Need for high capacity magazines!

[JellyJar]

There is a blog called "No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money"...http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com

A post made there on 1/21/211 mentioned an effort at the 2011 SHOT show in Las Vegas by ThinkProgress ( http://thinkprogress.org ) to find attendees who would be willing to state that high capacity magazines were not needed for SD:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/01/astroturfing-by-thinkprogress.html

Apparently they did find a few.

Here is my question...Did anyone from THR attend the SHOT show and if so were you approached by them and asked this question? If so what was your answer? Also, if you did not attend yourself do you know of anyone who attended and was asked this question by them?

I suspect that most there who were asked this question did affirm the usefulness of high capacity magazines and told them so but that their answers were ignored in favor of the few idiots that they did find. It would be nice to be able to prove this.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well since they didn't identify the people being interviewed I think it's safe to assume they are plants.

Most people in the gun industry are smart enough to avoid goofiness like this.

I did attend and I saw nothing of this.

 

[sprithitler]

I believe that high capacity mags are problematic for SD use. Any mag wich fits in the handle is of course normal capacity, which pretty much leaves the 33 round Glock 18 mags as high capacity mags and as they will poke out of the handle and make the gun unwieldy and difficult to conceal i would say that high capacity mags are not suitable for SD use. If the gun is already in the hand though, the 33 rounders would be a real boon in a SD situation since they would further decrease the risk of needing to reload.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Since when is freedom about needs?

 

[TexasBill]

Most people in the gun industry are smart enough to avoid goofiness like this.

Remember Bill Ruger? Not trying to stir up any discussion about the late Mr. Ruger, the company that bears his name or the fine products they produce but I wanted to illustrate a point: one of the problems we face is that fact that a fair number of gun owners don't have a problem with restricting magazines to ten rounds. There are other gun owners who don't think citizens need to have handguns at all other than perhaps those specifically designed for target shooting.

I hope the next time anyone sees one of our large-caliber addicts going on about "one-shot" kills, someone will step in and let them know that, while we don't buy that nonsense, the anti-gun folks and fence-sitters apparently do and now they're using it to justify magazine limits. BTW: I was disappointed that, in all the comments I saw on the Think Progress site mentioned when the weapon must be used, 2-3 shots are recommended.

I know we sometimes talk about "preaching to the choir" but it sure would be nice if our "choir" was using the same sheet music!

Don't forget what Benjamin Franklin said just before signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

 

[cerberus65]

Any mag which fits in the handle is of course normal capacity, which pretty much leaves the 33 round Glock 18 mags as high capacity mags

Careful - according to your definition a standard 7 round mag for a gov't or commander model 1911 inserted into an officer's model would qualify as hi cap. The officer's model is slightly shorter and holds one round less.

 

[ChCx2744]

The Glock 18 also uses 17 round mags too, therefore the 33 round mags aren't limited to use by only the Glock 18. I like to think of them as Glock 9mm 33 round mags. Yeah they were initially designed to be used with the Glock 18, but because they can be used with any other Glock in 9mm, they cannot be considered "Glock 18 mags."

 

[killchain]

Bah.

Gun owners who point that out are Fruitlessly Undermining Decent Decisions about the freedom of owning firearms and what in particular people should be allowed to own.

Next they'll be saying what firearms are allowed because they're "useful..." oh wait, the BAFTE already does that.

My only gripe about hi cap magazines: The money you have to spend to fill them.

 

[[email protected]]

They could probably get me on that one... I honestly can see no reason for having even 15 rounds in a magazine for self defense.... at least not until you need it....

my carry pistol only has 8 rounds and this is a wimpy .380...

but the point is .... once you start trying to restrict these things because of what a crazy person did... where does it end?

Every day on the news you see arial footage of police chases where some idiot has stolen a car or such and is driving all over the place... when are they going to legislate this?

 

[mljdeckard]

The antis are going to cling to the AZ incident like it's the last chopper out of Saigon. They have lost on assault weapons, individual v collective, city laws, suing gunmakers, etc, and now they have one high profile incident where they can say that magazine capacity MAY have made a difference in how many shots the guy got off, when they tell the story THEIR way. It's like their girlfriend that got away coming back to give them another chance. Sorry for going Dennis Miller on this one, but I'm glad that Egypt has given them something else to talk about.

They had their ban, it failed. There is no compelling reason to try it again.

 

[smince]

...who would be willing to state that high capacity magazines were not needed for SD

Based on the MANY posts on this forum and others, people state they carry a J-frame or Keltec in their pocket without even a spare magazine.

I would be willing to say that there are vast numbers of gun owners who don't think standard cap/high cap mags are needed and would willingly say so.

 

[merlinfire]

They had their ban, it failed. There is no compelling reason to try it again.

THIS.

 

[Gouranga]

Alright guys, I will say it I do not need 33 round magazines. have no use for them. Now the 30 round for my AR's yeah I really like shooting at the range instead of reloading magazines the whole time. I also like the 15 round magazines that come standard with my M&P. I have trained around those, planned my defense around those. Moving to a 10 round would be troublesome and would require me to outfit my carry weapon with something non-standard.

More importantly though, my lack of a need does NOT constitute the need to remove the rights for everyone else on this board. That is what I think constitutes the issue with the Anti's and FUDDs. it is the self centered nature of their position. "I don't need it so nobody should be allowed to have it."

 

[CZ223]

Go to any gun club and

you can find lots of people who don't think that high cap mags, AR-15s, AK-47s or, any high cap handgun is something that should be owned by "regular" people. I am constantly amazed at what "like minded individuals" think is, and isn't, neccesary. In the crowd that I shoot IDPA with, most of the shooters do not carry. Many have asked me why I carry and are amazed that I think it worth the trouble. Trust me, everyone that owns a gun or two, doesn't neccesarily believe what you do.

 

[Shovelhead]

<Insert number here> rounds are 'enough'........ until you get into a situation where you'd need ONE more.

I might believe 10 round magazines are 'enough'..... when the Secret Service restricts the Prez's detail to 10 rounders.

 

[hso]

I doubt the people interviewed were "plants", but it is very telling that our of the 4 full days they only found 5 people with that they could use to bolster their opinion out of the probable hundreds they talked to.

Since they don't say how many interviewees thought it doesn't matter or the higher the capacity the better there's no real value in the interviews. They're simply happy that out of thousands upon thousands of people present some said something they could use to bolster their position.

 

[EddieNFL]

They had their ban, it failed. There is no compelling reason to try it again.

And many dealers wept when it ended. Are they truly on our side?

 

[smallbore]

I can't answer your original question, as I did not attend the SHOT show. As for the group calling itself "thinkprogress" and their mission. . .smells like more anti to me.

 

[danprkr]

Since when is freedom about needs?

We have a winner as far as I'm concerned. I don't do drink, but that doesn't mean I should have the ability to ban others from drinking. We all know how that one ended.

 

[XD Fan]

The question of needing for self-defense is irrelevant to the issue.There exists no rational reason to restrict the rights of the millions due the danger presented by a tiny number of emotionally disturbed individuals.

 

[duns]

Since when is freedom about needs?

It has been generally accepted that no freedom is absolute and reasonable restrictions can be applied. I'm sorry to say that I don't think the freedom argument will get us very far. It needs to be shown that a limit on magazine capacity would be unreasonable.

Some possible arguments as to why a limit on magazine capacity would be unreasonable:

1. If you live on the Mexico border, you may very well feel the need to use large capacity magazines.
2. If you live in an area with a lot of gang violence, a high capacity magazine may be appropriate because you could need to defend yourself from multiple armed assailants.
3. The cost of replacing or modifying all those high capacity magazines would be enormous and disproportionate to the benefits obtained.
4. The previous ban on high capacity magazines made no statistical difference when it was introduced or when it was allowed to lapse.

Any others?

 

[armoredman]

The pistol on my side as I type this has a standard issue 18 round magazine. I carry a spare, too, two when I get my third mag in.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Remember Bill Ruger?

Of course, and I remember Jim Zumbo. I also remember the near destruction their big mouths left behind.

So do most gun industry folks I believe. I think after what happened, with Zumbo especially, people are going to be a lot more careful about what they say to a camera or in print, even if they really do believe it.

Again, with no identification of the people in the video the statements really don't mean anything seems to me.

Finding anti SHOT show attendees was pretty easy I suspect. I was in the media room uploading some pictures and I sat near a woman who was working for a Canadian magazine of some kind, she was filing a report over the phone with a pretty serious anti slant to it, railing about all the evil "assault rifles" on display.

That's what I mean by "plants" in the videos. There were anti's there if one was looking for them so to find someone who would say that on camera doesn't mean at all they are involved in the firearm industry.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Carrying as many rounds as practical is like the 50 plus years I flew airplanes and helicopters.
I carried hundreds of thousands of gallons of spare fuel that I didn't need.

BUT the times I did need that spare fuel I needed it bad and it was a life saver.


The only time you have too much fuel, or extra rounds is when you are on fire.

 

[SaxonPig]

Honestly I don't see any need for 30 round pistol magazines. They are clumsy and unwieldy. The point to a SD handgun is to be handy and concealable.

But that doesn't mean I would support any effort to legislate against them. If the gov't can ban a 30 round magazine this week then next week it can ban the 15 round magazine.