1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who "needs" 30 round Magazines?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Dean Weingarten, Apr 20, 2013.

  1. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Sep 15, 2012
    Looking at the pics coming in from the Boston bomber manhunt I see all these LEOs bristling with high-capacity-mag, “assault weapon” looking rifles (wonder how many are full-auto?), bad-ass shotguns, scary black pistols. For two guys … well, one now. (None now. Good show LEOs.)

    Thing is, I don’t begrudge the city of Boston a single round. The LEOs, God bless ‘em, aren’t taking any chances. But then why should you? Why should you be held to 7 rounds? Or 10. Or any arbitrary number. Who needs 30-round mags?

    “…legions of heavily armed police” felt like they needed them … for two guys. Then one — one guy.

    If precaution advises that many trained officers with all that firepower to prepare to take out two baddies — because who knows how heavily armed they are or what they might do — how can we expect a lone homeowner to defend herself against similar unknown threats with seven rounds? Mayor Bloomberg, Governor O’Malley, et al., please, your thoughts? TTAGers, here’s hoping you never need even one and always have access to a whole lot more.

    Comment by Megrim at TTAG Here

  2. Bob M.

    Bob M. Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Tampa, Fl
    Well, from what Biden tells us, we only "need" a double barreled shot gun. :)
  3. 316SS

    316SS Active Member

    Feb 27, 2004
    I am no fan of magazine restrictions, but I don't think the Boston example helps the argument for non-LEO defensive situation. It was mentioned in the thread about the officer who carries 147 rounds after almost running dry in a firefight, a defensive shooting scenario should never involve actively pursuing and engaging an adversary. Outside the home, a defensive shooter can and should take any opportunity to disengage and escape.

    With respect to proposed mag limits, I think we are better sticking with examples of home defense situations where high round counts were needed to stop a threat.

    Edited to add: defensive engagements of multiple aggressive perps are also good examples of why mag limits are bad news.
  4. 19-3Ben

    19-3Ben Mentor

    Nov 5, 2006
    THAT'S IT!!! The folks of Boston should have just gone out on the balcony and fired two shots!!! The bad guys would have gotten scared and surrendered immediately, thus obviating the need for the manhunt.
    That's the Tactical Joe way of handling it!
  5. labhound

    labhound Active Member

    Feb 8, 2010
    The arguement that when a bad guy is outside my house and the police are shooting hundreds of rounds at him it's okay but if he comes in my house I can only have a magazine holding 10 or 7 rounds to defend my family is total crap!!! :banghead: :cuss:

    MDW GUNS Member

    Mar 6, 2004
    Maine USA
    Ask the Korean if they needed magazines more then 10 (or 7) rounds during the LA riots!
    It is simply not up to the government to backdoor regulate the 2A.
  7. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Senior Member

    May 2, 2012
    The Texas Hill Country
    : points out window at hogs :
  8. jmorris

    jmorris Mentor

    Sep 30, 2005
    If you shot or still in the process of shooting the TX State multigun right now, you would be better off (aka "need") with something bigger than 30 rounds for some stages.

    With a bunch of 10 round mags the only benifit would be to retrace your steps back to the starting point and help you loose a bunch of places where you finish.
  9. GBExpat

    GBExpat Senior Member

    Nov 5, 2007
    Rural, far beyond the beltway, Northern Virginia,
    <raising hand>
  10. caribou

    caribou Participating Member

    Sep 12, 2008
    North West Alaska
    If its a Constitutional Right , no citizen never ever needs to show a 'need' to have it, evoke it, use it......ever.

    The Rights exist , that is all the explanation I or you will even need give, as we need not explain any Need of a Right, but only to express our Rights as we desire.

    For example;
    We have the Right to bear arms. The Miller decision noted that the arms are specificly that used in modern combat (1930 something decision)
    A couple years ago the Supream Court reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL Right.

    Some express their Rights with high capacity magazines, some write long colums in news papers and internet, some people have meetings with lots of people, and some go to church. No need to explain those.

    Remember that criminals have their Rights too, and apon owning an illegal capacity magizine or gun, they have the Right not to incriminate themselfs, so they do not turn in guns, nor ammo nor speak of what they have done. Criminals do not buy guns legally or with background checks, so those will never help either.

    Never , ever give up your Constitutional Rights, they are the only Legal protection you will ever have.
  11. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Senior Member

    Feb 7, 2004
    One 'needs' 30 round mags if the other guy has them. Now if the good civilians have to fight the bad narco-terrorist or rouge government that DOES have 30 round mags well then they do NEED them.

    See that is the point. The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting or even really self defense. It's to keep the government to be really 'by the people, for the people" and not for some despot or terrorist organization.

  12. StewNTexas

    StewNTexas New Member

    Jun 30, 2012
    Ingleside, TX
    While I do not really 'need' an AR at this time, I will probably buy one when the prices stabalize a bit more.

    BUT, I want one.

    Do you suppose Rosa Parks really 'needed' to sit in the front of the bus? Probably not, she she 'wanted' to, and now the world is a better place because of it.
  13. wally

    wally Elder

    Jan 2, 2004
    Houston, Tx
    Who "needs" a Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, or Cadillac?

    We don't buy fire extinguishers and fire insurance because we are expecting a fire, but like with guns, its way better to have them and not ever need them that to need them and not have them!

    At least we can get some recreational usage from our guns.
  14. Steel Horse Rider

    Steel Horse Rider Senior Member

    Jan 4, 2012
    Loveland, Colorado
    I think Waco is a good indicator of why you cannot have enough ammo or magazine capacity. Anyone who says we have nothing to fear from the government had better not have any practices that can be construed as "strange" or "abnormal". Diversity and tolerance do not extend to those who refuse to kneel at the altar of government directives.
  15. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Member

    Apr 17, 2011
    Combat experience dictates that you can never have enough ammo in a firefight. I never met an Infantry Combat vet who ever complained of having carried too much ammo after one either.

    Who needs a 30-round magazine? Who needs a fire extinguisher? What REALLY are the odds that you house will catch fire? Who needs home owner's insurance for that matter?

    My motto: "Having one more magazine full than it takes to get the job done!"
  16. DeathByCactus

    DeathByCactus Member

    Sep 9, 2008
    I don't.

    You won't win a war against the government. Dialogue is the only way. We are home to the worlds premier fighting force. The most combat experienced infantry (and probably police given the amount of vets who are now cops) in the world at this point. The best air superiority and drone fleet also. The police wouldn't need to be so heavily armed if there wasn't an arms race going on with the people.

    I own like some... 60+ 30 round mags. Gonna be selling all of them. Same with my rifle so I am not being a hypocrite on this. Civil war is NOT the answer to any of our problems.

    Start telling all these combat vets coming back from the war to leave their military ways at the door step of the police departments they join. That will help for one. Start helping to calm Americans on both sides of the debate down to help remove all of these radical views (on both sides) and we might start seeing normal cops again.
  17. bigdaa

    bigdaa member

    Apr 12, 2013
    Goleta, CA
    I need thirty round magazines and more to level the field against tyranny in the United States of America.
  18. JustinJ

    JustinJ Senior Member

    Feb 15, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I'm not in favor of instituting magazine capacity limits but arguing that we need them because police needed them to track and apprehend two astranomically rare suspect types is absurd. This line of reasoning will convince nobody and rather convince them that one is delusional. Do you seriously not see the difference between home defense and trying to apprehend extremely violent terrorists? Should home owners wear full SWAT gear, have flash bangs and bomb disposal robots as well? Criminals who break into homes, by their nature, avoid contact and attention at all costs and hanging around to engage in prolonged gun fights with home owners is incredibly rare. In the overwhelming majority of accounts i've read bad guys flee at the first sight or sound of a gun. Those that do return fire almost always do so in an attempt to escape. There does seem to be a slightly higher incidence of gun fights with criminals targeting businesses with large amounts of cash on hand or valuable products such as jewelry. However many rounds are adequate for home defense, it has nothing to do with what was used in apprehending/killing the marathon terrorists.
  19. rdhood

    rdhood Active Member

    Jun 5, 2007
    The OP is right. If LE needs semi and full automatic ARs with 30 round magazines to take down one terrorist hiding in the boat in the backyard of a citizen, why the heck shouldn't that same citizen have those same guns?

    If LE needs them against the bad guys, then so do law abiding citizens. PERIOD. Otherwise, the only group off individuals who will be out gunned will be the law abiding citizens.
  20. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Senior Member

    Aug 10, 2008
    I have a 15# Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher in my garage entrance. Why do I have such a large extinguisher when I could have one of those little First-Alert hand-held units worth a fraction of what I spent on the large one.

    I'm not planning on having a fire in my garage, I'm not planning on any of my vehicles burning. HOWEVER, in the event that I might need to use that fire-extinguisher, to me, bigger is better! I could have a pea-shooter extinguisher that does about nothing to the fire or I could have one that puts it out and still has lots left.

    Suppose several crazed thugs break down your front door and come in with guns blazing. Anyone who would think that five to ten rounds is the maximum the honest, law-abiding citizen should have can limit their guns all they want. I would like to be able to have enough shots to shoot until the threat stops, NOT shoot until my magazine is empty! Ask any armed-robber how many rounds the law-abiding citizen should be carrying and he will tell you "NONE!"

Share This Page