The problem with arbitrary limits on magazine capacity

[JustinJ]

While i don't favor a mag capacity limit i don't think it valid to compare the needs of a home defender with those of a cop, SWAT member, and especially not a soldier.

They carry that many because they seek out and pursue criminals or enemies. The rest of us don't. The only exception i can think of is those acting as security in places prone to attempted robbery by multiple sophisticated criminals, such as jewelry stores or banks. Long protracted gun fights against home intruders just don't happen as bad guys generally don't want to get shot but do want to get away rather than waste time waiting for the police to arrive.

 

[gc70]

There are two problems with your conclusions, JustinJ.

Soldiers and SWAT members are nearly invariably part of a group that can provide supporting fire. The situation for the average police officer and the rest of us is more similar - surviving until a situation is resolved or until help arrives.

Criminals are not all rational. Very few of us have anything worth enough to induce a rational criminal to engage in a prolonged firefight. But the irrational, drugged, or crazy criminal may not be in the least dissuaded by a prolonged firefight.

 

[texasgun]

@GC70

I agree with your post - you certainly don't need a 100rd drum magazine under your AR-15 to fend off a home invasion... that being said: 10rds is not sufficient. 10rds is way below a standard capacity mag for most pistols and most "ordinary" cops carry more than 10rds. If you have a home invasion with two BGs ... 10rds will be challenging. Remember: in the middle of the night, pumped with adrenalin and panic... you are in your worst shape. I think I would be happy if 20-30% of my shots would hit the (most likely) moving target....

 

[JustinJ]

gc70, can you cite a few, if any, situations in which home defenders have engaged in long gun fights that required more than 10 rounds?

The cop waiting doing so is waiting for help to arrive to assist in apprehending the criminal. Not in preventing him from escaping. Its apples to oranges.

 

[JN01]

It might be handy to have more than ten rounds on tap in the event of a widespread societal breakdown (LA riots) or natural disaster (Katrina).

Aside from saying "you don't need one", I have yet to hear any explanation as to how, exactly, a magazine ban will have any impact on mass shootings.

 

[gc70]

JustinJ, someone summarized five years of the Armed Citizen column of self defense shootings from one of the NRA magazines - the largest reported number of rounds fired was 20 and the largest reported number of assailants was 7.

I frankly do not understand the comment about LEOs apprehending criminals, not preventing escape. Neither LEOs or citizens shoot to prevent criminals from escaping. Lone officers and citizens face the same issue of stopping threats or defending against attacks until help can arrive.

 

[bikerdoc]

Aside from saying "you don't need one", I have yet to hear any explanation as to how, exactly, a magazine ban will have any impact on mass shootings.

There it is.

Root cause analysis would point toward mental illness. But it is easier to blame the tool.
Tools dont vote, defectives and their families do.

 

[JustinJ]

JustinJ, someone summarized five years of the Armed Citizen column of self defense shootings from one of the NRA magazines - the largest reported number of rounds fired was 20 and the largest reported number of assailants was 7.

Its an interesting read but even in the scenario mentioned with seven assailants the defender used a shotgun which almost certainly had less than a 10 round capacity. Also, the summary states that the average and median shots fired were 2 however when more than two were fired "it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty" which to me indicates panic fire rather than necessity of additional rounds.

Also, the summary included businesses. As i mentioned earlier some businesses could have a realistic threat of being attacked by a larger group of more sophisticated criminals. Even that is rare but there was a story some time back about a jewelry store owner who did get in a relatively long firefight against multiple assailants in which many rounds were fired.

I frankly do not understand the comment about LEOs apprehending criminals, not preventing escape. Neither LEOs or citizens shoot to prevent criminals from escaping. Lone officers and citizens face the same issue of stopping threats or defending against attacks until help can arrive.

I do not mean to imply that police shoot as the means of apprehension. Rather, while acting in their duty to apprehend a criminal they often will continue pursuit even if fired upon and use lethal force in response. The LA bank robbers, for example, is a scenario in which police were required to fire many rounds while trying to prevent the criminals from escaping. A civilian would obviously not engage in such activity.

 

[JFrame]

It has been discussed in the past, and it's all water over the dam now, but I believe it was Bill Ruger who actually introduced the idea of limiting magazine capacity into the national consciousness. In 1989, with the talk of an AWB in prominence, he wrote the following to every member of Congress:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Ruger#Controversy

What's interesting is that Mr. Ruger's suggestion was for a 15-round magazine limit. But Congress ran with that idea, and decided that if a 15-round limit was good, a 10-round limit would be even better!

Perhaps Mr. Ruger's innocent intention was to mitigate the impact of a more draconian AWB. Or perhaps, as some people have suggested, he had a much more devious and mercenary intention of crippling the competition because, at the time, his Mini-14s came with 15-round mags, while other manufacturers of semiauto centerfire rifles had higher capacities. (This is my best understanding of the situation -- if I am wrong in this regard, I will be happy to be educated.)

But the one thing we can absolutely see from even this little anecdote is that if the firearm-owning community gives the proverbial inch, the politicians will want to take a mile.


.

 

[Trent]

Why 10?

Anti-gunners want to limit magazines to 10 rounds because they can't count higher than that on both hands.

Duhdumdumdum...

I'll be here all day folks.

 

[JFrame]

Why 10?

Anti-gunners want to limit magazines to 10 rounds because they can't count higher than that on both hands.

Duhdumdumdum...

I'll be here all day folks.

.

 

[Skribs]

JustinJ, if I'm being attacked and I'm at the point where I'm going to fire, I'm not going to go BAM-evaluate-BAM-evaluate. I'm going to send a few bullets downrange and then check to see if the target has stopped. If there are multiple assailants in close quarters, I'm going to be transitioning ASAP to hopefully put them down.

Someone in the handgun forum posted a while back a list of hit probability, number of shooters, and number of hits needed to stop the target, setting an arbitrary list of "with X rounds, Y attackers, Z number of shots needed to put the target down, and A hit %" what your probablity is of stopping the targets with that number of rounds. With 2 determined attackers, needing 2 hits on each of them, and 30% hit rate, the chances of success are really low until you start getting into the 12+ round range.

How accurate you are under fire and how the BGs react will affect this number, but in a worst case scenario you may very well want more than 10 rounds on tap. The problem is most people only carry up to 1 spare magazine, or just have whatever's in the gun loaded at home. BGs, on the other hand, can bring spare mags and ammunition to a planned attack.

I'll also point out the universal reality that you are paranoid until it happens, at which point you are prepared. If you get attacked and only shoot 3 of your 17 rounds, you were paranoid for carrying more than 4 rounds. If you shoot 5 rounds out of your J-frame and one attacker is still up, you might just realize how un-paranoid the guy who told you "you should switch to K-frame" was.

Regardless, how much ammo I think I need should be determined by me alone, and influenced by those in my life. It should not be mandated by the government.

 

[gc70]

Why are we debating how much of a right we need when our opponents ultimately do not want us to have any at all?

 

[nazshooter]

GC70: Thanks for providing the MJ link. While their commentary is obviously biased I've found that their actual data tends to be useful, even to those of us who disagree with them.

What I'd really like to find is a source for Larry Correia's claim that mass shootings stopped by police result, on average, in 14 people shot while those stopped by civilians result in 2.5 victims.