I had a similar conversation with my very pro-gun, retired military, semi-retired LE, uncle. He owns all kinds of firearms including those which would be banned (AR15, blah blah blah) and my very VERY pro-gun brother-in-law who's collection of guns dwarfs most I've seen. He too has guns that would be banned.
My uncle, who's been involved in multiple personal defense situations with his gun and had to shoot someone said very clearly: in a personal defense situation you are most likely to fire fewer than 10 shots, and if they are well-placed you need only fire one. His premise is that it's not good to have people rely on capacity at the expense of accuracy in a personal defense situation.
He argued that a capacity limitation wouldn't bother him. I can't say it would bother me because I do not own the guns it would apply to (except maybe my FNP40). And while guns are generally just about utility
for me - and their utility
FOR ME isn't diminished by a smaller capacity magazine - the argument isn't just about utility for everyone else who owns guns.
And that's where the question gets interesting. Because when we take "utility" out of the equation, the question of "who NEEDS a high-cap magazine?" becomes irrelevant.
It turns into a question of rights. And rights are about law. And the law leads us to this question:
Here is rhe rejoinder:
"what business is it of yours to tell me what I need?"
Here is the response: "It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."
Emotional response? Yes. Completely true? No. Partially true? Yes.
Our rights to something are "rights" only insofar as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. Our right to a sports car is fine until it speeds down our highways or is driven recklessly.
Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.
The argument that an acceptable restriction to a right can be employed when the greater good is in jeopardy has been accepted by the SCOTUS, legislatures and society at large. We bar the *******s from nearby Topeka from protesting too close to funerals at the cemetery next to my house, thereby limiting their first-amendment rights on the grounds that those rights cannot trump the families's right to grieve.
There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.
We agree that WBC doesn't have a "need" to protest that funeral which is of greater social good than the right of the family to grieve.
We agree that the shouter doesn't have a need to yell "fire" greater than the right of safety of theater goers.
So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?
The SCOTUS has interpreted the law such that the right to use speech can be limited on the grounds it may infringe on privacy and grief, how can they argue that the right to utilize a gun in a certain high-capacity way cannot be limited just because it may infringe on the right of life and safety?
I read commentary about "a killer can swap out 10-round mags in just 3 seconds." My answer, "great, if they're that easy to swap out then you won't miss the larger ones."
I read the "slippery slope" arguments: "this is a step towards confiscation of all guns. Read history." My answer: "I read history. I need look no further than 8 years ago when the AWB was lifted and since that time gun rights have expanded."
I read about a "right" to own a certain magazine size: My answer, "1) we have a legal history of limitations to the Amendments to the Constitution where the greater good is served. (2) show me where the 2A gives you the right to a magazine."
I read about how "the crime rate won't drop with a mag limitation." My answer: "great, we're not
just talking about dropping the crime rate. We're
also talking about reducing the effect of mass-shootings and this is one part of that."
I read that the "root cause is mental illness." My answer: "People without a trace of mental illness act out gun violence
every single day in this country. They do it with hi-cap magazines and low-cap magazines."
I'm playing Devil's Advocate and finding very few good arguments from either side for their staked out positions.
I guess my point is, many of the arguments from both sides are moot because this is ultimately a question of law. We are a Republic. A nation of law. The question is, how do those laws permit us a right to a certain degree of utility while they curtail the utility of other, equally sacrosanct rights?