Defending Hi-Cap Mags

[AlexanderA]

The arguments in favor of "10+" magazines based on self-defense or sporting criteria are, frankly, weak and unconvincing. A more convincing argument would be based on their usefulness in a military context, if we were to accept the "militia" rationale of the 2nd Amendment.

Right now, though, we're not arguing this in a vacuum. There are millions of large-capacity mags out there, and any "ban" would be unenforceable, and be ineffective in preventing the supposed "evil" that they entail. Given that, it's best not to restrict people's freedom unnecessarily. Unenforceable bans create a general contempt for the law (as the experience with alcohol Prohibition proved).

One area in which hi-cap magazines and other feeding devices are really useful is in fully-automatic weapons, which can be legally possessed under the National Firearms Act. In fact, it's hard to see how such weapons could function properly without them. If you completely remove the magazines, belts, etc., that are used with NFA full-auto weapons, you negate the regulation scheme that has worked since 1934, and in fact raise questions of an unconstitutional "taking" without compensation.

 

[armoredman]

If you're going to engage in a debate with someone who disagrees with you, it might be a good idea to, you know, actually use arguments that might work.

Ya know, i tried that last night, facts, quotes, citations, lists, examples...and every one that refuted the guys argument was brushed aside with "that doesn't matter", and example from other countries were pushed away with "We're not talking about them, just in this country", etc. I had god solid arguments that were well grounded in facts and truth, and he had fantasy land feelings and emotions...and I made not one inch in headway. I would probably have had better traction walking into a hurricane force headwind...
I am not used to losing that badly.

 

[Skribs]

AlexanderA, a poster here made a good statement in the handguns forum about a formula based on hit rate, number of attackers, and how many rounds are needed to stop an attacker. With average accuracy and assuming 2 hits to stop a target, it is very unlikely you'll stop even 2 attackers with only 10 rounds. That is why I ONLY carry a handgun with rounds in the double digits.

Telling me that I don't need 10 rounds or that it's hard to justify...well, I justify it by saying that I've done my research, and I know 10 rounds is likely the minimum to come out of a defensive encounter against two determined attackers alive.

 

[beatledog7]

Try these:

Some people own vehicles that were designed to operate with a V8 engine producing over 300 bhp and 350 ft-lbs of torque. These vehicles could take their occupants to work or the supermarket with a smaller engine producing less power, so why not require those owners to retrofit their vehicles with the smaller, less menacing-to-the-environment engines? They don't really need all that power, right?

There are guitar players who perform on instruments that are hand made of very rare woods costing thousands of dollars. But 99% of the people who hear those guitars can't tell any difference between them and a $75 Walmart guitar, so why do those players really need them? Let's make them revert to a less exotic instrument.

There are countless examples, but I've been successful with both of these.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

Because three are better than one (rope strand reference) and fifteen are better than ten (hi cap mag reference).

 

[AlexanderA]

Skribs wrote:

AlexanderA, a poster here made a good statement in the handguns forum about a formula based on hit rate, number of attackers, and how many rounds are needed to stop an attacker. With average accuracy and assuming 2 hits to stop a target, it is very unlikely you'll stop even 2 attackers with only 10 rounds. That is why I ONLY carry a handgun with rounds in the double digits.

Telling me that I don't need 10 rounds or that it's hard to justify...well, I justify it by saying that I've done my research, and I know 10 rounds is likely the minimum to come out of a defensive encounter against two determined attackers alive.

I'm with you in the sense that I'm against magazine capacity limits. Nevertheless, real-world studies of shooting incidents involving police show that in the vast majority of cases, the issue was decided with a surprising low number of rounds fired. (I seem to recall that 3-5 were average numbers.) Also, large magazine capacity is not "free" in that ergonomics of the pistol are sacrificed. I have a Beretta Model 92 with a 15-round magazine, but for practical use I much prefer a 1911 with a 7-round magazine. No big deal to carry an extra magazine.

On the other hand, an AR-15 doesn't make sense with just a 10-round magazine. The design and purpose are quite different from those of a handgun.

 

[csspecs]

You want a good argument point?? Look back at military arms, old military rifles held 5 or 10 rounds of .30-06 or something close in power.

Magazines hold more because modern rounds are SMALLER! We are using smaller less powerful rounds to reduce recoil so that smaller people could use the firearms effectively. Its been shown that smaller bullets are safer for bystanders which is why few police carry .44magnums and most carry 9mm or 40 caliber.

I can shoot a .30-06 just fine, my wife can't even hold it right due to the weight. A .223 works ok, but requires 2-3 rounds for equal lethality of one of the larger rifle.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You want a good argument point?? Look back at military arms, old military rifles held 5 or 10 rounds of .30-06 or something close in power.

Magazines hold more because modern rounds are SMALLER! We are using smaller less powerful rounds to reduce recoil so that smaller people could use the firearms effectively. Its been shown that smaller bullets are safer for bystanders which is why few police carry .44magnums and most carry 9mm or 40 caliber.

I can shoot a .30-06 just fine, my wife can't even hold it right due to the weight. A .223 works ok, but requires 2-3 rounds for equal lethality of one of the larger rifle.

This argument will only (maybe) work if your opponent is a dunce and remains fixated on guns that fire smaller rounds, like the AR-15.

What are you going to say if they bring up larger capacity magazines made for full power rifles? Now what is your argument? Should 30 round 5.56mm mags be OK because their total power is equal to 10 rounds of 7.62x51 (it's not, but for argument's sake let's say it is), but my 25 round 7.62mm AR-10 mags should be banned because nobody needs that many cartridges with that much power? What about a .50 Cal? One round of .50 BMG has the same kinetic energy as 10 rounds of 5.56mm, so should .50 BMG rifles be restricted to 3 rounds?

Point is, don't make arguments that are easy to poke holes in. You'll have convinced no one, and will end up with egg on your face.

 

[lobo9er]

Ya know, i tried that last night, facts, quotes, citations, lists, examples...and every one that refuted the guys argument was brushed aside with "that doesn't matter", and example from other countries were pushed away with "We're not talking about them, just in this country", etc. I had god solid arguments that were well grounded in facts and truth, and he had fantasy land feelings and emotions...and I made not one inch in headway. I would probably have had better traction walking into a hurricane force headwind...
I am not used to losing that badly

Thats because our arguments are based on facts, the anti argument is emotions. All they see is a picture of a black AR-15 on tv and the word ASSAULT and scary or sad music. Its like arguing with a child. They literally throw a little hissy fit in front of you. Usually something like what if it was your kid, you dont need that to shoot deer, 30 rounds! ..... what ever and its the end of the conversation. they have made up their minds SEMI AUTO is military war weapons that don't belong in our homes. I always make it a point let them talk keep a smile and they usually just throw a little tantrum.

Just like Piers morgan and larry pratt if you saw that. Larry spoke fact Piers calls him stupid. Larry says fact piers says you have no argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4

 

[Dr. Sandman]

There are many people out there that have already made up their minds. Rational arguments are of no use with these people.
Great advice on here. I would add to the "militia" argument where regular people in relativly recent history have had to fight a government. Colonist v. England; Jews, French Resistance, etc. v. Germans. This is the reason that a normal person way want to have a "military style" weapon and some mags around. How would WWII have played out if the Jews had kept their guns? The Nazis would have had a fight on their hands and plenty of non-jews would have helped them, too. It makes it difficult for that kind of evil to perpetuate when people have a real choice to fight.

 

[Bob2222]

If a rancher in Alaska has a predator problem and wants 20 or 30 round mags, why shouldn't he?

I think all the surrounding blue states -- New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts -- have magazine limits. Connecticut has an "AWB" but it's missing one thing -- magazine limits. If Connecticut thinks it's a good idea, why didn't they do it when they wrote the law? (Which seems to be a Xerox copy of the earlier NJ law except for the mag limits.) Why can't they change their law now?

Is the logic that the Democrats in Connecticut were too stupid to include the magazine limit when they passed their law, so the Democrats in Congress need to do it now?

 

[Solo]

The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.

Chapter VI - Gun Purchase and Campus Policies (pdf, 111kb)
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm

 

[anchorman]

The arguments in favor of "10+" magazines based on self-defense or sporting criteria are, frankly, weak and unconvincing. A more convincing argument would be based on their usefulness in a military context, if we were to accept the "militia" rationale of the 2nd Amendment.

That presumes that the person(s) with whom one is arguing/discussing this topic accept the "militia" rationale of the 2nd in the first place. I have encountered few if any people who want to limit magazine capacity who accept the very need for the 2nd amendment. It's fascinating, as these are usually people who are all about the rule of law, *except* when it comes to the second amendment.

The primary problem we have here is that most anti's do not see any reasonable or rational reason why a private citizen ought to own a gun. I know because I used to be one of these people. Now I own guns myself, enjoy shooting, and am happy to have the piece of mind that I have tools that I can use to attempt to protect myself if someone chooses to bring violence into my life.

One thing we can do to address this is to try during non-emotional times to educate our anti-friends about the reality of guns and gun ownership. My favorite holiday is "teach a liberal to shoot day". It is called that because none of my friends and acquaintances with conservative political tendencies are anti gun in any way shape or form. Many of my liberal friends are. Teach a liberal to shoot day is great, because you can celebrate it any time you get a chance to spend an hour or two at your local range, or any time you want if you or they are lucky enough to own a tract of land suitable for shooting practice.

Defending against magazine capacity restrictions is important, but the best thing we can do is to help our friends who are not interested in shooting and guns to at least understand how they work, familiarize them with guns, and help them to understand that we, the law abiding gun owners of america, regardless of our various political affiliations or lack thereof, are an asset to society, and not the liability that they see us for.

It is good to remember in all arguments/discussions, that an opinion formed based on emotion and fear cannot normally be argued against and changed using facts. Most of us like to think we are more rational and grown up than that, but we are not in all cases. Pick your battles (we don't need to convince EVERYONE) and try not to attack them for their emotional stance if possible, for doing so only reinforces and strengthens their emotionality.

 

[Ak Guy]

Well said, anchorman !! I wish I could speak as eloquently in my discussions / arguments w/ those who do not understand.

 

[anchorman]

Well said, anchorman !! I wish I could speak as eloquently in my discussions / arguments w/ those who do not understand.

LOL. I wish I could speak eloquently and change anyone's mind on these topics... Preaching to the choir is easy.

I spoke with my father a few years ago about guns and gun control. He listened to and accepted pretty much all of the arguments as valid. When I asked him if he still wanted to ban all guns: "Yup." I wish I knew how to persuade people to think rationally about their irrational emotional responses. Still trying to figure that out.

Anyway, I hope people keep discussing this and how to win people over re: most of the current proposed gun control laws. I find it helpful to think this stuff through with other like minded people, especially here at THR, where civil discussion and respect are the rule and not the exception. I am always taken aback by the decency that most of our fellow forum members display towards one another, as it's pretty rare in most other corners of the internet.

 

[Sport45]

AlexanderA, a poster here made a good statement in the handguns forum about a formula based on hit rate, number of attackers, and how many rounds are needed to stop an attacker. With average accuracy and assuming 2 hits to stop a target, it is very unlikely you'll stop even 2 attackers with only 10 rounds. That is why I ONLY carry a handgun with rounds in the double digits.

That was a good read, but I wouldn't use it as an argument. What comes across is, "I need 15 rounds 'cause I'll probably miss with 13 of them". That leaves the other guy wondering where those 13 went.