Ever see a mag capacity ban supported by facts?

Every part of gun control has always been about keeping despised minorities under control, whether they might be Native Americans, Hispanics, Orientals, Blacks, Deplorables, or whoever else is feeling uppity.
Oddly enough, it is rarely aimed at actually stopping criminals.
What would lawyers do without criminals?

I've deleted a few that are just political comments and not to the factual discussion. While fun to post, let's skip that.

To return to the issue.

First base 10 arithmetic is popular as we have 10 fingers. If this was a discussion on the planet of gun toting octopi, the issue would be 8 rounds. If you ever studied computer science, you would realize that being based on binary, octal and hexadecimal is superior. The latter would give us 18 round mags. I recall learning binary systems in grad computer classes way back and thought the first calculators that could switch to those three were a gift from God.

There is no data that systematically shows a drop in crime indices based on available mags of different capacities. The argument in rampages, is that you can tackle the shooter during more frequent reloads (which has happened) and that shooters fumble the higher cap mags, like a 33 round Glock mag. However, if you shoot competitions, you know that a practiced person can reload 10s very quickly. Some rampages have used 10s. However, the opponents of the mags feel that the higher cap mags do allow multiple hits very quickly and increase the body count. If you compete with carbines, you can see how someone can hit 20 shots in just a very few seconds.

The gun world does play into this with:
1. Commentators who are supposedly gun friendly, denouncing the higher cap mags as not needed for hunting and only suitable for nuts. Zumbo, Metcalf, Scarborough and others come to mind.

2. The consistent set of thread saying 5 is enough. There are two versions of this statement. Folks who say that we realize that the 5 shot gun is aimed at being a one opponent gun in most circumstances. We realize that we carry such as a compromise for convenience and realize it is not optimal for a more intensive multi-opponent or fight were you don't make effective hits with the five.
That is contrasted to the posters or commentators who say that those who carry more are nuts. Why not carry 50 rounds? Realistically, the more sophisicated training world says that a semi with one or two extra mags is sufficient for most higher intensity incidents. If you studied statistics, you know that you must consider the tail of the incident intensity distribution and make a reasonable cutoff. The semi and one or two seems the reasonable cut. The 5 is enough folks and the anti folks seem to think the average always happens. That's where the focus on the small number comes from.

3. Another problem is trying to make the higher capacity capable long arms an instrument of sport and thus nice in some manner. Given the deadly potential of the gun (the reason for the 2nd Amend.), who gives a crap about you playing with them. The modern sporting rifle rhetoric is ridiculous. Britain and Australian gun owners tried sport to defend their guns and lost big time. It's just a tool or a toy - well, if I were an anti, I would say - Patton said the 8 shot Garand is the best battle rifles, etc. , so you tell me a 30 round gun is a 'toy', akin to a tennis racket. BS on you.

The only justification for the higher cap mags is that the 2nd Amend. existed for self-defense, defense of country and defense against tyranny. Efficacious weapons are needed and justified for those reasons.

Self-defense, as focused on in Heller, does bring us back to why do you need more? Small numbers of AR SD are discounted. Testimony during the first AWB before Congress, had proponents of such mocked. Defense against foreign invasion is a risky argument because no reasonable scenario gives us such. The Yamamoto quote is probably bogus. The Swiss example is countered in part by the more powerful factors of Swiss collaboration with Germany and the threat to destroy the needed Alpine tunnels. Not to say the Swiss wouldn't fight, they weren't brave, etc. but the guns weren't all that convinced the Germans not to invade. The counter argument is Sweden, they didn't have the militia system of the Swiss. They tried to rearm but collaborated (not that they didn't try to help the Allies, save Jews, plan to invade Denmark in 1945, etc.)

Defense against tyranny - who is the tyrant to be opposed? That debate would open up a political firestorm here. I'll skip that.

The Safe Act ended up with 7 at first because Cuomo wanted a 5 round ban, but was told that the most common lower capacity mag (except in small guns) was a 10 rounder. He didn't like that and said, let's go for 7, leading to that limit and the subsequent battle.

So that's my take - no evidence, collusion from the gun world also, we have ten fingers - should have had 12 which I read is dominant trait.

BTW, it is very nice to bellow that you will defy the law. We used to delete such. Let me say that THR does not support such utterances. If you do get in legal trouble, your post will be discovered. If you think you can hide your guns and the government truly wants to come after a test case, you've painted a target on your house.

Also, it is delusional to think that most of the opposition to higher capacity guns is because of the drive for progressive socialism. The vast majority of folks just don't want to get killed and think gun control is a solution. Anyway, what are you going to do with your AR if Medicare for All or Free College becomes the law of the land, run to clinic or college and do what about those programs?

I'll delete those if more appear. The issue is whether the mags contribute to more negative criminal outcomes based on data.

I don't know about facts but if, for instance, a magazine ban was taken to its most extreme - extreme and allowing for jumping right past stopping at the logical point of repeaters... One lands at muzzle loaders and they OF COURSE would present a significantly limited danger to the public.

So, if one were to say start at a C Mag and go down (I ALREADY KNOW I'll miss some options) to a 30, 20, 10, 5 and single shot - then skip to repeaters and on to muzzle loaders the argument for limitations is rock solid and fairly inarguable.

So, if less is EVER better, less is ALWAYS better. Certainly and inarguably a 10 round ban presents less lethal opportunity than no ban whatsoever but, the killers and criminals DO NOT CARE.

Except for this; The ridiculousness of ever believing that this ban would be observed by criminals. Cow-towing to utopians has seldom, if ever, improved the greater society.

Too, and highly significantly.... We all KNOW that the utopians would not stop at 10 anymore than they have elsewhere and ultimately even repeaters would be banned and some would even take flintlocks.

In the end, call a spade a spade and note that a magazine ban is merely one step on the road to outright gun-bans or the first brick set in a society-wide utopian prison.

Todd.

Magazine capacity limits are notoriously unenforceable. The antis are wasting their time going down that rabbit hole. Even the antis in Virginia have backed away from their original proposal, now settling on only a prospective ban -- which would be meaningless because of the millions of magazines already extant.

If there is anything that is largely symbolic in the gun debate, this is it.

So if symbolism is the goal, then any arbitrary number will do. This will not have any actual effect whatsoever.

You miss a point about symbolic gestures. It is a cultural ploy for the long term de-legitimization of that part of the gun world. Folks who are new to the argument, as new generations come along, will say that these must be a priori bad as they are banned. It is similar to banning smoking. Yes, folks smoke but they are seen as pariahs.

The question posed was whether or not these bans are based on statistical analysis and modeling, not whether that information was verifiable and indisputably applicable.

The link I posted previously shows that, at least in defense of an existing law, they did indeed base an argument on *something*.

Basura Blanca said:

in defense of an existing law, they did indeed base an argument on *something*

Click to expand...

Yes, on past "arbitrary" decisions - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-ban-supported-by-facts.860188/#post-11317172

bearcreek said:

We need to stop this nonsense of trying to justify "high" capacity magazines based on self defense from civilians.

Click to expand...

This holds true for everything gun related. We've hitched our wagon way too tightly to self defense so it's no surprise that the opposition wants to find all the chinks in that particular armor. If we claim we need 50 round magazines to keep ourselves safe, they simply point to our own rhetoric and note that we've been saying otherwise for years.

The needs-based argument for anything to do with the 2A is a deathtrap.

LiveLife said:

Yes, on past "arbitrary" decisions - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-ban-supported-by-facts.860188/#post-11317172

Click to expand...

Maybe you're misunderstanding my point.
If you read all those briefs, the opposition constantly cites that 2.2 rounds fired statistic, and then implies that 10 rounds provides a sufficient margin (i.e. nearly 5x more than necessary). The problem is they didn't invent that number. The expert witness in the document is citing data gleaned from the NRA's Armed Citizen pieces for a decade or so. They even admit that it's not scientific.

edit:

Data from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action ("NRA-ILA") indicates that it is rare for a person, when using a firearm in self-defense, to fire more than ten rounds. The NRA-ILA maintains a database of "armed citizen" stories describing private citizens who have successfully defended themselves, or others, using a firearm. Although it is not compiled scientifically, this is the largest collection of accounts of citizen self-defense of which I am aware. Moreover, in light of the positions taken by the entity compiling the data, I would expect that any selection bias would be in favor of stories that put use of guns in self-defense in the best possible light.

Click to expand...

But growing reality for self defense is factual events of multiple threats. These are examples of recent thread discussions where small capacity magazines would not have helped.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-killing-them-all.856344/page-2#post-11236127

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...illing-3-and-injuring-2.857674/#post-11262089

LiveLife said:

But growing reality for self defense is factual events of multiple threats. These are examples of recent thread discussions where small capacity magazines would not have helped.

Click to expand...

Once more, you're maybe misunderstanding my point.
I'm certainly not defending the opposition's argument, I'm merely answering the OP's question.

Evidence for the usefulness of higher capacity magazines...

"Researcher J. Eric Dietz with Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute says that the latest research at his lab indicates that magazine bans may cost lives, not save them, when it comes to defending yourself. According to Dietz, computer modeling that tested survivability of a home invasion demonstrated that, the larger the magazine you the homeowner possessed, the greater the chance of you surviving the invasion of your home."

The interview with the lead researcher starts at about the 16:50 mark.

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/08/01/purdue-researcher-says-larger-gun-magazines-save-lives/

Basura Blanca said:

The problem is they didn't invent that number ... They even admit that it's not scientific.

Click to expand...

Got it. I misread and misunderstood your post ... I've been under the weather and just starting with my first cup of coffee.

My apologies.

Basura Blanca said:

The needs-based argument for anything to do with the 2A is a deathtrap.

Click to expand...

You can certainly say that again! Years ago, some gun advocates linked the 2nd Amendment to hunting (because hunting was popular, and the general public could see owning guns for hunting). So the antis say, "you don't need an AR-15 for hunting!" Now, some gun advocates are linking the 2nd Amendment to personal self defense. And now, the antis are saying, "you don't need a 30-round magazine for self defense!"

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, or even, strictly speaking, about personal self defense. (These things were simply givens at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted.) No, the 2nd Amendment is a civic right. Its essence is the idea that the civilian population is to be as well armed as the standing army. That's why we're entitled to AR-15s and 30-round magazines.

Statistics are irrelevant, as the laws that are derived from these statistics are unconstitutional.
That must be our position or we are surrendering our constitutional rights piecemeal.

theotherwaldo said:

Statistics are irrelevant, as the laws that are derived from these statistics are unconstitutional.
That must be our position or we are surrendering our constitutional rights piecemeal.

Click to expand...

Statistics are relevant if they're the right ones. The problem is that the "gun community" has been looking at the wrong statistics for years, as evidenced by some of the responses in this thread. Home invasion statistics, for example, are irrelevant. Government sanctioned genocide statistics though, are very relevant.

AlexanderA said:

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, or even, strictly speaking, about personal self defense. (These things were simply givens at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted.) No, the 2nd Amendment is a civic right. Its essence is the idea that the civilian population is to be as well armed as the standing army.

Click to expand...

+1. The founders framed the Constitution and added the Bill of Rights shortly after fighting to defend against the tyranny of British rule. IMO, the Second Amendment was added to ensure against future threat of tyranny, foreign or domestic. And the Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller that this right extended to personal defense ALSO.

Our founders specifically chose Constitutional Republic as form of government instead of Pure Democracy so the will of the majority could not be imposed on the rights of the minority.

This is where we are.

The anti-gun majority is trying to impose their will and take away the gun rights of the minority. And justice Gorsuch already said the "originalist" Supreme Court will ENFORCE the Second Amendment along with all of the other amendments (I know, time will tell) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...otus-in-the-new-session.857239/#post-11255390


And growing number of federal judges and courts are calling magazines "arms" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/‘take-weapons-of-war-off-our-street’.858098/page-4#post-11275211

Judge Benitez did rule in Duncan v Becerra that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

"The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"

AlexanderA said:

why we're entitled to AR-15s and 30-round magazines.

Click to expand...

Justice Scalia in DC v Heller also used firearms in "common use" and application of the Second Amendment to modern types of firearms and ammunition storage devices just as the First Amendment applies to modern types of communication - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

And in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

So I can easily see "originalist" SCOTUS accepting "common use" of large capacity magazines as "arms" under the protection of the Second Amendment as modern types of "arms" along with semi-auto loading rifles and carbines for self protection.

Statistics are only relevant if you want to accept that your right to keep and bear arms is conditional and limited by arbitrary laws.
I'm not willing to do that, as I understand incrementalism.

AlexanderA said:

Its essence is the idea that the civilian population is to be as well armed as the standing army. That's why we're entitled to AR-15s and 30-round magazines.

Click to expand...

In the current state of things that's just empty hyperbole because all the terrible implements of the infantryman should be for sale at Hardware Hanks but they ain't. And I ain't talking about surplus molle packs. They nerfed the 2A almost a century ago. Good luck convincing others what we know the 2A is really about. A plain English reading of 2A and it's logical conclusion as to what it's for are something we can't even mention most places without drawing heat. It's not high road to say the real reason for having guns. The ignorant, and those tools who trust big gov will not accept that reasoning so we have reached an impasse.

Problems: Psychopath shoots innocent people. Thugs shoot each other.
Solution: Make guy that has had legal concealed carry for over two decades remove 3 rounds from his Glock 23. <----That makes the USA a safer place.

Thirty round mags and hi-cap pistol mags have been around in prolific numbers since WWII. Witness the M1 carbine’s thirty round mag and Browning Hi Power and Walter P38. Yet from the end of the Second World War there were scant few rampages until the near turn of the 21st century. These firearms following the war were easily obtained from mail order venders and gun shops without any of our current vetting processes. One has to analyze why there was not considerable murderous, historical employment of these weapons and why is there currently such a concern and usage of hi-cap magazines.

I doubt it is the case ownership and contact with a firearm equipped with a hi-cap mag results in mayhem and murder. Rather, law abiding citizens will likely remain so and lawfully conduct themselves with their respective arms. If it’s not the firearm’s influence on the person, what then? Could the perpetrators of these mass shootings who employ firearms with hi-cap mags be the result of a behavioral or societal stimulus that makes them commit these offenses? If so, then banning these mags and firearms capable of using them would be pointless. Again, why did it not occur when you could buy an M1 carbine via mail order to your door?

Something is amiss in our social fabric, and banning guns and magazines will not cure the malady. As our population continues to increase, so does deviancy and criminal conduct. B.F. Skinner’s studies of population densities and overcrowding is now becoming very compelling.

Terry Vincent said:

from the end of the Second World War there were scant few rampages until the near turn of the 21st century ... why is there currently such a concern and usage of hi-cap magazines.

Click to expand...

Because anti gun rights/2A crowd is now making a fuss ... That's what has changed

BSA1 said:

.
This is a very good thought provoking question.

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

Click to expand...

I read an interesting thing by an engineer. He stated that our whole numbering system and therefore out mathematics were purely arbitrary based on the ten fingers thing. He postulated that a base 12 numbering system made far more sense. It's divisible by far more numbers, 2, 3, 4 and 6, instead of just 2 and 5, making life a whole lot simpler. It's all arbitrary "pick a number out of the hat" sort of thing.

If folks continue to post irrelevant chatter, they are deleted and points given. Please take the hint, just deleted some.