Ever see a mag capacity ban supported by facts?

I've never seen such inconsequential things as facts and logic stand in the way of ANY gun control scheme.

Gun control laws are about restricting liberty not reducing crime.

Never seen a statistical argument to rationalize a limit of 10. I'd guess being the lowest double-digit number and more than your pre-wonder-nine capacities made it seem a position to take. So glad I left jersey behind.

I've heard Chris Murphy state the "fact" that "nobody needs more than 10 rounds." He said it, therefore it must be true. 10 or less saves children, it's a "fact."

Wait... Since I'm a "nobody" I guess that means I need more than ten rounds. And an AR15. Thanks for looking out for my 2nd Amendment rights, Chris!

No gun restriction enacted since the early 20th century has any basis in anything other than restricting your rights and controlling people. Even more so if you aren't white. Gun control is as evil as practicing black magick. Essentially it is black magick, because the illusion is sold to those who are thereby hypnotized by the promises of safety and security that it never delivers. A classic occult tactic is to receive huge promises from those you serve only to be duped.

I've never seen any, and what it seems to boil down to is a "feel good" restriction.

Higher and you're pushing the numbers back up into the "high capacity" realm they are trying to restrict, lower and they start getting so restrictive they'll be more likely to get too much push back from business and voters.

In short, 10 is a nice, round "magic number", politically speaking.

I mean, I understand the concept behind them. At least for the well-intentioned-but-badly-informed.
But concept and actuality often don't agree.

Nope. It's all sensationalism about "assault weapons". More people are convinced by feelings and shouting than by numbers and statistics.

Limit mag capacity to ten. Carry 3 mags. Law nullified.

People (liberals) who want to ban guns are not concerned with facts. They are only worried about bending public perception to accomplish their political goals.

Politicians are not real bright. They grew up learning base 10 mathematics so this is all they know. The females think ten is a good round number because a box of 50 rounds can go into 5 magazines very neatly. The male politicians cannot count higher than 10 without removing shoes or without an accountant nearby so 10 round maximums work for them. Besides, if they try and analyze it too much it angers the women and since the woman have more bal...uh, er...guts than they do they are afraid of angering them.

Navy_Guns said:

Why is 10 rounds considered "reasonable" by the anti-gun crowd?

Click to expand...

.

This is a very good thought provoking question.

The State of New York originally proposed a seven round magazine limit in the SAFE Act. It was changed to ten rounds after the Liberals encountered too much opposition since seven round magazines are not made for a lot of guns.

Maybe it is based in human biology since humans have ten fingers and toes.

Maybe it is because ten is considered to be the best of something or ideal. For example guys rate girls on a scale of 1 to 10.

It could be that ten round magazines are the smallest gun owners will accept without too much fuss.

Arbitrary. It's a number they think they can get away with politically, since things like M1 Garands, Enfields (10 rounds), and M1911 pistols wouldn't be affected. But the smallest standard magazine for the M1 Carbine is 15 rounds, so that's still a problem for them.

The uninformed left, in my opinion, believe they are doing something positive by restricting mags. Key word there is uninformed. People like Biden believe all you need is a double barrel and to blow both rounds off in the air.

There's also the snakes that know "gun control" and restricted mags are just a small step in getting thier way to push even more restrictions forward.

Navy_Guns said:

Serious question.

Click to expand...

Best place to look is the opposition's material.
A more than relevant, current case is Duncan v. Becerra since in almost all the briefs in support of the ban on +10 round magazines, they (Brady, etc.) cite a single quote from an expert witness. In that declaration, the woman states that "A study of all incidents in this database over a 5-year period from 1997 through 2001 found that it is rare for individuals to defend themselves using more than ten rounds. Specifically, this study found that, on average, 2.2 shots were fired by defenders and that in 28% of incidents of armed citizens defending themselves the individuals fired no shots at all."

That 2.2 round statistic is repeated throughout. The interesting thing about it though, is the source of the information which is being used against us.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...intiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

It's easy for us to all state that the other side is just winging it and it's arbitrary, but that's not entirely true.

In Missouri, magazine capacity for deer hunting is limited to 10 rounds. Same lack of any logic - where did “10” come from - why not 9 or 12 or 7 or etc. It is simple, 10 sounds better than 15 or 20, 10 sounds better than 5 or 8. Nobody needs more than a 10 round magazine when deer hunting, right? - but 11 is too much and 9 is not enough, right? - I am sure that you will agree, right? Politics is about what sells, what can be sold or passed into law. I would say that the Missouri Conservation Commission is very pro firearms and 2A but, the Commission limits magazine capacity for deer season to “10”. It will be said that magazine capacity is limited for “safety” reasons; is 10 safer than 11, is 6 safer than 7, is 1 safer than 2, etc. - they don’t know nor can a case be made other than “because we say so”.
We must always be very cautious of human nature and emotion governing our lives because if we are not, we will be horribly restricted and controlled. My limited mathematical skills tell me that the only truly safe magazine capacity in any scenario is “0” - any other number represented as “safe” is misrepresented.

Navy_Guns said:

Why is 10 rounds considered "reasonable" by the anti-gun crowd? Why not make it nine? Or eleven? I have never seen this argument made and supported with anything. If the anti-gun community can't support it with anything other than their own definition of what is "reasonable", isn't it entirely arbitrary?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's arbitrary and judge Benitez said the following in Duncan v Becerra - http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

"(16.) “10” appears to be an arbitrary number So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable? It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds ... is not addressed ... The State argues only that it is not required to explain why it has selected 10 as the number ... Perhaps not. But the 10-round limit appears to be arbitrary.

(12.) the critical “pause” From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause', as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."

I've had conversations with many liberals (mostly family members) who have offered differing perspectives, but overwhelmingly they believe no private citizen has any business owning a gun, period. To them magazine capacity limits are secondary to an outright ban; if we can't ban 'em all, at least limit how much ammo can be carried. They also favor magazine quantity limits (i.e., one magazine). So, watch for something like that to come down the pike.

One niece says you only need one bullet to kill a person, why do you need to carry a bazillion rounds (her words)? And you shouldn't be killing people, anyway. Guns make killing too easy and good people snap, therefore nobody should own a gun, period.

One nephew thinks old historical military weapons are cool and likes looking at collections in a museum, but people don't need to be walking around with a gun stuffed in their pants just looking for trouble, therefore nobody should own a gun, period (he's also an Antifa sympathizer).

My own pop says the only reason anyone would ever want to own a gun is to kill people. Period. No discussion, he's right.

Can you tell we all live in commie liberal states? I have tried, but there is no amount of truth, nor facts, nor logical argument that will ever change their minds. I see them as a cross-section of the majority voting public where I live, and they are the reason why we have people like Murphy, Blumenthal, AOC, etc., in office right now, and are the reason why freedoms are being eroded with every legislative session.

First off, let me start out with stating I am not for any bans on magazine capacity. I think the "Pandora's box" has already been opened on that, and between what is already out there and what would be readily available on the black market, if and when a ban was ever reinstated, that it is really a moot point.

Navy_Guns said:

Isn't it just a first step towards something-less-than-ten, followed by all removable magazines? Boil the frog slowly?

Click to expand...

...and that is the argument given most of the time by us. Vietnam was supposed to be a"domino" too. That's a hard statistic to prove also.

No one here can make a legitimate claim that weapons with higher capacities are not a bigger threat than those with low capacity. Kinda why the military uses high capacity mags. Same with LEAs. Why ardent gun forum folks argue for the use of bottom feeders over revolvers and why many revolvers lovers relish those new SD revolvers with one more round. Why waterfowlers are restricted to three round mag capacity. This isn't all just "emotions". It's easily understandable why anti's target them, because they are an obvious factor in many mass shootings.

BigBore44 said:

Limit mag capacity to ten. Carry 3 mags. Law nullified.

Click to expand...

...and tape two 30 rounders together and you have twice as much capacity and only have to take the time to reload once. Argument nullified.

Those of us that want to retain the use of high capacity mags, have to come up with legitimate arguments. We can't fall prey to the same emotions we accuse the antis of having. As I said, I see nothing effective coming out of any magazine ban. What I see needs to be done is to train more folks how to defend themselves in any type of shooting scenario, and to train more folks in how to save those folks already shot. It's a fact that most gunshot victims die because they bleed out. They are not killed instantly. They lie bleeding to death as law enforcement walks over them in an attempt to nullify the threat to anybody else. If more folks knew how to apply and use a tourniquet effectively, it would save many more lives than any magazine ban. Knowing how to spot folks with real emotional problems and being aware of our surroundings and preventing a incident before it starts, negates any magazine capacity.

While magazine bans may reduce mass shooting carnage in a few scenarios, it also may increase carnage because we are restricted in the way we defend ourselves.

You don’t have any children do you, never let logic get in the way of emotions...

Navy_Guns said:

Why is 10 rounds considered "reasonable" by the anti-gun crowd? Why not make it nine? Or eleven?

Click to expand...

Lots of folk will credit Bill Ruger with popularizing the notion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban

William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., is often ascribed with providing the impetus for high capacity magazine restrictions. Ruger proposed that instead of banning firearms, Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds.[13] “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun,” Ruger told Tom Brokaw of NBC News in 1992.[14][15] On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger[16]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.[17]:1–2 The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision.

Click to expand...

In fairness to ol' dead Bill, he didn't come up with the idea of restricting magazine capacity instead of banning semiauto rifles - it had been circulating in various opinion pieces prior to his seizing on it. But he is credited for using it as a way to save his beloved Mini and 10/22 products from being banned, in an era where semi-auto rifles were pretty dang close to being outlawed. Since the 10/22 had a 10rd capacity, ten rounds was the magic number.

Yeah - the late 80s and early 90's were dark days for the RKBA community, in case some of y'all weren't around to enjoy it. Folk who've entered the gunnie community subsequent to the 2004 AWB sunset don't have the context for a lot of what scares the, um, more seasoned in our ranks.

"Ok, boomer."

buck460XVR said:

This isn't all just "emotions". It's easily understandable why anti's target them, because they are an obvious factor in many mass shootings.

Click to expand...

Except it is all emotion, not logic. Emotion, because an honest analysis of mass shootings would lead anyone using logic to conclude that mass shootings are so rare and the number of victims so small that spending time discussing them borders on a total waste of time. Even more stupid that there is a huge national debate about it. And finally, lib heads can pretend they are acting from care and concern for our society but what they really mean is "upper class and upper middle class white people" cause a run of the mill weekend in Chicago makes them liars. We all know they just want to kick conservatives and all they hold dear, gun rights, Bible, babies, non gay families, right in the nads. They don't hate guns, they hate what we represent and stand for. We are in the way of progressive socialism aka globalism and guns and non-ecumenical Christianity stand in the way most, hence the monster attempt to restrict and control.

buck460XVR said:

Those of us that want to retain the use of high capacity mags, have to come up with legitimate arguments

Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessary. I'm simply refusing any compliance with future gun control laws. If we all stood on that, they'll do what? They are like a scumbag up in my grille demanding stuff from me. They ain't getting jack!

Ban my mags I'll bury the extras and build easy to access hidey holes. Ban my rifles, see previous sentence. Tax ammo to heaven and I'll just start stealing from stores who are a little to quick to cooperate. Yeah, I said that. If we, as a gun "community" will only stand for legal recourse before laying down the arms you might as well turn them in today. Rights don't have to be justified. Our founding fathers would understand my position. Today I'm a crazy gun nut who might need red flagged. Tomorrow I'm a freedom fighter.

Only thing I'm justifying is my failure to comply with dirty anti-gunners.

buck460XVR said:

Those of us that want to retain the use of high capacity mags, have to come up with legitimate arguments.

Click to expand...

Agreed. We need to stop this nonsense of trying to justify "high" capacity magazines based on self defense from civilians. The statistics do indeed point to more than ten rounds (or 5) being uneccessary the majority of the time when defending against civilian criminals, a fact that is very commonly pointed out on this very forum by the revolver fans.