I think a lot of it is symbolic. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE LIFE IT'S WORTHWHILE!... If you own no guns, haven't ever shot a gun, have no interest in guns a 10 round limit will seem reasonable if not excessively lenient. Many lawmakers figure attacking gun rights is a winning proposition for them and banning 10 round magazines is seen as a good first step.
Ever see a mag capacity ban supported by facts?
- Thread starter Navy_Guns
- Start date
- Status
I think a lot of it is symbolic. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE LIFE IT'S WORTHWHILE!... If you own no guns, haven't ever shot a gun, have no interest in guns a 10 round limit will seem reasonable if not excessively lenient. Many lawmakers figure attacking gun rights is a winning proposition for them and banning 10 round magazines is seen as a good first step.
I am, indeed a revolver fan, and have been carrying a 5 shot S&W 642 in my pocket for years. That statistic is one of several reasons I selected the 642 as my EDC gun.
That said, after attending the NRA Personal Protection Expo in Fort Worth two months ago, and sitting in several protection awareness and tactics classes, I am now shopping for a suitable double-stack 9mm for concealed carry, guaranteeing more than 10 rounds in my magazines. Those seminars convinced me that the world has changed (a lot) and in the very unlikely event I might need to use a firearm, the odds of needing more than 2.2 rounds are much higher than when the cited statistics were developed.
My list of possibles starts with Glock 19 and S&W M&P 2.0c, but I hope to consider others as I learn the market. If anyone can send me links to relevant threads in THR, I would appreciate them.
And in the meantime, the 642 remains a viable CC gun, and I do love shooting my several revolvers at the range.
Thanks, all.
FlSwampRat
Member
theotherwaldo
Member
-And that's with drop-free mags and all of the spare mags laid out on a table in front of the shooter.
Most of my reloading time is lost in fumbling around for the next mag while dropping the empty... .
Phooey!
The United States Supreme Court has ruled (see Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827) and U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)) that a statute is presumed constitutional and is valid and enforceable unless/until it is found unconstitutional by a proper court.
Your opinion on the question doesn't mean anything.
theotherwaldo
Member
Yep.
The Courts say that the Courts are the absolute arbiters af all that is good and true and are never wrong.
Pity that they can never agree amongst themselves and are always reversing each other... .
Frankly, the Courts are a branch of the Government.
The Constitution is our shield against the Government.
All of it.
The Courts say that the Courts are the absolute arbiters af all that is good and true and are never wrong.
Pity that they can never agree amongst themselves and are always reversing each other... .
Frankly, the Courts are a branch of the Government.
The Constitution is our shield against the Government.
All of it.
theotherwaldo
Member
It's really only for those with very deep pockets.
Trey Veston
Member
Hanging your hat on the absolute supremacy of the Constitution in protecting 2nd amendment rights may not work for much longer, either...
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...stitution-changes-mostly-to-second-amendment/
"More than half of Americans surveyed in a new poll said that they want to make changes of some kind to the U.S. Constitution, with the Second Amendment bearing the largest bull's-eye..."
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...stitution-changes-mostly-to-second-amendment/
"More than half of Americans surveyed in a new poll said that they want to make changes of some kind to the U.S. Constitution, with the Second Amendment bearing the largest bull's-eye..."
In defense of Bill Ruger. The 1994 AWB was going to pass. Everyone knew the votes were there it was just a matter of working out the details. The number originally proposed was a 7 round mag limit to include the 1911 and keep semi-auto's capacity about the same as revolvers. At least that number was based on something tangible.
Ruger did use his influence to get the capacity changed from 7 to 10. His efforts are often taken out of context and he is criticized for coming up with the idea of a 10 round mag limit. Which he did, but when placed in context what Ruger did wasn't so bad. Had it not been for Ruger the AWB would have limited all guns to 7 rounds or less.
Ruger did use his influence to get the capacity changed from 7 to 10. His efforts are often taken out of context and he is criticized for coming up with the idea of a 10 round mag limit. Which he did, but when placed in context what Ruger did wasn't so bad. Had it not been for Ruger the AWB would have limited all guns to 7 rounds or less.
No one should be "hanging their hat" on words on paper exclusively. That's why the 2A exists, to give teeth to the words.
A poll of 1,007 people tells us what those particular 1,007 people answered in response to questions that may or may not have been worded to elicit certain responses, nothing more.
LiveLife
Member
A recent CNN interview with justice Gorsuch gives me hope - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/
When asked about Bill of Rights, he answered, "Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"
At 16:10 minute of video, when asked about president Trump commenting in 2017 that "Neil Gorsuch, he will save people's Second Amendment rights", Gorsuch replied, "My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"
At 16:45 minute of video, when asked about the US Constitution needing to change to better reflect current times, Gorsuch replied, "The original Constitution now includes 27 amendments passed by the 'We the People' ... 'We the People' amended the Constitution, ... to fix the injustices... improved the Constitution, made it a better document. And that is the proper process to do that"
And on SCOTUS becoming "originalist" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...on-the-second-amendment.856201/#post-11231970
"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea"
When asked about Bill of Rights, he answered, "Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"
At 16:10 minute of video, when asked about president Trump commenting in 2017 that "Neil Gorsuch, he will save people's Second Amendment rights", Gorsuch replied, "My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"
At 16:45 minute of video, when asked about the US Constitution needing to change to better reflect current times, Gorsuch replied, "The original Constitution now includes 27 amendments passed by the 'We the People' ... 'We the People' amended the Constitution, ... to fix the injustices... improved the Constitution, made it a better document. And that is the proper process to do that"
And on SCOTUS becoming "originalist" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...on-the-second-amendment.856201/#post-11231970
"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea"
748
member
Because they have to pass a greater than 10 round ban before they can pass a greater than 5 round ban.
The term magazine these days automatically brings images of a detachable magazine such as what feeds a GLock pistol, or AR15 carbine. THAT image in itself is the new ''common.'' If you gave a pen and paper to 100 people on the street and said ''please sketch a firearm magazine'', that would be the image on the paper and I would venture right at 99.99%. Sidewalks are now (unlike the past) commonly 5feet wide or wider. Coffee is commonly offered black, cream, sugar, or a combination of same, etc. ...
The UNCOMMON magazine anymore, although obviously known, is the tubular magazine such as in an older 22LR rifle for plinking, squirrel hunting; and, a 6 round cylindrical magazine such as a 38 caliber revolver. Even to the point that for many decades now the market has steered towards semiauto pistols w/ detachable magazines and AWAY somewhat from revolvers, me & friends have speculated that is a prominent reason revolvers have ended up costing more.
BSA1
member
Phooey!
Bill Ruger sold out gun owners. I attended a State NRA back then during which he whined to the audience about the backlash his company and to himself for supporting 10 round magazine ban. He said he supported the ban so the Liberals would support it and the issue would go away making the manufacturing business easier.
The audience didn’t believe him and neither did I.
Last edited:
The history of Bill is interesting, it is mildly off topic but of historical interest to understand the bans. All the major gun companies have tried to acquiesce to various gun bans or controls in recent history. Ruger, SW, Colt and Taurus have played that game. I did read that Ruger designed a small 22LR that Bill scotched because it was too concealable. If this is true, I cannot vouch for it.
If you want some recent studies:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7
Journal of Urban Health
June 2018, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 313–321 | Cite as
Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources
Abstract
Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal government banned such weaponry from 1994 to 2004, and a few states currently impose similar restrictions. Recent debates concerning these weapons have highlighted their use in mass shootings, but there has been little examination of their use in gun crime more generally since the expiration of the federal ban. This study investigates current levels of criminal activity with assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics in the USA using several local and national data sources including the following: (1) guns recovered by police in ten large cities, (2) guns reported by police to federal authorities for investigative tracing, (3) guns used in murders of police, and (4) guns used in mass murders. Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited. Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide. Further research seems warranted on how these weapons affect injuries and deaths from gun violence and how their regulation may impact public health.
----------- Note these are the folks who said that AWBs had no effect on crime indices. The abstract speaks of usage and not whether the magazines have differentially affected crime. Given that such guns are popular it makes sense that they would be used more but that does not make them causal.
Just presented for info in this thread.
Here's a history of mag restrictions by Kopel. He's noted gun advocate. Shot with him - good guy. Article is behind a pay wall though.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/albany78&div=34&id=&page=
Here's another by Kleck (well know gun issue scholar)
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages
Gary Kleck
First Published June 1, 2016 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525107116674926
Article information
Abstract
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are known to have been used in less than one third of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were known to have been used, occurring in the United States in 1994–2013, were examined. There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. In all of these 23 incidents, the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2- to 4-seconds delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain such slow rates of fire that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.
---- I'm not sure about the reload figures. Without searching there may have been more recently.
I note that folks who want data should avail themselves of resources like google scholar.
If you want some recent studies:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7
Journal of Urban Health
June 2018, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 313–321 | Cite as
Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources
Abstract
Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal government banned such weaponry from 1994 to 2004, and a few states currently impose similar restrictions. Recent debates concerning these weapons have highlighted their use in mass shootings, but there has been little examination of their use in gun crime more generally since the expiration of the federal ban. This study investigates current levels of criminal activity with assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics in the USA using several local and national data sources including the following: (1) guns recovered by police in ten large cities, (2) guns reported by police to federal authorities for investigative tracing, (3) guns used in murders of police, and (4) guns used in mass murders. Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited. Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide. Further research seems warranted on how these weapons affect injuries and deaths from gun violence and how their regulation may impact public health.
----------- Note these are the folks who said that AWBs had no effect on crime indices. The abstract speaks of usage and not whether the magazines have differentially affected crime. Given that such guns are popular it makes sense that they would be used more but that does not make them causal.
Just presented for info in this thread.
Here's a history of mag restrictions by Kopel. He's noted gun advocate. Shot with him - good guy. Article is behind a pay wall though.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/albany78&div=34&id=&page=
Here's another by Kleck (well know gun issue scholar)
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages
Gary Kleck
First Published June 1, 2016 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525107116674926
Article information
Abstract
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are known to have been used in less than one third of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were known to have been used, occurring in the United States in 1994–2013, were examined. There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. In all of these 23 incidents, the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2- to 4-seconds delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain such slow rates of fire that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.
---- I'm not sure about the reload figures. Without searching there may have been more recently.
I note that folks who want data should avail themselves of resources like google scholar.
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
I agree.
The gun banners' strategy is to propose draconian restrictions and scare the weak-willed into "compromising" for "reasonable" gun control.
The result is a slow, steady slide towards tyranny.
v35
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 910
As an engineer myself I'd argue a base 16 (hexadecimal) system makes even more sense. Power of 2.
Besides, sixteen rounds resembles a far more common handgun magazine capacity than ten, at least for 9mm.
Not that firearms regulations are justified for anything even remotely resembling technological reasons facts or logic, but it seems to me 10 is harder to justify than almost any other number.
AlexanderA
Member
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,206
This was the reason Judge Roger Benitez gave for issuing a stay on the ban of magazines of more than 10 rounds.
748
member
They didn't need a reason to pass the 1934 national firearms act.
Machine guns were banned "because criminals used them" but what they failed to mention is that most if not all of the machine guns used were stolen from the US military and law enforcement, not bought in a legal transaction.
Silencers were banned because someone might poach to feed their family, that's literally the justification, so really they need no justification. Oh no can't have people feeding their families.
They tried to get handguns on the NFA too but that didn't fly.
Machine guns were banned "because criminals used them" but what they failed to mention is that most if not all of the machine guns used were stolen from the US military and law enforcement, not bought in a legal transaction.
Silencers were banned because someone might poach to feed their family, that's literally the justification, so really they need no justification. Oh no can't have people feeding their families.
They tried to get handguns on the NFA too but that didn't fly.
theotherwaldo
Member
Actually, machine guns and silencers were banned because they looked scary in the movies. Sound familiar?
Also, the BATF was created to provide jobs for all of those that would have become unemployed because of the end of Prohibition.
-And good government jobs were hard to come by in the mid-1930s... .
Also, the BATF was created to provide jobs for all of those that would have become unemployed because of the end of Prohibition.
-And good government jobs were hard to come by in the mid-1930s... .
P5 Guy
Member
1933 was the end of Prohibition, no more rum running gangsters armed with Tommy-guns. 1934 Tommy-guns get banned.
Tommygunn
Member
...... 
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
