1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by timmy4, Jan 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. timmy4

    timmy4 Well-Known Member

    Good morning. My previous thread is temporarily closed, and since it is devoted to an overall discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I thought I would devote another thread to this specific issue, and why I am in favor of it. First let me make a number of points:

    1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.

    2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings.

    The basis of my argument comes from several law enforcement agencies. Here is a partial list:

    National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
    Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
    Hispanic American police Command Officers Association
    National Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
    National Association of Chiefs of Police
    Major Cities Chiefs Association
    National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
    National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives
    National Sherrif's Association
    Police Executive Research Forum
    Police Foundation

    All of these national organizations, and many if not most state law enforcement agencies, are in favor of this ban. Their reasoning is pretty simple:

    1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.
    2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

    That is the basis for my argument. Obviously there is much more detail, and I look forward to the responses I receive. One thing- I am in and out much of the day. I ask that, even if I am not here to respond, that the moderators not close this thread. I promise that I WILL get back to it. Thanks.
  2. au01st

    au01st Well-Known Member

    Nuff said...
  3. Steve H

    Steve H Well-Known Member

  4. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Well-Known Member

    Number 2 on your OP is not only true, but makes this thread pointless.
  5. airsix

    airsix Member

    By your logic the easiest time to take out a victim defending themselves is while they are reloading. Also, I counter that a magazine ban is a constitutional violation because SCOTUS has ruled 2A protects arms "in common use". A high capacity mag isn't high capacity. It is standard capacity. The AR platform is the most popular rifle in America and its standard magazine is 30 rounds. Semi-auto pistols with 15-17 round capacity are the most common handguns. According to SCOTUS these are exactly the very arms protected.
  6. Midnight Oil

    Midnight Oil Well-Known Member

    i hear this argument very often. have you ever changed out a magazine before? it takes like 2 seconds to drop the spent mag and put in a new one. If someone is shooting, not necessarily at you, how close do you think you'd be to the said shooter? Are you charging toward where the shots are coming from? or would you most likely be running in the opposite direction? Also, how likely do you think you'll be in apprehending this shooter without a gun (aka going in for the tackle). you've cited loughner, in the grand scheme of things (over the course of infinity), everything has 100% probability that it will happen. do something enough times, even if it's a .0000000001% chance of success, over the course of infinity there is a 100% chance that it will succeed at some point time. just something to think about.
  7. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Well-Known Member

    Ah, a list of law enforcement associations, typically run by police chiefs and desk jockeys. You also left out Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors know better than peasants too. Also Obama and most of the federal administration. They know better than us.

    Funny...how all the cops I call friends are in favor of high-capacity magazines. Since when did we allow trolling?
  8. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Well-Known Member

    My problem with a magazine capacity limit is that it is entirely arbitrary. If you want to limit all guns to say, 15 rounds a magazine, you severely limit the capability of the AR15 but barely phase the killing power of a M1A rifle (google it) which fires a far deadlier cartridge. Furthermore, a hunting shotgun with a 5 round capacity can put a total of 40 .33 caliber bullets down range without reloading because it uses shells which contain multiple bullets while an AR15 with a standard 30 round magazine which fires one bullet at a time, can only put 30 .22 caliber bullets downrange before a reload is necessary. A mass shooter with a shotgun, especially in the confines of a classroom would be far deadlier than a mass shooter with an AR, but mass shooters select the AR15 because of its menacing looks and purported killing power when in reality it can barely bring down a deer.

    If the goal is to limit the lethality of a mass killer then a comprehensive ban involving intense study of the efficacy of every cartridge and shell and caliber would have to be put in place. Such a ban, to bring every weapon down to the relative killing power of an AR15 with a 15 round magazines, would require limiting shotguns to 2 shots each, banning large bore hunting rifles and revolvers entirely, reducing the capacity of .308 rifles to 5 rounds, .243 rifles to 7 rounds, and so on. Hopefully you are beginning to see that a limit on magazine capacity to any arbitrary number that applies to all guns is nothing more than feel good lawmaking.

    Why then is no such comprehensive and specific ban being promoted? Because anti-gun politicians don't care and don't understand how firearms work and refuse to learn. They only care about advancing their careers, and in the rare cases of victim turned activist, such as Sarah Brady and Gabby Giffords, they only care about doing "something" about gun violence and generally sticking to us gun owners. Meanwhile, as we argue about this and the polls on gun control shift by barely 2 percentage points in any given direction, our children are no safer.

    Now would be the time to push for government funded mental health care and screening, which would go a long way to achieving the Democratic ideal of single payer health care, but they ignore this because guns are an easy target and good talking point. Mental health care improvements could make our children safer right now. Armed teachers could too. A magazine limit, which would never pass unless it let us keep our existing magazines, would take a generation to take effect, if not longer, as magazines are easily maintained and repaired. Adam Lanza stole a rifle that had been outlawed but 'grandfathered' into legality since it was owned before Ct. banned them, and this is exactly how mass killers would acquire magazines if a ban on them was passed.

    Then you have to consider what a magazine is: a curved piece of plastic or stamped metal with another piece of plastic or metal and a spring in it. Anyone with access to a hardware store could make high capacity magazines if they wanted to. Nobody does because they are currently legal, cheap, high quality and ubiquitous, but if that changed people would illegally fabricate them. Not only can they be made with simple parts, but with 3D printing technology, which will come of age within the next 20 years and become ubiquitous, people will be able to make factory grade polymer high capacity magazines with the push of a button. How the hell do you regulate that? You could make it illegal but it would be illegal in the same way the online piracy is illegal... you'll never get in trouble if you are smart and don't go around bragging about it.

    You would never see these home brew magazines at the range during a ban, but many of us would keep them loaded and hidden, in the back of our safe, under a floorboard, etc. in case we ever needed them and there is nothing stopping dangerous criminals from doing the same and doing it on a larger scale.

    So I ask you again?

    How do you regulate high capacity magazines?

    I await your answer.
  9. timmy4

    timmy4 Well-Known Member

    No it isn't. Please note the words "in general". The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.
  10. 1911Jeeper

    1911Jeeper Active Member

    I am shooting back.

    30 rounds is the standard capacity for an AR-15, since Colt first made them.

    Police Chiefs serve at the pleasure of Mayors and City Councils, and are just as politically motivated as elected officials who employ them.

  11. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Well-Known Member

    Why did all law enforcement agencies (including ones which are member of the orgs you listed) jump on the chance to acquire service pistols with high capacity magazines as soon as they became cheap and available?

    Because they are ideal for personal defense.
  12. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Well-Known Member

    The awb only limited the manufacture and transfer of current issue large cap mags, it only raised the price of currently owned but grandfathered mags. And since the sunset there have probably been a billion or more put into circulation. It will not make a bit of difference to a mass shooter as he will only find more mags, or find a different method .
  13. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Well-Known Member

    They are so rare that they are really statistical blips and barely add to the murder rate. Why infringe on the rights of millions of people for a statistical blip?
  14. armoredman

    armoredman Well-Known Member

    You've got brass, I'll give ye that.

    Let me boil what you just said down to one statement, "I know taking away your lawfully held private property will do nothing to stop any crimes whatsoever, but will make me feel better knowing your lawfully held private property, (since I believe with no basis in reality that it is not part of the 'arms' covered under the Second Amendment), has been taken away from every law abiding citizen, since criminals won't obey the law anyway."
    To support that - Gen. Gage's first movement against the colonists was the powder and shot stores at the Concord Arsenal, to wit, and the term does apply, the town's magazine. If he could have limited them to two rounds per man, he would have done so, as every engagement would have been over that much quicker, since the Minuteman's possibles bag contained his powder and shot, generally 40 rounds per man, IIRC. That was their "high capacity" magazine.

    No, I'm sorry, sir, I completely and totally disagree with you, though I do salute you for not trying to hide behind fake 2A stances like our elected officials, you do come right out and admit you're an anti-rights person.
    As for your police chiefs associations, perhaps they would learn a thing from all the Sheriffs who have come out personally against the ideas in question, and have sworn to not enforce such illegal acts.
    Please have a nice day.
  15. Gaiudo

    Gaiudo Well-Known Member

    How do you propose to make this enforceable, given the hundreds of millions of normal-capacity magazines currently in civilian hands? All untraceable. Potentially with the ability to print polymer magazines using 3D print technology. Do you think this will actually affect anyone who is law abiding?

    Secondly, do you really propose to revert magazine capacity to levels pre-late 1800's? +10 rounds includes the venerable Winchester, as well as various other firearms. This is not "high capacity", this is considered "standard capacity", and has been for over a hundred years.

    Additionally, what is the real benefit here? Mag changes can be made in an AR in two seconds. The official report from the VT shooting was that magazine restrictions would have had minimal effect on the end result of the campus shooting.

    Finally, people who have planned a mass shooting can fill a backpack full of mags (VTech, Aurora, etc. all apply); my wife typically has one magazine within reach, namely the one attached to her AR-15. The benefit of normal-capacity magazines is heavily weighted towards the normal, law-abiding citizen, and away from those intent on mass murder.

    As for your anecdote about Jarod Loughner, come on Timmy, do a little more research if you're going to argue seriously. Loughner had a Glock, and he was tackled when his magazine jammed.
  16. Steve H

    Steve H Well-Known Member

    The magazines are NOT deadly................the idiot using them to commit a crime is.
  17. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Well-Known Member

    Soooo...mass murderers are only allowed to use regulated magazines during their spree?

    10 people dead is less of a tragedy than 17? You're weighing tragedy with body count?

    Whether its 10, 17, or 100 its a tragedy. Could be zero if someone had a gun to shoot back.
  18. LevelHead

    LevelHead Well-Known Member

    Timmy, your argument is called "Appeal to Authority", and is a logical fallacy.

    There is no valid purpose to limit magazine capacity for law-abiding responsible gun owners.
  19. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Well-Known Member

    I posted this fact in another thread.
    During the Virginia Tech shooting, Cho used two habdguns which he reloaded 18 times. He had no AR - 15, just two semiauto handguns. He murdered 32 people.
    Dama Lanza managed to murder 26. One report I heard indicated he shot some victims up to ten times. That is revealing of his savage intent, for sure, but it is also severe overkill.
    The individual who goes on these sprees plans his attack in accordance to what he has available. Cho's decision to use only handguns did not handicap him at all.
    Adam Lanza's actions certainly were not handicapped by much -- except a fairly quick police response which prompted his suicide.
    It only takes a couple of seconds to switch out expended magazines.
    Limiting their capacity helps no one.
    Cho; 32 dead, 18 magazine changes. Think about that.
  20. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Well-Known Member

    What bearing do you think it will have on mass shootings?
    While answering remember there are currently millions upon millions of "high capacity" magazines already out there and they will stay out there.....Unless you are suggesting a mandatory turn in and or confiscation. At which point law abiding people will turn them in and only criminals will have access to them.


    Is this honestly what your fighting for.


    He is admittedly fast but never the less, it shows what one can do with practice and most mass shooters plan and practice.
    Let's say he's 5 times faster tan most are with practice.....were looking at ....what, a 2 sec (on average) mag change..

    Do you really think it'll make a difference?
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page