benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_55c4924b-1654-5450-8d7e-a1a081c8e5cf.html
After going on and on about “high” capacity over-10-round magazines, the author of that article leads up to this:
If you make over-10-round rifle magazines exorbitantly expensive or unable to be openly used at the shooting range without risking a felony, expect a mass shift of AR-15’s to 6.5mm Grendel, 6.8mm SPC, .30 Remington AR, .458 SOCOM....and some migration to some postban AR-10 variants or similar.
I think the national conversation on guns would be more productive if the meme that “more than 10 rounds” equals “high capacity” were treated with more skepticism. The very first repeating rifle to ever go mainstream in the early to mid 1860s (Henry, which morphed into the Winchester Model 1866) had a 15-round magazine, and full-sized 9mm’s have held more than ten rounds since the Browning P-35.
He mentions that the BATFE doesn’t keep detailed stats on criminal misuse by gun type (though they used to, with YCGIS), but the FBI publishes pretty comprehensive homicide data by weapon type in both the UCR (Table 20, and others) and LEOKA data sets, which o don’t think he’s familiar with. And I think BATFE trace data would probably show that full-sized handguns are underrepresented in street homicide compared to midsize and compact guns.
This is what happens when a journalist with a degree in international relations writes about a field he has little to no experience or firsthand knowledge of...
After going on and on about “high” capacity over-10-round magazines, the author of that article leads up to this:
In an article demonizing capacity, the climax of his article is a non sequitur; he seems profoundly ignorant of the fact that for any size handgun or rifle, lower capacity guns are larger-caliber guns, and higher-capacity guns are smaller-caliber guns, for any given dimensions; a magazine can hold more small rounds or fewer larger rounds, all else being equal. To require lower capacities is to push larger calibers for the same sized guns, or to push more concealable guns. If the converse of Mr. Cook’s premise is true, that pushing larger calibers would increase fatalities, then pushing lower capacity guns would arguably drive more homicides, not fewer. For many buyers of full-sized handguns, if you are going to be stuck with a 19th-century magazine capacity for everyday use due to exorbitant prices, those rounds are going to be the biggest you can fit 10 of in the magazine.
If you make over-10-round rifle magazines exorbitantly expensive or unable to be openly used at the shooting range without risking a felony, expect a mass shift of AR-15’s to 6.5mm Grendel, 6.8mm SPC, .30 Remington AR, .458 SOCOM....and some migration to some postban AR-10 variants or similar.
I think the national conversation on guns would be more productive if the meme that “more than 10 rounds” equals “high capacity” were treated with more skepticism. The very first repeating rifle to ever go mainstream in the early to mid 1860s (Henry, which morphed into the Winchester Model 1866) had a 15-round magazine, and full-sized 9mm’s have held more than ten rounds since the Browning P-35.
He mentions that the BATFE doesn’t keep detailed stats on criminal misuse by gun type (though they used to, with YCGIS), but the FBI publishes pretty comprehensive homicide data by weapon type in both the UCR (Table 20, and others) and LEOKA data sets, which o don’t think he’s familiar with. And I think BATFE trace data would probably show that full-sized handguns are underrepresented in street homicide compared to midsize and compact guns.
This is what happens when a journalist with a degree in international relations writes about a field he has little to no experience or firsthand knowledge of...
