How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron.

Status
Not open for further replies.
kalel33, the point is not where you can be effective with 6 rounds. Shooting a piece of paper is very different from shooting at another human being, who is armed and plan on doing untold harm to you and to your family. It is the principle of the cornered cat, which is the name of a site that IMHO talks about these situations.

If you are a parent, chances are you are not relaxed and thinking about taking careful aim. You want to protect your family whatever it takes. So, you will fumble and miss. But, most of the time that is ok; the majority of the criminals will flee when fired at. If that is all it takes -- nobody gets killed and bad guy runs away -- great.

Some bad guys will not.

For those you will need to cause death by lead poisoning.
 
Darn, I had no idea generations of lawmen were gunned down because all they carried was 6 rounds, chiefly in .38spc. :rolleyes:
 
Kalel33, the point is not where you can be effective with 6 rounds. Shooting a piece of paper is very different from shooting at another human being, who is armed and plan on doing untold harm to you and to your family.
Click to expand...

Being able to shoot is only half the battle. You noticed I brought up strategy. All the bedrooms are upstairs. If people break into the house then one person calls the police and I cover the stairs in a crouched position. I used the same strategy when I was at the end of a long hallway. Don't engage and just protect your loved ones from a tactical position, until help arrives. If I can't shoot down a hallway or a set of stairs and can't defend myself with 10 rounds, then 15-20 isn't go to be any use, because I'm just a horrible shot or get frazzled when the chips fall.
 
You can argue all you want for not banning higher capacity magazines, but not being able to defend your household is a very very weak argument. It would be different if you were protecting land but a house doesn't "need" it. I definitely don't want anyone taking mine, but even at 11 year study on NY police gun shootings show the average amount of shots were 3.6 per incident.
Click to expand...

Well, that is an average count. By reported professionals. We, on the civilian side are not "professionals" And 3.6 per incident? I would be interested in this quoted study. Is this 3.6 per person? Gosh, I suppose my five shot revolver is enough for that if I'm a professional marksman, but what if there are two people? Revolvers in five and six shots still take a bit longer to reload than a semi automatic. How many police officers use a revolver these days as standard issue? I mean after all by that logic you state they should need nothing more than a five shot revolver standard issue. (Okay generally speaking it was a six shot)
Again its hard to see where this information comes from with out the study and its references laid out, but in these incidents is it just reported single shooters vs one police officer? Is it two or more police officers pinning down one threat?

Going further one of the common arguments for having full access to high capacity in the eyes of the media(Standard capacity in reality) is that if the police need them we do too to protect ourselves.
The counter argument I've seen is that "You are not expected to go in to a hostile situation like someone in the military or police is. Only aggressive forces need these."
The opposing side is these forces are engaged by a hostile and they are on the defense, there for they need it, and as such any one of us could be on the defense and require them.
This one is perhaps the more difficult argument to tackle due to the complexity of explaining it to someone. Most people do not understand that a good portion of crime involves more than one individual as the aggressor. Saving the dry winded statistics once you have an ear, again putting forward the aspect that there is a significant amount of crime that involves more than one aggressor. Police are equipped to deal with multiple threats because it is a reality. We as civilians are not so equipped by having a radio or cruisers and a full tool kit afforded to us. We generally only have the fire arm to defend our lives. We do not limit the police to give them the best chances to survive, why would we expect anything less of us regular folk?
 
Justin, you make some very good points and I couldn't agree more. I do however have an additional point that I would make because I have direct experience with these incidents. I grew up in LA and was around for the Watts Riots as well as the Rodney King and OJ riots and several disasters like earthquakes, fires and floods. When and if these types of events occur mobs also form. That would be my final argument after exhausting the ones you mention. Oh, don't for get Katrina and Sandy for more recent events.
 
We, on the civilian side are not "professionals" And 3.6 per incident?
Click to expand...

The "professionals" missed 66% of their shots, and it was number of shots fired by a single police officer in an incident.

How many police officers use a revolver these days as standard issue? I mean after all by that logic you state they should need nothing more than a five shot revolver standard issue. (Okay generally speaking it was a six shot)
Click to expand...

I gave the example of the police because they are likelier to fire more bullets per instance, because they are engaging the individuals and the distance could be much more than a normal home invasion. Police and miltary need them but I don't see the "need" on the civilian side for home defense.

Again its hard to see where this information comes from with out the study
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all

Here's the gauntlet thrown down. Show me at least 5 forum threads where someone used more than 6 shots to end a home invasion. I've never heard of it happening or seen a single thread on here, thefiringline.com, or sigtalk.com, except in the movies where that is totally real.

I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.
 
I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Justin said:
What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that the arguments that I posted first do, in fact, make you look like a moron to someone who isn't already a part of the gun culture. If you have proof that those sorts of arguments actually change the minds of people who are currently in favor of stricter gun control, please post it.
.
Click to expand...

I don't....but I am not sure there is proof that ANY argument will change their minds.

I've tried to point out how ineffective the last AWB was, and the fact that Cho didn't need 10+ capacity magazines. All of it falls on deaf ears. Many of them think we are insensitive simply because we argue with them at all.

The people whose minds we need to change are the ones sitting behind desks on the hill. The only argument they seem to understand is votes.


Let me say, however, Justin, I understand what you are trying to say. I appreciate your point, I understand your point, I even agree with what you said about the non-gun people not understanding those points. I am, however, I must admit....insensitive.
 
Last edited:
I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.
Click to expand...

So again, why would anyone military or police "Need" this item over and above anyone else? If there is a 66% miss rate as you state and by this one articles reporting that means what to creating a compelling argument against citizens owning the same items?
Also noted in this to increase the statistics of hit ratio is suicides by police officers. Interesting as that is considered a 100 percent hit ratio, not in a combat situation.
Also is this gem.
By contrast, in 2006, 30 percent of the shots fired during gunfights were hits, an unusually high percentage. That year, a total of 19 officers fired their weapons in 13 separate gunfights.
Click to expand...
So, 30 percent of the shots were hit. And assuming by this (It does not appear to be stated) that 6 out of every one of those 19 incidents in that year states that there was more than one police officer shooting. This incidentally appears to be a very close of a percentage to the 30% mark. Other than bit of irony there, how often is a home invasion going to have more than one person defending with a firearm? How often is it going to involve more than one person breaking in?
This is important to consider because basic maneuvers or tactics like you employ in your home's defense state that you move when the other is reloading, particularly if they are pinned by someone else. Pretty simple here to explain to someone that reloading less means you are able to be engaged in your target more, and defenseless less.
Keep in mind here this is not a defenseless situation where one aggressor is going after unarmed targets and has the leisure of no threats while they change weapons/reload. Life and death situations have seconds counting a lot more when someone is aggressively trying to end yours.

You also report you use wondrous tactics and planning in the event your home is invaded. That is wonderful. Not everyone has a home's lay out that may be as tactically sound as yours. And not everyone can afford the possible thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to hand pick a home that has that. A firearm with a standard capacity magazine becomes much more economical in that sense by way of argument perhaps?

Going further, what about outside the limits of your home? For those states that have the Carry laws applicable is every situation where you may need a firearm going to be simply in the confines of your own home for everyone? Suddenly you may not have the benefit of picking your own tactical environment. Having as many advantages as possible would come in to play in these situations.

If this still is in the line of convincing someone that a magazine capacity of greater than 10 rounds is needed, think of these tidbits based off your own cited article: These would again be considered professionals in high stress adrenaline pumping-somone is trying to kill me situations. That still is 30% accuracy.

The thing that I did not see really well defined is each tactical situation. With this also this appears to be an overall average. If those 100 percent suicides are counted that certainly by percentage will offset the shootings where it took far more than 3.6 shots to neutralize a threat.

And the police and the military train for these things. By this logic, the police again would never need more than four shots. No one expects this from those that put their lives on the line, why would we expect any different for anyone? And again, the police and military in general have the support of additional equipment, be it body armor, weaponry or communication directly in for support. Other than hoping you can whisper in to a 911 call, what do you have that compares to this?

Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.

Since so many of these situations additionally involved a unarmed soft target, people say that those few seconds could afford someone else to escape/slows the carnage down.

As messed up as it is, is there really any difference in the response time that this school shooting involved? The shooter could have done it with a single shot shotgun or rifle with the age group and time he had to work with. Going in to the aspects of ban this or that in this situation where it is being used is irrelevant when the physical break downs are given to someone that may be able to have these things explained to them.
 
If there is no real benefit to a defensive situation where a thirty round mag is useful, then why do these "shooters" use them or the 100 round beta mags? Yes, they are on the offensive but almost always pick "gun free zones" with no initial resistance, and soft targets. In a defensive situation you could be facing multiple armed attackers, or multiple agressive looters that could easily do you harm in a natural disaster scenario.

Why should our magazines or types of weapons be restricted when surely criminals and crazed shooters will certainly get, and use whatever they want illegally?
 
Hey Kalel33,

If you are going to quote me, please keep things in context. I didn't simply say I couldn't defend my family with a 10 round magazine. I implied that it would be much more difficult if I (or anyone else) were facing multiple criminals at the same time who may or may not have high capacity mags and I only had a 10 round mag.

This is what I said:

"2. If multiple criminals (which is not unusual) break into my home or try to rob or kill me and my family, there is a good chance they will be armed with guns. They may even have high capacity magazines, because they are criminals and criminals don't care about the law. I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine".

In the scenerio described above, I can't think of a single logical person who would rather be armed with a 10 round mag than a high capacity mag.
 
Justin, the point of the Second Amendment is that we need not give cause or reason to any masters about what kinds of guns we own and how we may legally use them. Like the First Amendment, we dare not dissect the second into who likes what said, when, whew, or why. People must simply be made to realize that protecting each part of the Constitution is protecting the whole. But you are right in that we must not be arrogant or demand, but state it in a calm, cool, and concrete manner.
 
Justin, the point of the Second Amendment is that we need not give cause or reason to any masters about what kinds of guns we own and how we may legally use them. Like the First Amendment, we dare not dissect the second into who likes what said, when, whew, or why. People must simply be made to realize that protecting each part of the Constitution is protecting the whole. But you are right in that we must not be arrogant or demand, but state it in a calm, cool, and concrete manner.
Click to expand...

This I think is some of the hard headed aspects that Justin was commenting on not helping the cause or explaining the situation.

Generally most of us in this forum understand this. That is not the point, nor is it the point of trying to reach those that refuse to grant that what you just said to us on either side. The side is trying to reach someone that is not on one side of the fence or the other. Someone that maybe has some thoughts but has no practical knowledge of the technical aspects of it.

You can try to explain its similarities to the 1st Amendment but in the eyes of someone that does not actively shoot or own a fire arm its comparing apples to oranges as they do not use it and it does not affect them. These people can be convinced if you have a rational argument that appears to go beyond beating your chest and fighting the invisible man. Even if our side is right.
Keep in mind not every correct side of anything wins every time.
 
Justin,

Good post.

I would just add that I generally believe that "utilitarian" arguments are not apt. Here's something I wrote in a different context
Need" is irrelevant. Nobody "needs" a sports car, backyard swimming pool, steak knives over 2", a big flat screen TV, a German Shepherd Dog, or the book "1984." Yet all have the potential to do harm to others when misused (or ignored in the case of literature). We - rightly - take great pains to protect minority groups' civil rights, even when their representatives do terrible things (hint: 9/11); yet for guns, some people want to critically infringe on the civil rights of the majority when a sick criminal uses a gun instead of any other device or tool to inflict damage.
Click to expand...
 
Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.
Click to expand...

I have a Sig Sauer SP2022 and S&W 19-24 .357, which was passed down from my father, but nice to see you're stooping to such low points.

Again, can you find me a 5 forum threads, 3 even, where the individual shot more than 6 times. I'll even take news reports, barring gun fights between drug dealers.
 
Last edited:
I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine".
Click to expand...

My argument is that someone that doesn't have a "fair and reasonable chance" with a .357 revolver or a shotgun should go to the range more or change their plans that they have in case of a home invasion.
 
Quote:
Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.
I have a Sig Sauer SP2022 and S&W 19-24 .357, which was passed down from my father, but nice to see you're stooping to such low points.

Again, can you find me a 5 forum threads, 3 even, where the individual shot more than 6 times. I'll even take news reports, barring gun fights between drug dealers.
Click to expand...

Good to see the assumptions are coming out here. I no where made any insinuations you or anyone here does not own a fire arm. This as I recall was to engage in a discussion with those that may not own a firearm, or understand various complexities of what makes a magazine different in one context to another with round limit capacities.

To further point out the original point I stated, its not about what you may think everyone else needs or does not need. Everyone has the right until they give it up. That's all the original Constitutional amendments. If you don't feel you need anything over X rounds so be it, great! But the relationship to that could be something like: "You do not really need the ability to say and print what you want about anything. You do not need the same methods to use and administer speech as someone else. Newspapers after all sufficed for a few hundred years. Therefore nothing else is needed." Is it still an infringement on a civil liberty that someone has chosen not to give up? That is the discussion point I take.
After all again regarding the freedom of speech surely it could be curtailed because no one needs to know how to construct a device that can cause destruction. There fore all items that are judged to be written about something too destructive is banned.
This is the slippery slope argument that can be bought forward to the table with out beating our chests and seeming like we are ignorant of history.
It strikes me you are looking for an argument when there has not even been one presented to you. The whole point behind what I said was to again engage someone that likely does not own a firearm or understand even the basic difference between a "Clip" or a Magazine.
 
After all again regarding the freedom of speech surely it could be curtailed because no one needs to know how to construct a device that can cause destruction. There fore all items that are judged to be written about something too destructive is banned.
Click to expand...

But that shouldn't be curtailed either. Because, just as guns don't kill people, neither do homemade bombs kill people.

I believe in the second amendment and federalist papers enough to believe, not only do I have the right to own any gun/accessory I want, but that an RPG, Javelin, and Stinger should also be my right. Judge Scalia states that the right to bear arms means anything you can carry. I can carry quite a few toys I'd like to play with, which are illegal for me to buy.

My point was to the person that stated they could not have a "fair and reasonable chance" to defend their house. I disagreed completely and home invasions with the owner shooting seems to follow that same logic. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than not being able to defend your home unless you have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
 
Last edited:
I have had some luck in discussing the anti-high cap magazine issue with people by pointing out that, at least in regards to pistols, the previous AWB encouraged gun manufacturers to bring a lot of smaller guns chambered for bigger calibers to the market. With a mag limit the 80s paradigm of full sized Wonder-9s with SMG sized magazine gave way to everybody and their brother wanting a Glock 26 or other compact .40s. You tell any business that their product has to conform to X, Y, and Z non-market driven parameters, they will either fail to adapt and possibly go under or they will figure out how to optimize their product for those artificial limits.

So, kudos to the Clinton administration -- an anti-crime bill fueled by the Long Island Rail Road shooting (where the victims were obliging enough to let the shooter make mag changes without taking action to protect themselves) really only served to encourage the proliferation of smaller, more concealable handguns in a more powerful caliber. I've never managed to track the logic that made that effective legislation (and, of course, people with way bigger brains and more education than me have reached the same conclusion after running the stats).
 
Last edited:
My point was to the person that stated they could not have a "fair and reasonable chance" to defend their house. I disagreed completely and home invasions with the owner shooting seems to follow that same logic. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than not being able to defend your home unless you have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
Click to expand...
Well trying to not make assumptions but if you think you can take someone with a revolver or less than ten shots, again that is great. What I also stated and what is a very real situation is that its very common for there to be multiple people breaking in to a house, robbing a store or waylaying someone on the street.
This can require multiple rounds obviously. It may require more than ten rounds. Not having to change a magazine increases your chance of survival. Why do you think the standard magazine for a AR is 30 rounds? If everyone just needed ten rounds that's what the magazine capacity would be stopped at. That is not the case.
Again, if we just looked at the police use, now many police officers are armed with a weapon that has a magazine capacity of less than ten rounds as a primary weapon?
By the study you cite again the professionals have a hit ratio of thirty percent.
Two shots from a standard six shot revolver roughly
Three shots from a pistol/rifle/shotgun with a ten round magazine capacity.
Again this is a hit ratio, not a kill ratio.

Most current training, civilian or other wise advises very strongly that you shoot or do whatever you have to do to make sure the threat is neutralized.
If it happens in one shot, or three that is outstanding.
And training helps.
As does luck.

The other angle that can be taken is how many -millions- of magazines are in place in the United States in just say the AR15 platform.
Then add the rest of the greater than ten capacity magazines in to the number if you can even estimate it.
How many of those are used in crimes?
How many are used to stop a crime?
What percentage of those owned are affected?

I'm spit balling here because it is Christmas but I wager that a larger percentage of automobiles, bats are used in the commission of a crime, but there is not a cry to ban those.
Then there are the crime studies based off the previous AWB.

Again this is not to try to convert the rabid anti gunners.
This is to try to have an articulate argument that is based off more than raw emotions and knee jerk reactions and chest beatings that do not relate to the target audience we have. This is to reach your neighbor, coworker, family member or whatever it may be that is not as knowledgeable as general gunnies are in these situations. These folks that may vote, or converse with others that do not know much but spout media sound bites.

With that, Merry Christmas to you all.
 
Last edited:
The OP said in his conclusion:

Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Not everyone wants the same thing. While the immediate community wants the carnage to stop, the long suffering libs who in the last 8 years or so have been frustrated over and over again by the incremental pro-gun victories have now taken advantage of the national outrage to channel the blame, and the resultant banning, towards the EBRs and their infernal 30-rd magazines. Ever heard the line "I really hate her, I'll think of a reason later."?? Well, here's their reason, which is ironic phraseology because these are the least reasonable individuals on the planet.

I can understand the position of some people that argument is futile and counterproductive. Because for these people, it is.

The antis are, like us, individuals, too. Some will be reasonable, some not. More than having a good argument, we also need to know who we're arguing with; which arguments will work and which won't.

If I were to pick one effective contribution we ordinary mortals can make in protecting our rights, it would be financial. There not only will be costly lawsuits, there will be media battles where the playing field is not level (more $$$s). People could be talking about this clear through the next congressional and presidential elections. Meantime, there's the dirty tricks from the same folks who brought us Fast & Furious. Break out the popcorn if that's what you prefer, but also check your wallet.
 
This thread has developed such divergent issues I had to break my reply into 2 posts.

As a human being I have a right to life. It follows I have the right to defend my life and those of others who depend on me.

I live in AZ. Press releases from the gov't, military and police agencies display at least semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines seized from criminals and used in local homicides. Our own people made it worse with stunts like Fast & Furious that even added to the inventory of the criminals! How about getting those guns back before looking at ours? But that's another discussion.

It goes against all reason, in the face of such evidence, for me to assume that I will be able to defend myself and my family with anything less than what a bad guy is using, let alone multiple bad guys. Remember all this is premised on what the gov't and police agencies report. And any person who hampers my ability to defend myself by denying access to equal weapons ultimately undermines my (and my dependents') right to life.

For those in love with figures, how old are your statistics? The 10-year average statistics do not have the shootout scenarios we encounter today. Two things: 1. we're now seeing upwards of 40 shots in anecdotal reporting, and 2. what if we're faced with a non-average threat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Co-Sponsor Of Bill Banning Magazines Demonstrates She Doesn't Know What They Are
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
140
Views
7K
Arbo
A
R
  • Locked
High Capacity Magazine Ban
Replies
12
Views
953
Al Thompson
A
F
  • Locked
I want a HIGH capacity ASSAULT rifle!
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Logan5
L
Skribs
  • Locked
If they ban "high capacity clips"...
Replies
23
Views
1K
Robert
Robert
Derek Zeanah
  • Locked
The problem with arbitrary limits on magazine capacity
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
nazshooter
N
Back
Top