How significant would a new AWB and a 10 round limit be to rifle effectiveness?

[Habeed]

As a tool for self defense, how significant would a new Assault Weapons Ban and a 10 round magazine limit be if applied to M-4 or AR-15 style rifles?

From the wiki, it states that the rifle has to have several features to qualify as an assault weapon. Specifically, it can't have a standard pistol grip AND a flash suppressor.

Well, how big a deal is the loss of the flash suppressor? What exactly does it do for you, anyway?

As for the 10 round limit : if you have to defend your life or your property with a rifle, say after a natural disaster when the looters are coming, how probable is it that you actually need more than 10 rounds? (between reloads)

I don't really have anything to compare to, I was in the Army but I never fired a weapon in combat. I do remember that 30 rounds doesn't seem like much, however, many U.S. soldiers in world war 2 had only 5-8.

Yes, I'm aware that mass murder won't be noticeably affected by this. There will be plenty of high cap mags left over for many years after the ban, and the next time a nut comes along and wants to do something bad, he has plenty of other options, anyway. A bomb would have killed far more people, and I think the right kind of fertilizer to make a bomb is still sold at agricultural supply places.

 

[Phatty]

I hate the idea that this thread even exists. I'd close and delete it if I could. I can already see some judge somewhere citing to this thread and arguing, even the members at thehighroad.org admit that a 10-round limit will not decrease the usefulness of a rifle for self-defense. I urge other members to ignore and not post here.

 

[Habeed]

Phatty : whether or not people post here, it's going to be said. So if there's a solid argument for a the limit NOT being at 10 rounds, make it.

It is true that if you ended up in a self defense situation against trained soldiers, that 10 round limit would be a serious problem. Say the Zeta cartel was in your neighborhood, trying to cut off the head of your next door neighbor, and you wanted to intervene. (unlike in Mexico, where you'd just hide and mind your own business until they come for you)

Of course, conditions would probably not worsen overnight. Realistically, a magazine is not a complex device. It would not surprise me if a 3d printer could "print" a magazine in two halves of ABS plastic, and you'd just need a spring from the hardware store.

 

[horsemen61]

its my right to have as many 30 rounders as I can buy y only have 10 rounds is beyond me:banghead:

 

[Skribs]

There are several solid arguments on this forum already that there should be no AWB at all, including a thread on "high cap" magazines. But I'll sum it up for you:

1) The RKBA was meant to be a catch-all, but every time gun control wants us to "compromise" we move closer to what they want and don't get anything in return. It would be like a thief coming up to you and saying "I want $100" and you compromise by giving him a $20. The compromise only benefits the thief.

2) Most features of an "assault weapon" are simply features that make it look scary. The other features of an "assault weapon" are technical capabilities that in the case of an undeterred active shooter won't make much of a difference. Several people have explained how much time would be lost by reloading a 6-shot revolver instead of a 30-round AR, and it's in the realm of less than a minute per AR magazine - something that could easily be accomplished during movement.

3) Make "assault weapons" illegal and criminals will still get them. Someone willing to commit armed robbery and/or murder isn't going to care about a gun charge. Even if the gun control miraculously works, the criminals will find another tool to do their bidding. Tell a kid not to grab a cookie from the cookie jar, and he'll either grab the cookie anyway, or grab another snack instead.

So...basically...it infringes my rights without preventing or deterring crime, or even mitigating the damage of the crime. So what is the benefit? Oh yeah, a bandaid for politicians to apply to a papercut while the gaping wounds of the root of societies problem continue to bleed out.

 

[horsemen61]

Great points skribs

 

[youngda9]

It's not the TOOL.

A VERY telling statistic:
“If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it is about time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/

ELIMINATE GUN FREE ZONES

 

[bassdogs]

Phatty : Make your case if you will. This is a ligit ??. I am not a proponent of a new awban or placing limits on mags, but I think its time for all to look at this question. My biggest concern for legislation like this is not the immediate impact on self-defense but more so that it would be that crack in the 2nd admendment that would lead to a chip, chip , chipping away at the rights to gun ownership. I don't trust the liberals and politicians in general. Unfortunately they will bend with the wind and are capable of anything given the left leaning congress and our leftist prez.

I know many on here think limits on machine [full auto] should be eliminated so we can own anything we want. I'm starting to see [not necessarily agree with] the argument against today's rapid fire hi cap weapons that in the hands of just about anyone with the slightest amount of training, can rip off semi auto shots that is capable of laying down fire that mirrors that of the Tommy gun or other similar full autos that fall under the federal license. With the large cap mags [even for handguns] just about anyone has the firepower to fire almost endlessly with only a couple of second pause to drop and reload a new mag.

I don't like the slippery slope that a new awb might create, but the argument against one is becoming a more difficult sell after events of the last few weeks.

 

[HoosierQ]

Here's the deal. Forget you mag issue.

The government has got to get through this fiscal cliff mess first. If the fiscal cliff goes as bad as it could...the worst case scenario...the government will be glad you have a 30 round magazine in your rifle because it would get very ugly very fast (that would be very little welfare, very little healthcare because the hospitals will shut down because medicare stops paying very much at all). Now of course that's the worst case scenario but the government is going to have to expend all their energy and really pull a rabbit out of their hat to come through that gracefully. They're not going to go down a gun control path until that gets done and by then, the furor is going to die down and.

Considering WWII was won with a rifle with 8 and a pistol with 7, I don't think HD will be compromised with 10. But that's rather beside the point at the end of the day.

 

[Trent]

See my "Original Assault Rifle" thread for my take on things.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689851

 

[22-rimfire]

How about a 30-round limit? I think it is a pointless discussion and if imposed again, a pointless gun control measure other than it makes some politicians feel like they "did something". The fact is, many of these politicans will be voted out of office if they vote for a mag restriction or AWB. I feel for the victims, but this kind of restriction has no merit considering that you are often dealing with disturbed people or criminals and they don't follow any laws anyway.

 

[youngda9]

Stop falling into the trap that the tool is the problem. It's mental health and gun free zones.

The largest killing recently was done with a truck load of fertalizer and a pair of box cutters. The largest school killing was done with IEDs.

Gun free zones kill.

Here’s a few the media hasn’t told you about:
• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html?m=1

 

[David White]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon (in the civilian market).
It is a term used by the anti's to justify banning "scary" guns.
Don't forget, we already had an assault weapons ban with magazine limits. Crime remained virtually the same (or less).
The assault weapons banned were used in less than two percent of all crimes.
Another ban will not change a thing. You will only need to change mags sooner if you are a lunatic bent on carnage to those around you.

 

[mljdeckard]

Cut the OP some slack. He's not saying he supports the idea, he's asking a practical question.

The argument is, that if the bad guy has to stop to reload, it will be easier to stop him. The facts do not bear this out. In both the Oregon and Aurora shootings, the shooter had their rifles jam. I'm guessing that they didn't know how to clear a malfunction. (At least not quickly and effectively.) They were also probably rookies, in that they didn't know that most of us upgrade our magazines to avoid those kinds of problems. If they made THOSE mistakes, they they probably aren't well-practiced in magazine changes either. I'm in the army, and I'm ok, but my little brother is in combat arms, and he is like LIGHTNING. As in, he has won unit contests for magazine changes. He can change mags faster than most people wait between shots.

So yes, it MAY affect our ability to run and gun SOMEWHAT, but at the same time, situations where you have to fire more than ten rounds without having a pause are rare. We should all be proficient enough to do this anyway.

The notion does make me all the more upset that customs took ALL of my magazines when I was leaving Kuwait, including 7 G.I. mags, 4 M-9 mags, and eight of my privately owned pmags. Grrr. I still have more, but we may wish we had never gotten rid of any.

 

[Trent]

I think the perspective that the anti's are coming from is;

"People (police and civilians) defended themselves just fine with 5 and 6 shot revolvers long before the advent of semi-auto firearms."

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I see this argument in capacity comming up often when discussing the 1911 platform. Crimials often travel in packs including home break ins. As such, if you really need to shoot, ten rounds divided by say three bad guys doesn't leave a lot of rounds. Factor in stress, poor lighting, folks moving, lack of skill on the homeowner, it becomes much harder to hit your target. Ten rounds isn't enough.

 

[horsemen61]

well I think its absurd to even ask such a thing.

 

[Trent]

I see this argument in capacity comming up often when discussing the 1911 platform. Crimials often travel in packs including home break ins. As such, if you really need to shoot, ten rounds divided by say three bad guys doesn't leave a lot of rounds. Factor in stress, poor lighting, folks moving, lack of skill on the homeowner, it becomes much harder to hit your target. Ten rounds isn't enough.

A home invasion near my home in rural Illinois recently involved *5* armed bad guys. They weren't caught.

It caused me enough concern that I've since added a semi-auto rifle to my home defense plan.

I REALLY would not like a 10 round limit. That's only 2 shots per bad guy, based on recent local trends. 5 on one odds is already very poor odds without the added restrictions.

 

[bassdogs]

Assault weapon is indeed a mysterious item. Regardless of the name, many threads have discussed this, the weapons that these "names" target are carbine like, hi cap mag, military style firearms. No mystery there.

The civilian version of the popular M16 / M4 is the semi auto AR15. Let me throw out this fact. Military assault rifles were long ago changed to short burst / semi auto fire. They were found to be more effective than full auto. Other than the burst selection, there is now very little difference between the M16 and the AR15 platforms, and makes the argument that these are not assault weapons much harder to make.

 

[Deanimator]

The question is utterly moot, given that the same people who want to ban normal capacity magazines, flash hiders and pistol grips, ALSO want to ban "sniper rifles" and ALL handguns.

This subject is about as pointless as arguing whether sharks have a preference for Catholics over Buddhists.

To a shark, a crucifix or a saffron robe is just garnish.

The ultimate goal is NOT citizen firearms ownership. Any "features" are irrelevant to that ultimate goal.

 

[Skribs]

Bassdogs, the Army still uses full-auto guns like the M4A1 and the M240/M249. The reason they selected burst fire is to curb spray-and-pray tactics.

Also, there is a difference between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle". A semi-automatic weapon cannot by definition be an assault rifle, because the technical definition includes burst or full-auto fire. "Assault weapon" is a non-technical term, which as I mentioned above includes terms that are either A) scary or B) a technical stat that in the end won't make much of a difference.

Take the term "flash hider" (to most laymen that means a suppressor), "pistol grip" (makes it sound like the gun is easier to conceal, even though most pistol grip weapons still have a stock and PGO weapons are much harder to use effectively), "high-capacity magazine" (in reality a standard capacity magazine that is higher than what the antis want us to have), or "bayonette lug" (okay...the military has actually taken out bayonettes for large part because a spare magazine is a better use of weight).

 

[huntsman]

The ultimate goal is NOT citizen firearms ownership. Any "features" are irrelevant to that ultimate goal.

+1 we're going to witness the real purpose for the 2nd amendment

 

[David White]

What is with this latest craze of "pocket nines"? Seems to me that there has been a shift from full size duty guns, (which I prefer) to lower capacity pocketable guns?
Why on earth would people want to give up capacity, sight radius and barrel length just to be able to put your piece in your pocket?
Seems like a magazine ban would have zero effect if everyone is carrying a seven shot gun anyway.
I have no desire to own a pocket sized .45 , .40 or 9mm. I would be giving up some of the advantages that I have already.
I live in Vermont. There is no permit system here, just constitutional carry. Fill out your 4473(?) form, pass the instant background check and then lock and load. Carry as you see fit, CC or OC. I don't have to worry about "printing" and could care less if I do. I open carry a lot and do so in every place I go.
That being said, I have no desire for a pocket gun that due to its size often kicks more than its full size count part.
Does the gun industry know something we don't?
Either way, I'll keep my duty sized M&P .40 with its fifteen plus one capacity. The rest of you go on and enjoy your nanos and body guards. I'll hold onto my full size!

 

[Skribs]

Deanimator, that's a very good point. I argue point-for-point though because it's very clear that no ban or restriction is going to do anything to prevent crime.

 

[Justin]

Phatty : whether or not people post here, it's going to be said. So if there's a solid argument for a the limit NOT being at 10 rounds, make it.

There is no data whatsoever to back up the notion that reduced magazine capacity has ever had a measurable effect of reducing the number of people killed in a spree killing.

If we're seriously going to consider pushing a law that would turn people into felons for merely possessing a box with a spring inside it, I would suggest that it is completely reasonable to demand hard data demonstrating that such a ban would even work.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.