Defending Hi-Cap Mags

[Ak Guy]

I need some persuasive arguments to help me justify hi-caps in handguns. Sure, they are fun, I like them, I use them, I-can-therefore-I-will, etc. But when people challenge me to explain the need for them, I can only fall back on the above, and I know I'm not very convincing.

Can I get some help here w/ logical / rational arguments? ....... Thanx......

 

[Actinic_Blue]

If in a self defense situation you may very well need more than ten rounds and of course you will never know that until such situation would occur, but better to be prepared. IMO it's the same argument as why we wear seat belts and have airbags in cars and why we have fire extinguishers in our homes.

 

[VVelox]

I would just point out there is no good justifiable reason to limit size, because some one intent on doing bad things can always carry more magazines and only takes a moment to swap them out.

Now if they still have issues with it...

From a concealed carry perspective it is nice as you only need one magazine instead of carrying a few with low capacity.

From a range stand point, it is nice to be able to focus on the shooting more and spend less time reloading.

Point out that from a defense stand point, people don't drop dead like in the movies/TV, but can continue coming at you even when shot multiple times.

 

[Hacker15E]

The term is "normal capacity"...as in, as many rounds as the firearm was designed to hold in the first place.

 

[hso]

The first question is why do they have to be defended?

The crime rate in the U.S. has been demonstrably dropping from before the AWB and continues to drop after the sunset of the misguided piece of legislation.

The high profile cases where they've been pilloried constitute a very small percentage of the dropping violent crimes in the U.S.

In the highest profile mass murder until CT, Virginia Tech, Cho used 10 round magazines and in the CO and OR shootings both weapons jammed stopping their use with misnamed "hi-cap" mags.

Magazines like firearms don't do anything on their own. They are inert objects. It is the criminally insane person intent upon evil that is the threat to society.

 

[Buck Kramer]

I just hate reloading mags all the time at the range, I just load them up before I go (with a CCW permit.) That's my most logical argument, its just a pain in the rear to sit there and reload them.

 

[Justin]

It seems to me that the most effective way to counter arguments in favor of a magazine ban is to avoid being in the position of having to defend ownership of high capacity magazines. Rather, it's better to shift the debate to the topic of the likely real-world implementation and effectiveness of such a ban.

By shifting the focus of the debate, there's a much higher likelihood that you will convince your opponent that a ban is unworkable, and therefore not worth pursuing.

Points to bring up in a discussion about a magazine ban:

- Point out that we already had a federal, nationwide ban on these magazines. It lasted ten years, and not one trustworthy study could prove that the ban on high capacity magazines had any measurable effect on violent crime at all. Ten years, and there was not one single shred of proof that the law did anything.

-If they still insist that a ban is a good idea, ask them to explain how a new ban would work and/or be enforced when the old one clearly did not.

-Point out that high-capacity magazines are small items, about the size of a candy bar, and they're practically untraceable. Ask them how they would plan to keep people from importing magazines, buying them on the secondary market, or simply making them in a machine shop or with a 3D printer.

-Point out that tens of millions of these magazines are already in private hands in this country. Ask them to explain whether or not they would be willing to arrest, try, and imprison someone simply for owning such an item.

-Furthermore, ask them if imprisoning someone for simple possession of a plastic tube with a spring in it is a reasonable use of the already strained and overextended resources of the American judicial system.

-A magazine capacity ban would not put an end to mass murderers, only cause a shift in the tactics they employ. It's worth pointing out that plenty of other spree shootings have taken place without the aid of 30ish-round magazines, including Seung-Hui Cho, Malvo/Muhammad, and Charles Whitman.

 

[Pilot]

Actions by government like limiting mag capacity, and banning cosmetic characteristics of semi-auto military rifles gives the public perception of politicians "DOING SOMETHING". It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be logical, reasonable or actually solve the problem.

When these restrictions don't work, and another mass shooting occurs, the restrictions will get more draconian. Perhaps banning the production of semi auto rifles for civilian sales, and/or banning civilian sales of semi auto pistols. Then when that doesn't work, who knows what will be next, but just look at Australia, and the UK for the road map.

We are in a period of ultra left, liberalism, and this is just another excuse to grow government control and influence over our lives.

 

[feedthehogs]

They don't need to be defended. Don't allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

Just answer, its my right. Period.

 

[j1]

A good offense is the bet defense. Buy a bunch of hi caps before they are banned.

 

[Girodin]

There is a very strong argument for higher capacity mags given the original and true point of the second amendment. I believe they are absolutely constitutionally protected. Sadly that is an argument that may mean very little to some folks today. In terms of restricting constitutional rights to prevent mass shootings, I like to see how people react to the idea of passing legislation that would gag the media and thus prevent the sensationalization of these tragedies , which encourages copy cats. We have had guns and crazies for a long time. Constants do not explain variables. It wasn't until the media began the type of coverage they have of these events that they started to happen with the frequency we are seeing.

As other's have mentioned defensive use.

The argument that seems to be used now is that these higher capacity magazines allow a mass shooter to do more damage, to shoot more people. Just imagine if the shooter had only had a ten round magazine instead of 30 rounds. He had three times the ammunition on tap and thus was able to do more harm they argue. This argument stems from ignorance of guns. I like to point out to people how silly an argument this is given the ability to speed reload. A demonstration of a speed reload for those not well acquainted with guns can help to show how pointless and ineffectual any kind of magazine restriction would be to mitigating the loss of life in mass shooting tragedies. If you are competent with your gun this is easily demonstrated. If you aren't work to achieve that competence. I'm by no means blisteringly fast when it comes to a speed reload but can still make the point (and make it better because I'm not some Miculek-esque aberration, but am at a level most could achieve).

It is also worth noting that there are probably millions of these magazines in the hands of the general public. There really cannot and will not be effective legislation to reduce private ownership of them. Even if another mag was never made people could easily get their hands on them for decades to come. Even if it would be a good idea to keep people from owning them, any restrictions they could reasonably impose will not do that. Preventing private ownership at this point is not realistic and as such it merely would be a incursion on the liberties of us law abiding citizens with absolutely no gain in safety, even if we accepted agruendo private ownership of higher capacity magazines did in fact make people less safe.

Lastly, I think we need to shift the discussion to the true root of many of these tragedies, mental health care in this country.

 

[huntsman]

If the debate is just mag size then we should be thankful, instead I suggest you hone your debate skills for the question of why you should be allowed to own a gun period.

 

[mgmorden]

If the debate is just mag size then we should be thankful, instead I suggest you hone your debate skills for the question of why you should be allowed to own a gun period.

Gun ownership as a whole isn't going to be threatened. When you look at the number of states that have been allowing or broadening concealed carry laws lately its pretty clear that we have a national attitude that is in favor of gun carry.

The trick is to make sure that they don't believe in a "special" class of guns or guns accessories. When I was growing up I wanted a sports car. I eventually got one, and I never raced it or did anything bad in it, but the whole time I had parents and relatives telling me how useless such things were. They're only for racing, speeding, and doing things you had no business doing. None of them would dream of saying cars were bad, but they had singled out a specific class/genre of them as being of no use to everyday people.

We need to make sure that the same doesn't happen with firearms. A person with a Glock 17 with a normal capacity mag is no more "up to no good" then the person who buys a single-stack Kahr for concealed carry.

 

[W.E.G.]

How fast do you have to reload in order to murder a classroom full of kindergarteners?

The same result could have just as certainly have been obtained with a single-barrel shotgun and a pocket full of shells.

Blaming psychotic murder rampages on the maniac's choice of firearm is as logical as blaming man-made lakes for boating accidents.

 

[holdencm9]

I have seen this argument play out many times:

Anti's say we should limit mag cap...less people would die

Gun owners say, it wouldn't have mattered...he had all the time in the world to walk through the school and systematically execute children.

Anti's say, well what do you need them for?

Gun owners list all the aforementioned reasons in this thread.

Anti's say, if even ONE child could have been saved, it is worth it.

Gun owner explains how a skilled shooter can reload in under 2 seconds, so it wouldn't matter.

Anti's say, if it wouldn't have mattered to the shooter, why should it matter to you?

And around and around we go...

I say, it likely wouldn't matter, and in the absence of any factual evidence that it WOULD matter, I will always stand on the side of less governmental restrictions/control and more freedom.

 

[AlexanderA]

30-round magazines are standard in the most-commonly-issued military weapons. The Second Amendment is about putting the people (since the militia is defined as the whole body of the people) on a par with any standing army.

The utilitarian argument is that there are just too many "hi-cap" magazines to effectively ban. This kind of prohibition (like alcohol prohibition) will be widely ignored and will result in increased contempt for the law in general.

 

[mgmorden]

30-round magazines are standard in the most-commonly-issued military weapons. The Second Amendment is about putting the people (since the militia is defined as the whole body of the people) on a par with any standing army.

The argument that always gets tossed out there is that its laughable to pretend that the 2nd ammendmant is any user there since the government has tanks, nukes, planes, etc. They make it sound almost as if small arms are like water balloons and are completely useless.

Of course, at the same time they want them all outlawed for being lethal killing machines capable of machining down hundreds in a matter of seconds.

Personally, I think we'll probably get out of this ok. Gun control of any type is hugely unpopular with the right wing and the House is still Republican controlled.

Still, I will admit that I went ahead and ordered 6 magazines for a .40 cal S&W M&P this morning. I don't even own one of those guns but I figure I will eventually for USPSA Limited and figured that I don't want to be stuck unable to aquire mags for it.

 

[Risky]

I usually just throw in their faces that it will undoubtedly save more lives if we simply made cars that couldn't go above the speed limit. Speeding contributes to 40% of auto fatalities. Averaging somewhere around 40k auto deaths a year for the past decade, that's 16,000 deaths that could theoretically be prevented or mitigated. Compared to gun murders in the us, somewhere around 8 or 9 thousand with 2% of those having utilized a 'high capacity assault weapon'.

 

[almherdfan]

1. Prohibitions simply do not work, especially in a "free" society.
2. Why should I have to defend or justify my choices anymore then other citizens/consumers?
3. We do not punish the many for the crimes of the few, do we?
4. Been there, done that, no discernible proof it worked.
5. Regular capacity magazines allow shooters to enjoy their sport in the same way drivers allow golfers to better enjoy their sport.
6. I am responsible for myself and my family's defense. I do not want to compromise my ability to respond to multiple/determined threats.
7. Criminals will not abide by limits.
8. The victims (and the nation as a whole) deserve real solutions, not emotional ones.

 

[Skribs]

Ban high cap magazines, and criminals will either:

1) bring more magazines or
2) ignore the law, because they're ignoring murder laws already

Ban autoloaders altogether, and criminals will either:

1) bring speedloaders
2) ignore the law, because they're ignoring murder laws anyway
3) use a bomb or arson

The problem with banning tools is it does nothing to work on the behavior. We need to work on preventing violence as a whole, not just preventing "gun violence". We need to work on preventing recitivism. If violent offenders were actually put behind bars, we really wouldn't need to worry about "prohibited persons."

 

[Trent]

The argument against this is pretty easy, actually.

From an argument I recently had:

A standard capacity AR15 carries 30 rounds. It's the "colloquial evil black rifle" that epitomizes everything wrong with firearms, in the eyes of anti-gun folks.
Compare to a standard capacity handgun, we'll use a standard size Glock 9mm; holds 17 rounds standard.
Compare to a reduced capacity handgun (restricted to hold 10 rounds.)

I can fire, accurately, 3 rounds per second from a 5.56 "Assault Rifle", or handgun (standard capacity or extended capacity).

It takes me 10 seconds to fire all 30 rounds out of the AR15. It takes me 4 seconds to load the rifle. (More complex than handgun, magazines are larger, more steps required.) Another 10 seconds to fire another 30 rounds out of the AR15. Benchmark = 24 seconds for 60 rounds.

Now take the standard 17-round capacity Glock. I have to reload the Glock 4 times, but it's faster (takes under a second if you're proficient, less complicated.) So we'll factor one second for reloads. It still takes me 24 seconds to fire 60 rounds. (Same as the AR-15, matching our benchmark).

Now take the reduced capcity 10 round handgun. I have to reload this SIX times to fire 60 shots - for a total of 26 seconds (60/3=20, +6 for reloads), to fire the same 60 shots.

I can still shoot a reduced capacity (restricted) handgun 60 times in under a half of a minute.

Where's the benefit here?

 

[benEzra]

The limit the prohibitionists are shooting for (10 rounds) would turn the clock back to before the Civil War. The Henry repeating carbine that hit the civilian market in the early 1860s (ancestor of the Winchester) had a capacity of up to 15, as I recall. I think the Spencer could be used with speedloaders, not sure about the Henry. 30-round magazines hit the market in the 1870s, for those willing to trade reduced power for greater capacity.

Ordinary civilian full-sized 9mm pistols typically hold 15 to 18 rounds per magazine; the standard capacity for small- and intermediate-caliber centerfire rifles is 30.

The other thing is, unlike a mass murderer who can plan ahead and bring as many magazines as he can carry, a homeowner using a gun for defensive purposes is in all likelihood going to have only the ammunition in the magazine.

Of the worst 3 mass shootings in the United States, two involved only pistols and non-extended magazines. The Virginia Tech shooter reloaded at least twelve times.

 

[youngda9]

Go to youtube and search for fast magazine changes...under a second easily with a bottom feeder...mag capacity doesn't matter.

Neither do gun free zones, waiting periods, registration, laws against theft and murder, etc...all of these things were violated in the CT shooting, didn't do a dang thing to prevent killing.

It's just liberal emotional blather.

 

[armoredman]

 

[Trent]

By the way, I tested this yesterday at the range.

Taurus PT92. (I can fire 9mm faster than a 45).

6 magazines loaded to 5 rounds each (5 magazine changes required to fire 30 rounds).

Starting with an unloaded firearm and 6 magazines in my coat pocket....

Having a friend time me, it took 12 seconds to finish firing all 30 rounds INCLUDING the magazine changes.

As far as accuracy, firing as fast as I could, 100% of rounds were accounted for at 7 yards on a 12"x12" square paper target. 18 of 30 rounds were in the 3" bullseye.

My conclusion; magazine restrictions will accomplish nothing, in the way of preventing mass murder.