Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Navy_Guns, Dec 10, 2019.
Wait... Since I'm a "nobody" I guess that means I need more than ten rounds. And an AR15. Thanks for looking out for my 2nd Amendment rights, Chris!
Higher and you're pushing the numbers back up into the "high capacity" realm they are trying to restrict, lower and they start getting so restrictive they'll be more likely to get too much push back from business and voters.
In short, 10 is a nice, round "magic number", politically speaking.
But concept and actuality often don't agree.
This is a very good thought provoking question.
The State of New York originally proposed a seven round magazine limit in the SAFE Act. It was changed to ten rounds after the Liberals encountered too much opposition since seven round magazines are not made for a lot of guns.
Maybe it is based in human biology since humans have ten fingers and toes.
Maybe it is because ten is considered to be the best of something or ideal. For example guys rate girls on a scale of 1 to 10.
It could be that ten round magazines are the smallest gun owners will accept without too much fuss.
There's also the snakes that know "gun control" and restricted mags are just a small step in getting thier way to push even more restrictions forward.
Best place to look is the opposition's material.
A more than relevant, current case is Duncan v. Becerra since in almost all the briefs in support of the ban on +10 round magazines, they (Brady, etc.) cite a single quote from an expert witness. In that declaration, the woman states that "A study of all incidents in this database over a 5-year period from 1997 through 2001 found that it is rare for individuals to defend themselves using more than ten rounds. Specifically, this study found that, on average, 2.2 shots were fired by defenders and that in 28% of incidents of armed citizens defending themselves the individuals fired no shots at all."
That 2.2 round statistic is repeated throughout. The interesting thing about it though, is the source of the information which is being used against us.
It's easy for us to all state that the other side is just winging it and it's arbitrary, but that's not entirely true.
We must always be very cautious of human nature and emotion governing our lives because if we are not, we will be horribly restricted and controlled. My limited mathematical skills tell me that the only truly safe magazine capacity in any scenario is “0” - any other number represented as “safe” is misrepresented.
Yes, it's arbitrary and judge Benitez said the following in Duncan v Becerra - http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
"(16.) “10” appears to be an arbitrary number So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable? It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds ... is not addressed ... The State argues only that it is not required to explain why it has selected 10 as the number ... Perhaps not. But the 10-round limit appears to be arbitrary.
(12.) the critical “pause” From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause', as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."
One niece says you only need one bullet to kill a person, why do you need to carry a bazillion rounds (her words)? And you shouldn't be killing people, anyway. Guns make killing too easy and good people snap, therefore nobody should own a gun, period.
One nephew thinks old historical military weapons are cool and likes looking at collections in a museum, but people don't need to be walking around with a gun stuffed in their pants just looking for trouble, therefore nobody should own a gun, period (he's also an Antifa sympathizer).
My own pop says the only reason anyone would ever want to own a gun is to kill people. Period. No discussion, he's right.
Can you tell we all live in commie liberal states? I have tried, but there is no amount of truth, nor facts, nor logical argument that will ever change their minds. I see them as a cross-section of the majority voting public where I live, and they are the reason why we have people like Murphy, Blumenthal, AOC, etc., in office right now, and are the reason why freedoms are being eroded with every legislative session.
...and that is the argument given most of the time by us. Vietnam was supposed to be a"domino" too. That's a hard statistic to prove also.
No one here can make a legitimate claim that weapons with higher capacities are not a bigger threat than those with low capacity. Kinda why the military uses high capacity mags. Same with LEAs. Why ardent gun forum folks argue for the use of bottom feeders over revolvers and why many revolvers lovers relish those new SD revolvers with one more round. Why waterfowlers are restricted to three round mag capacity. This isn't all just "emotions". It's easily understandable why anti's target them, because they are an obvious factor in many mass shootings.
...and tape two 30 rounders together and you have twice as much capacity and only have to take the time to reload once. Argument nullified.
Those of us that want to retain the use of high capacity mags, have to come up with legitimate arguments. We can't fall prey to the same emotions we accuse the antis of having. As I said, I see nothing effective coming out of any magazine ban. What I see needs to be done is to train more folks how to defend themselves in any type of shooting scenario, and to train more folks in how to save those folks already shot. It's a fact that most gunshot victims die because they bleed out. They are not killed instantly. They lie bleeding to death as law enforcement walks over them in an attempt to nullify the threat to anybody else. If more folks knew how to apply and use a tourniquet effectively, it would save many more lives than any magazine ban. Knowing how to spot folks with real emotional problems and being aware of our surroundings and preventing a incident before it starts, negates any magazine capacity.
While magazine bans may reduce mass shooting carnage in a few scenarios, it also may increase carnage because we are restricted in the way we defend ourselves.
Lots of folk will credit Bill Ruger with popularizing the notion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban
In fairness to ol' dead Bill, he didn't come up with the idea of restricting magazine capacity instead of banning semiauto rifles - it had been circulating in various opinion pieces prior to his seizing on it. But he is credited for using it as a way to save his beloved Mini and 10/22 products from being banned, in an era where semi-auto rifles were pretty dang close to being outlawed. Since the 10/22 had a 10rd capacity, ten rounds was the magic number.
Yeah - the late 80s and early 90's were dark days for the RKBA community, in case some of y'all weren't around to enjoy it. Folk who've entered the gunnie community subsequent to the 2004 AWB sunset don't have the context for a lot of what scares the, um, more seasoned in our ranks.
Except it is all emotion, not logic. Emotion, because an honest analysis of mass shootings would lead anyone using logic to conclude that mass shootings are so rare and the number of victims so small that spending time discussing them borders on a total waste of time. Even more stupid that there is a huge national debate about it. And finally, lib heads can pretend they are acting from care and concern for our society but what they really mean is "upper class and upper middle class white people" cause a run of the mill weekend in Chicago makes them liars. We all know they just want to kick conservatives and all they hold dear, gun rights, Bible, babies, non gay families, right in the nads. They don't hate guns, they hate what we represent and stand for. We are in the way of progressive socialism aka globalism and guns and non-ecumenical Christianity stand in the way most, hence the monster attempt to restrict and control.
I don't think that's necessary. I'm simply refusing any compliance with future gun control laws. If we all stood on that, they'll do what? They are like a scumbag up in my grille demanding stuff from me. They ain't getting jack!
Ban my mags I'll bury the extras and build easy to access hidey holes. Ban my rifles, see previous sentence. Tax ammo to heaven and I'll just start stealing from stores who are a little to quick to cooperate. Yeah, I said that. If we, as a gun "community" will only stand for legal recourse before laying down the arms you might as well turn them in today. Rights don't have to be justified. Our founding fathers would understand my position. Today I'm a crazy gun nut who might need red flagged. Tomorrow I'm a freedom fighter.
Only thing I'm justifying is my failure to comply with dirty anti-gunners.
Agreed. We need to stop this nonsense of trying to justify "high" capacity magazines based on self defense from civilians. The statistics do indeed point to more than ten rounds (or 5) being uneccessary the majority of the time when defending against civilian criminals, a fact that is very commonly pointed out on this very forum by the revolver fans.
Separate names with a comma.