What is with all of this hype with High Capacity Magazines?

[Happyshooter]

Miller decided that sawed off were not army guns, because it was a one sided case. The prisoners were already freed and the NRA was still too pro-gov to show up instead of them, so the only party to the case was the .gov, who lied about the .mil use of sawed off shotguns.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Ok. Here is the deal. Anti-gunners practice incrementalism to get there agenda passed 'little-by-little' because they know they can't get to their ultimate goal in large chunks .

Consider this famous scientific experiment. Bring a pot of water to a boil then throw a frog in. It will immediately jump out. However, put the frog in the pot and turn the temp up little-by-little and it will stay there and get cooked.

The antis have found this also holds true for infringements on personal rights. When they come out with attempts at wide spread bans they are resisted strongly by the majority. However, when they seek small pieces of legislation they claim to be "reasonable", many more people are willing to allow them this small victory. However, they always find excuses to come back for more and more.

When it came to attacking military style weapons to make 'soccer moms' feel more secure the antis needed a way to identify and vilify the weapons they wanted ban. What they did was thumb through gun magazines choosing weapons that had a military appearance and then presented these semi-auto rifles along side of the full autos they look like in order to confuse the public between the two, often talking about them interchangeably. To further make semi-auto military LOOKING rifles appear less like semi-auto hunting rifles and more like machine guns, they focused on the magazine capacity. Most semi-auto hunting rifle used low capacity magazines for practice reasons (lighter weight, more maneuverable, etc) while machine guns use large capacity "clips."

The antis expect the public to be too ignorant to understand that it only takes a matter of seconds to swap a magazine. When it comes down to using two 15 round magazines compared to three 10 round magazines, the latter only requires one additional magazine swap that only takes a matter of seconds. And what about a 10 round .45 cal magazine compared to say a 12 round magazine?

Again, magazine capacity is nothing more then a gun grabber ploy to vilify a type of weapon and make it appear less like other weapons so they can get away with another small victory on the way to their ultimate goal.

 

[.cheese.]

I go to the Brady website and they say that there was this one cop who this one time said there's no reason to have more than 10 rounds on you because in self-defense people tend to shoot multiple times at their killer.

ROTFLMAO!

Mrs. Brady: And this one time, at band-camp... this cop came... and he said that this one time he realized that people don't need more than 10 rounds of ammunition... and it was like totally cool and he was totally right

 

[2TransAms]

Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?

 

[.cheese.]

Oh man..... I just recently read the history of this....

Now I gotta find it again.

 

[.cheese.]

I give up.... I can't find it.

I'm pretty sure it was either on the Glocktalk website, or on the Smith and Wesson Forum.

 

[PH/CIB]

Lets say I shoot one 33 round Glock 9mm magazine or four ten round 9mm magazines, the only difference is the 2 seconds required to switch out each empty magazine with a new fully loaded one,,,for a total of 6 extra seconds (first 10 round magazine is already in the gun )and 7 extra 9mm rounds with the four 10 round magazines. I don't think the two seconds between the magazine changes is going to save anyones life.

 

[ConfuseUs]

Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?

and

Oh man..... I just recently read the history of this....

Now I gotta find it again.

"No honest man needs more than ten rounds in his gun." Bill Ruger Sr.

At least, I think that's where the 10 rd limit for AWB '94 came from.

That's why

"No honest gun-owner needs a Ruger."

 

[SkiLune]

"Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?

Just don't let the Brady Bunch know about +1, or else the magic number w/b 9.

 

[benEzra]

"Why is all the focus on ten rounds? Why is that the magic number? Why not twelve or eight? Is ten rounds the most I can be trusted with at one time?

They originally tried to go with a six-round limit for handguns, 5 for rifles, and 3 for shotguns, IIRC (see Brady II and the original DeConcini AWB bill). I assume the 6-round limit was to avoid outlawing traditional revolvers. Problem was, a 6 round limit would have outlawed practically all pistols, so they decided to go with ten rounds--still ridiculously low (over-10-rounders date from the 1860's), but a limit they probably considered more achievable.

 

[john1911]

Hi-cap bans are just the first of many small steps designed to outlaw civilian gun ownership.
These politicians use events like the Va. Tech shooting to push an agenda. The current mindset in this country would have allowed the same result no matter if the shooter was using a single shot handgun. Hiding and cowering will not save your butt! The only cure for violence is greater violence to those that would do evil.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

Something i saw as someone's signature once:
No honest man needs a Ruger.

This is a good thread. Also, i'm reminded of FerFAL's survival stories wherein he says that doublestacks are ideal for multiple attackers, and being attacked by another car while you are driving. But these are but hypothetical justifications. What it comes down to is freedom and rights. If you're a freedom-loving individual, not needing a right is no reason to give it up. Especially if it's to be given up for no good reason.

 

[kikr]

I remember when Clinton was governor of Arkansas and him and Hitlery tried to ban all weapons that had over a three round capacity in a tubular magazine.

The Brady folks don't know jack about weapons except that all their bodyguards carry them.

I have an "assault rifle", a "patrol rifle" and a couple of sporting rifles. My assault rifles have detachable High Capacity magazines that are the standard for that WEAPON. My sporting rifles mostly have tubular magazines that hold adequate rounds for that sport.

All the PCness is touching but I'm going to maintain that my assault rifle is for killing people, and my sport rilfes are for killing animals, my pistols with high capacity magazines are for insuring that I have a weapon on my person at all times to aid my defense untill I can retrieve my assault rifle or to fall back on if my assault rifle should fail.

 

[ctdonath]

the Brady website says that a lot of citizens have the tendency to keep on shooting after they've shot the bad guy. I don't get that logic?

I wouldn't entirely discount the notion.

The mind does strange things when it gets forced into horrible situations it doesn't know what to do with. Someone who has never seriously thought through shooting an assailant may very well not know when to stop. The untrained mind may enter the state of very simple processing: "life in danger ... have weapon ... attack attack attack attack attack attack...". Don't underestimate the ability of people to do irrational things when they're scared out of their minds. Do not take "fight or flight" lightly, as either can be easily taken to an extreme to ensure the threat is passed.

That said, so what? If an innocent is on the verge of being killed by a criminal, do you think s/he would, being a normal person in understandable circumstances, want as much ammo as possible? Do we really value the criminal so much as to, under our current cushy non-threatening situations, place limits on the innocent? Of course not.

There will be flaws with any solution. Better to err in favor of the innocent's ability to fight back.