Magazine Capacity Laws
- Thread starter GETxSOME
- Start date
- Status
Chris Rhines
Member
I would disagree that a fear of guns, or even a fear of becoming a victim in a spree killing, is rational. Mass killings are vanishingly rare; you may as well be afraid of lightning strikes or moose attacks. Significantly altering your behavior based on such a tiny threat is the definition of irrationality.
Of course, try telling this to the average American cable TV viewer, who has been conditioned by a lifetime of media infotainment to believe that every shadow hides an army of child molesters, terrorists, and wild animals just waiting to attack...
Anyhow, my argument against large-capacity magazine bans is pretty much a clone of my pro-assault-rifle argument: Guns are not designed to kill as such, but certain guns (and magazines) are designed to be useful in combat. Since self defense is one of the reasons that I own guns, it makes sense that I should own the guns (and magazines) that would give me an advantage in a fight. After all, why should I play fair if some criminal is trying to rob or kill me?
-C
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Of course, try telling this to the average American cable TV viewer, who has been conditioned by a lifetime of media infotainment to believe that every shadow hides an army of child molesters, terrorists, and wild animals just waiting to attack...
Anyhow, my argument against large-capacity magazine bans is pretty much a clone of my pro-assault-rifle argument: Guns are not designed to kill as such, but certain guns (and magazines) are designed to be useful in combat. Since self defense is one of the reasons that I own guns, it makes sense that I should own the guns (and magazines) that would give me an advantage in a fight. After all, why should I play fair if some criminal is trying to rob or kill me?
-C
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
kingpin008
Member
You do realize the problem with this comment, don't you?
Loughner WAS taken down during a mag change. It does matter.
With all due respect, that clip isn't fair given the context. It's pretty clear that he's a competitive shooter. I find it hard to believe that the type of individual likely to go on these sorts of rampages is going to invest hours upon hours in mag change drills, don't you?
Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No.
Rustinthewheel
Member
You're missing it.... the focus is not on Tuscon, it's on the argument of whether or not smaller mags save lives. (Not just you Kingpin008, just saying we lost sight of the issue)
The Tuscon fruitcake just happened to lack training, which was a blessing to the rest of the world.
Crazy people, are often motivated people. Google Marvin Heemayer. A person willing to commit these acts, as demonstrated by Cho and Harris and Klebold who is really looking to do damage, will know how to clear jams, and swap magazines, and in their focused state, can probably do it faster than your friendly neighborhood cop.
The important thing to remember and what needs to be stressed to our representatives in the Washington is that THR, and NRA members, and RKBA advocates are not taking out groups of people. Criminals are law breakers, they will have the "evil guns" anyhow. Restricting their availability to smaller numbers just means the criminals will eventually have all of them, and we will have none because our "justice" system failed to protect the just.
Remember where the cops went for help in the North Hollywood Shootout.... their local gun store. What did they get??? Black guns, black guns with large magazines.
How about when the degenerates overran LA in 92? guess who had to look out for the people... the people themselves, because all the laws in the world didn't stop innocent bystanders from getting the snot kicked out of them.
Bottom line, gun laws in general, only affect(hinder) those who are going to follow the laws.
Besides I live in a city, how am I supposed to pick off the crowds of zombies with only a 5 round 91/30???
MisterMike
Member
I've just skimmed this thread, but I think that the arguments against large capacity magazines, "assault" weapons, military rounds, and pretty much every other gun control scheme that is device-specific come down to one thing: an effort to define an ever-expanding list of guns, ammunition, and accessories as "unnecessary" and not contemplated as being within the protection of the Second Amendment.
Their tactics are quite clear: find any unjustified shooting situation where the offender was using a weapon that they might be able to portray as extreme and offer the "Why would any law-abiding citizen ever need this?" argument. This argument has been applied (as far as I can recall) to: larger-capacity magazines, weapons with a semi-automatic mechanism, laser sights, rounds that are deemed too lethal, rounds that are not lethal enough, guns that have folding stocks, guns that have barrels that are too short, guns that look too scary, guns that are not really guns but look like them (toys), and, I am sure, a plethora of other criteria and devices.
If you think that a proponent of a 10-round magazine limit really believes that to be the solution to gun crimes, you are kidding yourself. The hope of the proponents of these schemes is that they can ultimately be successful incrementally limiting what others are permitted to own or carry until the right to keep and bear arms is reduced to total insignificance.
Logic and experience show their proposals to be utter nonsense, but they rely on appealing to an uneducated populace that is incapable of critical thought.
Their tactics are quite clear: find any unjustified shooting situation where the offender was using a weapon that they might be able to portray as extreme and offer the "Why would any law-abiding citizen ever need this?" argument. This argument has been applied (as far as I can recall) to: larger-capacity magazines, weapons with a semi-automatic mechanism, laser sights, rounds that are deemed too lethal, rounds that are not lethal enough, guns that have folding stocks, guns that have barrels that are too short, guns that look too scary, guns that are not really guns but look like them (toys), and, I am sure, a plethora of other criteria and devices.
If you think that a proponent of a 10-round magazine limit really believes that to be the solution to gun crimes, you are kidding yourself. The hope of the proponents of these schemes is that they can ultimately be successful incrementally limiting what others are permitted to own or carry until the right to keep and bear arms is reduced to total insignificance.
Logic and experience show their proposals to be utter nonsense, but they rely on appealing to an uneducated populace that is incapable of critical thought.
rainbowbob
Member
Aww c'mon. A device is designed FOR a specific purpose. People don't randomly put parts together for the heck of it. Firearms were designed for the specific purpose of killing things.
That does NOT imply that killing things is necessarily an evil purpose. That depends on the operator.
By the same reasoning, high-cap mags were designed for the purpose of not having to reload as often.
Again, that does NOT imply that fewer reloads is an evil purpose. It depends on the operator.
But design and purpose are NOT unrelated - and in fact design relies on the intended purpose.
None of these semantic arguments has ANYTHING to do with whether or not a purpose-designed item should be banned in a free society.
GambJoe
Member
I am speaking for myself now. Yes it is fun to bring it to the range and shoot at paper but the main reason I own my pistol and shotgun is fear. Fear that a criminal may try to do me or mine bodily harm.
People that don't own guns, however you want to but it, fear guns or fear people with guns because they don't know what their intent is. Thirty round magazines add to the fear. you won't convince them otherwise.
Banning a thirty round magazines is a mild concession to the anti's because it's meaningless. Preban mags will still be available if you want them. Even the former VP is saying maybe it's a ban might be a good thing.
People that don't own guns, however you want to but it, fear guns or fear people with guns because they don't know what their intent is. Thirty round magazines add to the fear. you won't convince them otherwise.
Banning a thirty round magazines is a mild concession to the anti's because it's meaningless. Preban mags will still be available if you want them. Even the former VP is saying maybe it's a ban might be a good thing.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Ma
rc
I'd guess the older lady who grabbed the 33 round extended mag away from him would have been less successful if he had a standard length Glock mag in his hand.
rc
dkk73
Member
Chris,
You make a very good point that cuts both ways.
The fear of being part of a killing spree, home-invasion, etc, is what seems to fuel 80% of the discussion on most gun forums.
People will perseverate to absurd lengths about slightly differences in tactical effectiveness of gadgets and how a slightly slower holster is "suicide". Heck, people will argue that if you have an external safety, you must not care about your safety and your family's and you'll certainly get killed.
Fear is a big motivator and a very personal thing. Most of the firearms enthusiasts I knew at my old club in the midwest were more likely to die of a heart attack than of violence. But that's certainly not where their focus was.
If you read Fernando ("FerFAL") Aguirre's notes on the Argentinian economic collapse, you'll see he makes some thought-provoking points about the (greater) tactical value of high-capacity magazines. It certainly made me think about my preference for thinner guns (in my situation, concealment seems to provide more perceived utility).
For most Americans right now, it probably is a marginal value if they are already carrying a modern autoloader. Already, we've heard reasonable people argue both sides of this.
But, going back to the anti-gun side, it's not an irrational fear. You simply consider it (shooting spree) a lower-probability threat, or assign less emotional import to it.
On the other hand, anti-gunners seem to think that a home-invasion you can successfully negate/shoot your way out of is unlikely and irrational and we (presumably) don't. Or they think it's unlikely you can defuse a gas station robbery by being armed ("more likely you'll get killed" is the common argument). Or they think that gun laws will prevent such robberies, but that's another thread.
I'm not just trying to split hairs; I'm making a point about the subjective aspect of what drives people. E.g. People get worried about car-jacking but not road accidents. E.g. Anthrax is scary but unlikely vs. heart disease which is very common and mostly preventable.
David
PS. Anyone have a take this from a legal standpoint? Ie. Is there some additional way that the existing laws are written that makes magazine capacity a particular "key" focus for anti-gun legislation (beyond all the specific justifications given)?
Chris Rhines
Member
Banning 30 round magazines is not a mild concession; it's an unacceptable one. I lived through ten years of the '94 AWB, and I have no desire to relive those days. Certainly not for the sake of appeasing a handful of whiny cranks who will never agree with me in any event.
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Yea, armoredman
Do you realize what you've just done? You've pointed out very succinctly that the gun is a completely inanimate object. The FINGER is the animated object! Thank you. Ergo, if there is a shooting somewhere, the person in control of the animated object - the finger - is to blame.
Lock the finger up along with the person in control of the finger, not the gun or everyone else's right to one.
Woody
Do you realize what you've just done? You've pointed out very succinctly that the gun is a completely inanimate object. The FINGER is the animated object! Thank you. Ergo, if there is a shooting somewhere, the person in control of the animated object - the finger - is to blame.
Lock the finger up along with the person in control of the finger, not the gun or everyone else's right to one.
Woody
Hey Mickey your father in law is dead wrong. During the debates leading to the GCA of 1968 the antis' argued that the 2A only protected military style weapons and that sporting weapons should be gotten rid of.
They change their arguement to fit the times. The only thing consistent is that they want to eventually ban all firearms from public use and then take them away from the police. That way the criminals will be safer and also be the only ones armed.
I don't personally see a need for large capacity mags myself but I will argue against a restriction on them because some people want them and like them and that's good enough for me.
Any type of restriction is bad and always just a "first step".
We must stick together.
They change their arguement to fit the times. The only thing consistent is that they want to eventually ban all firearms from public use and then take them away from the police. That way the criminals will be safer and also be the only ones armed.
I don't personally see a need for large capacity mags myself but I will argue against a restriction on them because some people want them and like them and that's good enough for me.
Any type of restriction is bad and always just a "first step".
We must stick together.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Magazine Capacity and Virginia Tech
Seung-Hui Cho used no 30 round magazines and killed more than five times as many people.
The official report released in the wake of the shooting, which I quote above, specifically stated that magazine capacity would not have made a demonstrable difference in the outcome of the shooting.
Why do I bring Virginia Tech up?
Simply to make this point: spree killers are neither hindered nor given a significant advantage from having access to so-called "high capacity" magazines. The most successful spree killers are the ones who manage to control the environment* in which they commit their crime, and even if you could successfully limit the tools with which they murder, it would only cause them to change technique, method, and/or location but not make them any less deadly.
Spree killers are crazy, but that doesn't make them stupid.
*Thanks to Chris Rhines who pointed this out during a conversation at SHOT.
P. 74 from The Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel said:
Seung-Hui Cho used no 30 round magazines and killed more than five times as many people.
The official report released in the wake of the shooting, which I quote above, specifically stated that magazine capacity would not have made a demonstrable difference in the outcome of the shooting.
Why do I bring Virginia Tech up?
Simply to make this point: spree killers are neither hindered nor given a significant advantage from having access to so-called "high capacity" magazines. The most successful spree killers are the ones who manage to control the environment* in which they commit their crime, and even if you could successfully limit the tools with which they murder, it would only cause them to change technique, method, and/or location but not make them any less deadly.
Spree killers are crazy, but that doesn't make them stupid.
*Thanks to Chris Rhines who pointed this out during a conversation at SHOT.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
General Arguments Against Magazine Bans
People in this case are fixating on the magazine because it has a higher-than-average capacity. However, it strikes me that most people stop thinking when they read "30 round magazine" and don't actually consider the ramifications of instituting a ban on magazines.
-If a magazine ban were an effective way to curb violent crime, there would be evidence of this from the ten year period of 1994-2004 when such a federal ban was in place. Anyone speaking in favor of such a ban should be asked to provide irrefutable proof that the ban actually worked.
-If you institute a ban on these magazines, you're going to have to explain how you intend to effectively enforce a ban on objects that are roughly the size of a candy bar, completely untraceable, and are already possessed by tens of millions of US citizens.
-If magazine capacity had an actual effect on the effectiveness of spree killers, then you'd see a direct relationship of deaths to magazine capacity. This isn't the case. Again, Seung-Hui Cho had no 30 round magazines, yet managed to kill five times as many people. John Allan Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed nearly twice as many people as Laughner, and they only fired one or two shots per incident. Charles Whitman killed more than two and a half times as many people as Laughner, and this was long before the days of Glock 19s or 30 round magazines.
-If you are in favor of making possession of these sorts of magazines illegal, then you must justify the arrest, trial, and conviction of people merely for possessing some stamped sheet metal/extruded plastic with a spring inside.
Fundamentally this is not an argument whereby we should be in a position of having to defend the ability to own magazines of any capacity. The argument should and must be framed such that those who wish to enact such a ban must prove that it would work (it won't) and outline how they intend to enforce a ban on tens of millions of nearly untraceable objects already in private hands (they must defend the confiscation of private property and/or arrest of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners for their ban to work.)
People in this case are fixating on the magazine because it has a higher-than-average capacity. However, it strikes me that most people stop thinking when they read "30 round magazine" and don't actually consider the ramifications of instituting a ban on magazines.
-If a magazine ban were an effective way to curb violent crime, there would be evidence of this from the ten year period of 1994-2004 when such a federal ban was in place. Anyone speaking in favor of such a ban should be asked to provide irrefutable proof that the ban actually worked.
-If you institute a ban on these magazines, you're going to have to explain how you intend to effectively enforce a ban on objects that are roughly the size of a candy bar, completely untraceable, and are already possessed by tens of millions of US citizens.
-If magazine capacity had an actual effect on the effectiveness of spree killers, then you'd see a direct relationship of deaths to magazine capacity. This isn't the case. Again, Seung-Hui Cho had no 30 round magazines, yet managed to kill five times as many people. John Allan Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed nearly twice as many people as Laughner, and they only fired one or two shots per incident. Charles Whitman killed more than two and a half times as many people as Laughner, and this was long before the days of Glock 19s or 30 round magazines.
-If you are in favor of making possession of these sorts of magazines illegal, then you must justify the arrest, trial, and conviction of people merely for possessing some stamped sheet metal/extruded plastic with a spring inside.
Fundamentally this is not an argument whereby we should be in a position of having to defend the ability to own magazines of any capacity. The argument should and must be framed such that those who wish to enact such a ban must prove that it would work (it won't) and outline how they intend to enforce a ban on tens of millions of nearly untraceable objects already in private hands (they must defend the confiscation of private property and/or arrest of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners for their ban to work.)
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I've seen reports that stated that Loughner was taken down while executing a magazine change after his pistol jammed.
There's a world of difference in the amount of time it takes for someone to reload a pistol after it jams, vs. executing a reload after running the gun dry vs. executing a tactical reload.
This becomes even more apparent for the novice who's not actually practiced malfunction drills.
danez71
Member
Ive seen that report too. However, from all of the reports Ive seen overall, that seems incorrect.
He fired 31 times and had a 30 round mag.
I think witnesses mistakenly reported that it jammed when, in reality, he just ran out of rounds.
Black Toe Knives
Member
During the years of AWB. I could Buy a M134, M16, AK-47, 100 round clips, the banned did nothing. If you had the money you could purchase everything legally. It was a just Pitbull with no teeth.
danez71
Member
armoredman,
I agree its the CRIMINAL that operates the gun, knife, car, hammer, pogo-stik, ect and does horrible things.
However, I seriously question the notion that around 1100-1200 AD, someone said 'I want to build something that sends something down a tube really fast...for no reason.... just because I can...'.
The thing is...how does a Magazine ban accomplish anything?
It is simply a piece of metal. A Magazine without a firearm can not do any harm. If I owned a 30 Round Magazine for a firearm I did not own, the best I could do to harm someone is throw it at them.
So.....my conclusion is....if they outlaw 30 rounders....what is next? Any gun that can function with a 30 rounder?
Afraid I am....I am very afraid any step in this direction would lead to so many other things, such as serializing or limiting Mags. Such as Ammunition registration.
You give an inch....and when that isn't enough(which it wont be), they take a yard.
Oh....and Hi THR. New member, long time lurker.
It is simply a piece of metal. A Magazine without a firearm can not do any harm. If I owned a 30 Round Magazine for a firearm I did not own, the best I could do to harm someone is throw it at them.
So.....my conclusion is....if they outlaw 30 rounders....what is next? Any gun that can function with a 30 rounder?
Afraid I am....I am very afraid any step in this direction would lead to so many other things, such as serializing or limiting Mags. Such as Ammunition registration.
You give an inch....and when that isn't enough(which it wont be), they take a yard.
Oh....and Hi THR. New member, long time lurker.
Last edited:
gc70
Member
rcmodel said:
The size of the magazine probably made no difference in the woman's ability to grab it in Tucson.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I suppose you'd have a point, if we all slavishly adhered to a belief that the original intention of the inventor of an item was actually somehow more meaningful than the myriad of uses people have found since that time.
To draw a comparison to vehicles, it would be like claiming that anyone who uses a Jeep for anything other than troop transport is somehow wrong.
By claiming that guns are only or primarily made for killing, you are stupidly dismissing out of hand all of the other equally legitimate reasons people choose to own firearms without so much as a second thought.
By making that claim, you're also implying that the only reason anyone ever buys a firearm is because they intend to kill someone or something with it. The logical conclusion to your statement is that anyone who chooses to buy a gun must therefore be a murderous nut bent on havoc.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
danez71 said:
Just a technicality but it was in fact a 33 round magazine. People keep saying 30 because that's a nice round number, but they hold 33 rounds. So the reports of his pistol being jammed makes sense if he changed mags before it was empty.
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG242-36.html
- Status
