerous word. In the wrong hands, it can do untold damage.
We have had people telling us for decades that we don't need this kind of gun, or that kind of magazine or certain types of ammo.
What we are... what I am really being told in those circumstances is what other people need, not what I need. They don't know what I need as they have never asked me.....I suspect that they don't care much either.
Y'know...second amendment issues aside....the Constitution guarantees me "the pursuit of happiness". Pursuing happiness certainly involves having "things" in my life that I "need" to be happy.
When someone tells me that I don't need to own guns, they are deciding for me what will make me happy. They are deciding for me on the basis of what makes them happy. My own needs don't matter much to them.
Pete

Plan2Live
January 27, 2013, 07:46 AM
So to prove our point about magazine capacity we are going to use a photo of a guy using a 5 shot revolver?

Bubba613
January 27, 2013, 08:08 AM
Yeah, argument fail.

My response to that is, Who needs AR rifles? Who needs hi cap mags? I dunno. But the police issue those things regularly. If they don't need them then they shouldn't be issuing them. If they do need them then the rest of us probably need them too.

effengee
January 27, 2013, 08:22 AM
I do.

rskent
January 27, 2013, 08:43 AM
People seem to miss the point. It's not about need, it's about living in a “free” country. It's about being left alone to pursue life liberty and happiness. As long as I (meaning me, myself) am not hurting anyone, you (meaning anyone that wants to restrict my liberty) can screw off. I and the millions of other law abiding citizens that own and use AR15 rifles are not responsible for the atrocity committed in Sandy Hook. The responsibility falls on one clearly messed up individual. Please do not blame me for what he did.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
January 27, 2013, 09:01 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/06/police-shoot-137-times-into-car-after-chase-killing-unarmed-couple.html

If it takes 13 proficient & experienced law-enforcement officers a total of 137 rounds, shot into the car, why should we expect homeowners to not need more than however-many rounds it takes to stop the threat?

bds
January 27, 2013, 09:21 AM
Who needs a gun with more than 10 rounds in the magazine?
- If you are being looted by a riot mob and police decides not to intervene (Store owners during LA riot (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=698855)).

- After a major natural disaster (like hurricane Andrew/Katrina), your neighborhood criminals/gang members are robbing/attacking victims left and right and police can't provide protection.

- When multiple criminals/gang members break into your house in a home invasion robbery with intentions of rape/murder and 911/police can't help at that moment.

hso
January 27, 2013, 09:24 AM
When people ask "What do you need them for?" I tell them that's a false premise. It presumes that there's a reason to not need them.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics show there's no relationship between firearms and firearms magazines and murder rates. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 from the FBI UCR shows that of the 12,664 murders committed in 2011 323 were committed with rifles of all types (the type of rifle isn't presented in national data, but some states do parse this further to semi, bolt, lever/pump and where this is done semis are typically 1/4 of the rifles used). We don't know how many were semiauto rifles using these magazines people are fixated on, but we do know that if typically 1/4 were all capable of taking these magazines the estimate would only be eighty rifles taking 10+ round magazines were used in all of 2011. That's a pretty expensive rifle (several hundred dollars) and the number is probably smaller since law enforcement sees far more .22 killings than anything else. But, if that high estimate of 80 rifles using these magazines is used, something less than eighty murders were committed with rifles/magazines like the ones we're discussing of the 12,664 murders in the nation in 2011. That's 0.6%, six tenths of a percent! The AWB '94 study conducted by the National Research Council considered the number of rifles using these magazines that were used in violent crime before the AWB '94 to be so small as to be unmeasurable statistically and we see the same today.

More significantly there were twice as many people beaten to death with just hands and feet (728) as with all rifles and four times as many were murdered with bladed instruments (1,694) as all rifles. If we can agree on this estimate of eighty for semiauto rifles and make the high assumption they were all the type of rifles taking 10+ capacity magazines, a disadvantage in the argument I'm willing to take in the face of the small number of rifles used nationally in murder, nine times as many people may have been beaten to death with hands and feet as murdered with an the type of rifle that can use a 10+ capacity magazine and 22 times as many may have been stabbed/hacked to death as with these rifles using the magazines.

The rate of murders have been dropping since the AWB '94 expire (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)d. They're at an all time low for this generation. The DECREASE in murder has been going on while the popularity of the firearms that use these magazines have been increasing. If the number of voters using these magazines has been going up while the rate of murders with any sort of rifle is too low to be significant and the other means of committing murder are 2 to 20 times higher AND the rate of murders of any sort have fallen to a new low in 30 years how in the world is it at all relevant to think that there's a national violent crime problem related to magazine capacity or the firearms that might use a magazine that takes more than 10 rounds???

Isolated high profile murders horrify us, and they should, but rational people don't make restrictive laws on the whole public nationwide based on them.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
January 27, 2013, 09:51 AM
During Katrina hurricane in New Orleans, there were those who decided to stick it out - who were guarding their home, with guns, protecting their property and their lives.

Meanwhile, where there weren't property-owners, thieves and burglars were literally tearing off the fronts of stores and hauling away all manner of goods, in broad daylight and with news cameras rolling!

If a mob of people is this brazen in broad daylight, imagine what they might do in the middle of the night at your house, with your family inside, fast-asleep!

If necessary, I want to be able to shoot as many rounds as possible UNTIL THE THREAT CEASES!

This might mean having to take some shots through walls, through furniture, etc. to stop wherever the armed burglar(s)/killer(s) may be hiding within my home!

bikerdoc
January 27, 2013, 10:09 AM
A great pic that serves to remind the grabbers that all gun owners are not fit and trim.
Some are disabled.
Some are older.
Some are slight of build.
It is indeed a question of need.

Manco
January 27, 2013, 10:22 AM
That is an excellent point! :cool: In general, our point should be that limiting magazine capacity negatively impacts the defensive use of guns far more than it would rare mass shooters, and I can't think of a better example.

One should never assume that criminals operate independently. There are no shortage of examples of criminals working in teams.

Criminal teams are typical for the most dangerous, brazen armed robberies, such as home invasions.

Now, consider the effectiveness of bullets. The rule I was taught is, "They don't work." Never count on one bullet to stop an assailant. When one is faced with multiple assailants, it stands to reason that the less you need to reload the better one is.

The way we should frame this is that it (potentially) takes more rounds to stop a violent criminal than it does to eventually kill people, say during a mass murder spree. The victim of an attempted crime must stop the aggressive assailants before harm is done, while a mass murderer typically has much more time and safety to execute his helpless and cowering victims. In addition, mass murderers tend to wear "tactical" clothing (as the news media has repeatedly emphasized) that has numerous pockets for holding magazines, and they don't need to conceal their weapons, while law-abiding citizens are far more limited in what they can carry due to issues of concealment or what they're wearing while at home (especially at night while asleep).

I will add, it's not a 'need' issue. The .gov has no business regulating a citizen's needs. History shows it's a path to genocide and/or incarceration.

Absolutely, a government determining what it is that the people "need" is part of the Communist manifesto. Historically, it has always been that the people need very little indeed: minimal sustenance, no voice with which to speak out, no freedom. That's right, we in fact NEED very little to continue working as slaves for the all-powerful state, and obviously this is an extremely dangerous path to follow. The best current example is Communist North Korea, whose people evidently NEED even less than the Soviet population did to survive and serve their masters.

To put it in terms that people can better understand, most people don't NEED to own an automobile--they could take public transportation instead. Automobile accidents kill far more people, including children, than guns do in this country, so what if the US government decided that for safety as well as environmental reasons, Americans are no longer permitted to own a car (even one) unless they can justify a dire NEED for one or they are a government official? Biden and Obama have stated repeatedly in recent weeks that they have to do something, even if it only saves one life, and banning automobiles would save a lot more lives than that. If this sounds crazy, then so does banning certain weapons just because of their cosmetic features or limiting magazine capacity, neither of which is going to negatively impact criminal activity whatsoever.

One major issue we face is how much people trust the government when somebody like Obama (a masterful deceiver, I guess--doesn't fool me, though) is president. They don't understand human nature and history the way the Founders and Framers did, or many of us do, for that matter. We need to educate, when possible, in a more fundamental way, showing how each country that fell to Communism did so on the good intentions of charismatic leaders. People need to be reminded that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"--that's a warning about missing the big picture, and it doesn't get any bigger than infringing on our RKBA as a check against government tyranny, using Communist principles ("to each according to his need") no less, and all for NO benefit to our safety. While we're at it, we should remind people that the gridlock we often see in the federal government was designed into it deliberately so that it couldn't do much more than the basics, limiting the government's power and the corruption that always goes with power. If the gridlock seems particularly severe at the moment, it is because we've apparently reached the point where those who favor a powerful national government (which is patently un-American) are taking bold, open steps to achieve their goals.

"Need" is a dangerous word. In the wrong hands, it can do untold damage.
We have had people telling us for decades that we don't need this kind of gun, or that kind of magazine or certain types of ammo.
What we are... what I am really being told in those circumstances is what other people need, not what I need. They don't know what I need as they have never asked me.....I suspect that they don't care much either.

Additionally, in a free country it is OK to merely want and pursue, rather than to need. What we individually want is none of the government's business as long as we individually do not violate the rights of others. Laws should be created to discourage the latter through punishment, not prevent the entire population from obtaining what they want just because of the illegal actions of a handful of deranged people--especially when it would hurt many more people than it would help, as in the case of gun control in general and magazine capacity limits in particular.

Y'know...second amendment issues aside....the Constitution guarantees me "the pursuit of happiness".

Actually, this phrase only appears in the Declaration of Independence, although it does reflect the true American political philosophy. What the Constitution does is limit the power of government over our natural or, if you prefer, God-given rights, and not just for rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights (which is technically part of the Constitution). Effectively, it protects liberty from the tyranny that inevitably would result from having any government (a necessary evil) otherwise, which in turn protects our right to pursue happiness. That said, unfortunately these documents are only ideas on paper--it takes actual people to defend our own freedom in accordance with the Constitution, and wisely the Founders and Framers realized that doing so would take an armed populace (militia), which is why the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly and specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights as the 2nd Amendment.

So to prove our point about magazine capacity we are going to use a photo of a gun using a 5 shot revolver?

Good point--we'll need to use a different photo.

Simply put:

I do.

And the key point is that you are the only person qualified to say that you do, not the government nor the people with whom you are debating. Note that all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (confirmed for the 2nd Amendment by the Heller case)--there is a reason for this, and it is called liberty.

gbran
January 27, 2013, 10:31 AM
I have a really, really nice CJ5 Jeep with a 500 hp engine....... who the hell needs this? I don't. Maybe the DMV should come get it.

hso
January 27, 2013, 10:35 AM
To put it in terms that people can better understand, most people don't NEED to own an automobile--they could take public transportation instead.

That example doesn't work and using it is so easily countered to damage our argument. Mass transit isn't available to everyone, cars aren't designed to kill, cars are used every day by most people in the country to go to the doctor/work/etc., take kids to playground/Little League/etc, on and on.

A better example is size, speed or style of vehicle as opposed to cars themselves. We don't need cars that have the size, speed, style seen in the U.S. We should all drive simple 2 cycle small cars that use the least amount of metal in them. If we all drove those we wouldn't have to worry about collisions because it would always be with something just as flimsy and light as a Yugo was and the deaths that would result would be worth everyone using the same minimal type of vehicle. Doesn't sound reasonable and people will want to argue against it allowing us to point out that the AWB'94 is just like this absurd suggestion. Firearms based on style make no difference in murder rates. Studies at the end of the AWB '94 said this and current murder rate data shows it now.

bds
January 27, 2013, 10:41 AM
I went to the range yesterday with a friend and saw a gray haired old lady shooting in the next lane. She had her target set at 5 yards but was missing the target, even the cardboard backing! Her hands were shaky and it was obvious that she had arthritis.

I helped her go through the shooting basics. Her shot groups improved and after 5 target changes, she produced 3" shot groups at 7 yards. When she looked at me and genuinely thanked me, I tell you, I saw my grandmother in her face and my eyes started to tear up. I never got to shoot yesterday but it was one of the best range trips in years. She took my phone number and I told her I could meet her at the range next time she came shooting.

Who needs more than 10 rounds? She does.

cpt-t
January 27, 2013, 11:31 AM
((( bds ))): Good for you. You are a good man. The type of man that makes the rest of us proud. Thank You:
ken

Friendly, Don't Fire!
January 27, 2013, 11:49 AM
Now, it is magazine capacity.
Next, it will be caliber and muzzle-energy.:scrutiny:

There are some rifles that are so powerful, one shot would equal about three to five times (or more) the energy and penetration of the scary black guns they want to do away with. :uhoh:

Even certain 12 and 10 gauge slugs might fall into that category.

A car has much more energy than a number of guns combined!

jamesbeat
January 27, 2013, 12:11 PM
I was just about to post the thing about cars, but I was too late!

It's not a bad analogy though, is it?

Nobody 'needs' a car (gun for self protection) because we have public transport (the police).
Exponentially more children are killed by motorists than firearms owners, but we don't see calls for banning cars.

It's a good idea. Take the bus! Business owners could have heavily licensed vehicles, and they could be limited to 30mph, as it has been shown that children are far more likely to survive being hit by a car going at 30mph than 40mph.
In NY of course, cars would be capable of 30mph, but linited to 20mph :D

What's even more poignant is that there is no legal right to drive or own a vehicle, but there IS a right to own guns...

ApacheCoTodd
January 27, 2013, 01:49 PM
I actually know this fella and built items for him in a past life. That is by far the smallest thing I've ever been aware of him shooting.

What an ambassador for the sport he has been.

theautobahn
January 27, 2013, 02:02 PM
I use the sport of baseball in argument often. Baseball bats and other bludgeoning devices kill more people than rifles in general (and "assault" rifles specifically). There's no NEED to play baseball. It's a pastime enjoyed by a lot of people, as is shooting, but it's not necessary to daily life.

The baseball bat analogy also works for people who argue that guns were invented / designed with the intent to kill things - so were bats.

cbpagent72
January 27, 2013, 05:03 PM
I just shared it on my Facebook, great photo.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

pacerdude
January 27, 2013, 05:19 PM
I wish I had seen this thread before I posted to the one about banning high capacity magazines. I though by no means as disabled or handicapped asthe gentleman in the picture, am pretty much relegated to the use of pistols for home defense.

With my pacemaker and heart problems plus extra scar tissue and damage from the surgeries I cannot use high powered rifles or shotguns to protect my home or loved ones. I very much like having more than 10 bullets to stop someone from hurting myself or loved ones.

And God bless the gentleman in the photo!

JohnnyK
January 27, 2013, 06:02 PM
me... whether engaging multiple targets at 3-gun match or multiple people breaking into my house. who needs 3000 sq ft house? or vacation home? or any other want?

Pete D.
January 27, 2013, 06:37 PM
About pursuit of happiness
this phrase only appears in the Declaration of Independence
My mistake.....I should have known better.
Pete

Bohemus
January 27, 2013, 06:58 PM
Prove you need to live...
You cannot, but you have right to live.

Larry Ashcraft
January 27, 2013, 08:02 PM
So to prove our point about magazine capacity we are going to use a photo of a guy using a 5 shot revolver?
I think you missed the point entirely.

BullfrogKen
January 27, 2013, 08:09 PM
Agreed, Larry.


But it has caused some people to think about the issue in ways they've never considered before, hasn't it?

Manco
January 27, 2013, 08:56 PM
I think you missed the point entirely.

Well, another point is to make sure that other people won't miss the main point or have an apparent inconsistency to argue against (it's distracting). That's why my own analogous example of automobiles was criticized, and for some people who would miss the point I was trying to make, rightfully so (know your audience).

Blue .45
January 27, 2013, 08:56 PM
Who needs a gun with more than 10 rounds in the magazine?


No one can know until the encounter is over.

beatledog7
January 27, 2013, 09:39 PM
Another few very practical reasons: range time is expensive, and magazine loading wastes range time; magazines themselves are expensive and take up space; and some folks have to travel a long way and carefully plan in order to use a range.

I load my semi-auto mags at home before I go, saving range time for actual shooting. I don't pay by the hour, but many folks do, and time spent on the range shoving rounds into castrated magazines is time and money wasted. It also means somebody is waiting for lane time while someone else is on the lane just reloading mags.

A person can only carry so much gear in a reasonably-sized range bag. If I have 15-rounds mags and I need to shoot 150 rounds for practice, I only have to carry ten mags (given that I won't be reloading them while I'm on the range, as described above). If my mags are limited to ten rounds, I need 15 mags, and they take up 50% more room in my bag. If I'm limited to seven-rounders? I'd need 22 magazines! And what is the cost of 22 seven-round mags compared to 10 normal capacity mags?

My drive to ranges where I can shoot anything I own short of belted magnums is under 30 minutes, but many people have much further to go and much less free time. For them, range time has to be carefully planned, and they cannot afford to spend time loading mags while that clock is ticking. Such a person may not be able to practice sufficiently if all her mags must be of limited capacity--she doesn't have the time to load magazines while on the lane.

<True, some ranges will not allow entry onto the firing line with loaded mags. If that's the case where you shoot, have you ever added up how much range time you pay for while all you're doing is loading mags?>

Magazines don't cost necessarily less because they hold fewer rounds. Limited capacity magazines make range time cost more in time and money, plain and simple. Magazine capacity restrictions are therefore prejudicial against the less financially well-off and anyone who works for a living and/or has an active family.

bds
January 28, 2013, 02:39 AM
I would love to see a march in Washington made up of disabled persons in wheelchairs and wheelchair bound elderly demanding that they need more than 7/10 rounds in their guns for self protection because they have more difficulty hitting their targets when criminals/gang members victimize them in their homes.

They already get designated handicapped parking spaces due to their disabilities. What about their protection of life? Police and certain security personnel are exempted from 7/10 round magazine restrictions for various reasons. Shouldn't their disability exempt them from 7/10 magazine restrictions?

I wonder how many of them are NRA members?

More we look at the 7/10 round magazine restrictions for law abiding citizens, the more ridiculous it gets.

BHP FAN
January 28, 2013, 02:48 AM
I think the guy who said ''did Rosa Parks need to move to the front of the bus?'' nailed it. 10x.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who needs a gun with more than 10 rounds in the magazine?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!