What do you think of this argument against a magazine ban?

[CmdrSlander]

AR15 with a 30 round magazine, fully loaded with common 55 Grain bullets:




Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading): 1650 grains

Remington 870 Express, a hunting shotgun that would be exempt from all capacity bans due to its five round tube Fully loaded with 000 Buckshot.

Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading): 3500 grains!

That's right! Grain for Grain, a turkey gun with a five round magazine tube that is legal everywhere has more killing power than the dreaded AR15!

I posted that in another thread but it is a popular thread and will soon be swamped so I am putting it here. If you like it, reuse it. Personally I think it is very powerful.

 

[LevelHead]

You'd be better off counting the number of "bullets" each holds. Non-gun people don't understand grains.

five rounds of eight pellets = 40
30 rounds of one bullet = 30

That's they'll understand.

 

[CmdrSlander]

You'd be better off counting the number of "bullets" each holds. Non-gun people don't understand grains.

five rounds of eight pellets = 40
30 rounds of one bullet = 30

That's they'll understand.

I like grains because the difference is bigger as well. A 55 grain bullet does not equal a 72.5 grain 000 pellet.

 

[IlikeSA]

Perhaps include size:
30 rounds of .223 size bullets with one bullet per trigger pull or
40 rounds of .33 size bullets (even though they are pellets, keep it simple) with 8 bullets per trigger pull

 

[LevelHead]

If you want to debate with someone on grains, you'll need to explain what grains are first.

I'd pose it this way: What if you had a gun that could fire eight bullets at once, and each of those bullets was bigger and heavier than the bullet fired from an AR15? Well, here's what just such a gun looks like:

 

[jamesbeat]

All the antis would see is a great argument for banning shotguns

 

[MarshallDodge]

All the antis would see is a great argument for banning shotguns

Exactly. The effort is not to ban one kind of gun or magazine, the effort is to ban ALL guns and magazines.

Look at New York. First it was 10 rounds and now it is 7. Eventually it will be 1 if the New Yorkers let it continue.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Although an AK-47 is used and not an AR-15, this video shows relative destructive power of the AK's 7.62x39, firing FMJ bullets, vs. a shotgun and several common hunting rifles, and the least destructive round (to the watermelons) was the AK's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw But that argument can be turned against us, too.

 

[PedalBiker]

I think a better argument is this:

1. 30 round magazines are BIG and Heavy, they are hard to carry and hard to conceal. If you are not in a CAR there is no way you can lug a gun and 30 round magazines around undetected.

2. No matter HOW many bullets the magazine holds a box magazine rifle is quicker and safer to unload. If no bullets are in the chamber the gun can be unloaded with no rounds ever entering the chamber. Detachable box magazine weapons are SAFER than other kinds of magazine fed guns.

3. Tubular magazines require every round to enter the chamber to unload, it is slower to load them, slower to unload them. Hence, a pump or lever is not as useful for self defense, even though they are fine for hunting - otherwise why would cops use a wimpy prairie dog gun instead of a deer rifle?

FYI, if you've ever tried to shoot an AR prone with a 30 round magazine you'll see why the Army uses plenty of 20 round magazines.

If you look at the list of prohibited firearms you'll soon see that the 10 round limit is a smoke screen, they really want all magazine fed weapons banned.

 

[vamo]

Honestly I think its a better argument for the other side.

I can hear the antis now: SEE YOU DON"T NEED THE EVIIIILLLL AR-15 TO DEFEND YOURSELF A SHOTGUN IS FINE FOR SELF DEFENSE. AR-15S ARE ONLY FOR MASS KILLING!!!!!

even though that was satirical I think I need a shower after typing that

 

[jbrown50]

An argument breaker that I use whenever an anti mentions how ARs and 30 round magazines have no usefulness in hunting is to ask them:

Have you ever been on a wild hog/boar hunt? I then give them an idea of what it's like with the readily available technology of my smartphone. I also show them a Remington R-15 or R-25 and how strikingly similar they are to this assault weapon that they keep crying about.

The only hunting most antis have ever done is hunting down a rack of ribs at your local supermarket. They have no idea of what constitutes hunting, inherent accuracy, ballistics. They only regurgitate whatever they see on the cover of Field And Stream or in the media/television, ie; "Bubba on 'In The Heat Of The Night' only needed a bolt action rifle with which to do his hunting".

Most of them don't know the difference between a cartridge and a shotgun shell. Most of them also don't know that the pistol grip of an AR is there to give the shooter better controllability and accuracy. If they were so concerned about gun safety, as they claim to be, then that would logically equate to a good thing.

Most of them don't know and we need to educate them and counter the misinformation and misconceptions. Some of them though are simply motivated by politics or fear and even the facts won't make a difference to them.

 

[Drail]

For ranges under 30 yards nothing has more power than a shotgun.

 

[316SS]

Yes but the shotgun isn't made to be spray fired! Oh wait ...