Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines

Status
Not open for further replies.
I admit I have trouble understanding your point that a shotgun would be far more deadly than an AR-15

Let's take a look at that.

A short barreled 12 gauge shotgun with no choke...firing buckshot...is probably the most lethal and destructive close quarters weapon ever devised by man if we exclude explosive devices...and even those are hard-pressed to match the shotgun because they're indiscriminate. The shotgun is aimed.

If I were tasked with cleaning out a roomful of people...given the choice between a short slide-action shotgun with 8 rounds capacity vs an AR15 with 30...I'd pick up the shotgun without blinking.
 
One of the framers used a phrase a couple of times that has stuck with me ever since the first time I read it many years ago. His name was Tench Coxe, he was from Pennsylvania, and the memorable (to me) phrase was "every terrible implement of the soldier."

I have included a segment of his writing below which includes this phrase, in context, which might help in understanding what he meant.

Just one of the "terrible implements" of the modern soldier is a 30-round magazine...
===========================================

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".
=============================================

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
 
Thank you, sir. And they told me in 1974 I'd never amount to anything with just a history degree... :D

For more on Coxe, see http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/hk-coxe.htm. It's too long to post here, but well worth reading IMHO.

Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823
By Stephen P. Halbrook[a1] and David B. Kopel [aa1]
7 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 347 (1999).
 
This is just a quick reply to put out a couple of thoughts that I had on reading the original post. I haven't read the thread, but will go through it later when I have more time. So, if I say something that's been covered, I apologize in advance.

1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.

If you have any links to this list of shootings, I'd appreciate if you could provide a link. I've seen many, many lists of mass shootings lately, from all kinds of sources, and no two lists are the same.

I think this is important in framing the discussion. We need to be able to agree on what constitutes as mass shooting. The FBI definition of a mass murder is 9 or more people killed in one event at one location. However, that doesn't necessarily work for the discussion. For example, the Oregon mall shooter only managed to shoot a smaller number of people, but his intent was clear. Or, for example, a man shot his wife and several of he friends in another event, but we don't know that his motivation was general mayhem or premeditated murder against just those people (or anyone he had to go through to get to them). (That event was on one list and I don't think had nine victims. So, it would have been disqualified by the strict definition anyway.)

2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion.

While things worked out this way in the Arizona shooting, and they have at other shootings, they don't always work out this way. Someone has to take the first step. That's psychologically hard to do. Mostly, people react like deer in the headlights in the face of an unexpected outbreak of violence. Once they see someone else react, they get validation for their urge to act and follow along. There's a name for this phenomena, though I can't think of it off the top of my head, but it's a very real thing. This means that it is a rare event.

Given the rarity of mass shootings, and the further rarity of unarmed civilians stopping a shooter during a reload, I'd have to say that this is a flawed argument. Very flawed. I may be proven wrong by that list of mass shootings since the AWB. How many more besides the AZ shooter were taken out by unarmed citizens while reloading? How does that compare to the number who were stopped by armed resistance from a civilian, security guard (still a civilian, but listed b/c some people don't view them as such), or off duty police officer (basically as well-equipped to deal with the situation as any other concealed carrier)?

Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well.

Did you know that the 100 round drum magazine used in Aurora malfunctioned? The shooter was not tackled by anyone. I believe most of his victims were shot by his handgun, but I'd have to fact check that.

And there are more examples.

As stated above, please provide these.
 
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

Ah, this old saw. Based on the Giffords shooting where the shooters gun malfunctioned after a reload and he got taken while trying to get it working again. Guess what? He might have killed a few more people with reduced capacity mags, alot of these spree shooters have had mag problems, and reduced capacity might have worked better.

I'd never heard Laughner was taken during a reload, I thought even the media knew that his weapon malfunctioned, too. I guess the facts are changing to fit the story the antis want. Its like they think reloading is this long arduous process that takes the better part of 10 minutes.

But the final nail in that coffin is this post by one of the mods here

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=691700

Also, regarding the "9 out of 10 spree shootings have been with high capacity mags" thing, or what ever it was, most modern pistols and rifles have more than ten in the mag by design, that is the natural capacity of the weapon. 10 rounds is an artificial constraint. So, the shooters would have had to go buy special reduced capacity mags for their spree shooting to use ten rounds or less.

I dont know how much of this has been said already, I haven't read through the whole thread.

"Well Regulated" is not to be taken to mean government regulated. It means self-regulated, by the members of the militia...a militia that we all belong to.

"Regulated" meaning that the militia should conduct regular meetings...drill...practice...appoint leaders and officers...and develop strategies for senarios in which the militia may have to mobilize. Google "Minutemen."

To believe that the wording means government regulated defies logic. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a costly war against an over-reaching, tyrannical government...one that strove to regulate everything. Why would they...in their mistrust of a centralized government with a standing army...turn around and hand control of the only means to resist back to the government? It doesn't make sense.

Its my understanding that the closest synonym to "regulated" as used in the Constitution is "disciplined"--"A well Disciplined militia....". I was actually thinking of starting a thread here to double check that. I've also heard it meant that the weapons were of a common deisgn so there would be ammo commonality and things like that. Not so sure about the second one, though.
 
1. Most people who buy magazine fed rifles have more than one magazine to accompany it. I don't know a single person who owns just one magazine with their AR15. With that in mind, its fair to take the number of rifles that are commonly found with 30 round magazines and multiply it by 3. this is an extremely low, but fair, estimate of how many magazines are already in circulation. This is also an extremely low estimate of the candidates for magazines that will be forced into a black market that will see its inception under a capacity ban.
2. Magazines are easy to hide and they are they are easy to make. It's a rectangular prism with a spring. Any fool with mechanical know-how of the lowest caliber could modify a 10 round magazine to hold 30.
3. "If it can save just one life." Unfortunately, many of the people who keep nightstand guns only keep one magazine handy with it (even if they have more). Three thugs break into a house. The woman wakes up and grabs her 10 round limited 9mm. She shoots 3 times at one thug, he's down for the count. 4 at the next, luckily a few connected. Now she has 3 rounds to deal with the last one. Oh yeah, he's on PCP.
4. Defenders are almost always less prepared than attackers. These high profile shootings have been committed by people absolutely strapped with ammo. Magazine changes can happen fast. Drop, insert, rack. It's not complicated. Capacity bans will only make the defenders less apt to, well, defend.
5. Look at Columbine and Virginia Tech. Shooters don't need 30 round magazines to get the job done.
6. Are the police also going to comply with a capacity ban? They face the same threats us lowly citizens do. They don't fight some "police only" criminals. If a burglar breaks in and I have a ten round magazine to defend myself with, when the police show up after I'm dead, they should also only need a 10 rounder to do their job. After all, it's the SAME threat, and Unkie Sam already told me I only need 10 rounds to defend myself from it.
I'm tired of typing
 
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.

Timmy must be ignorant of New York's new law ratcheting the magazine limits from 10 down to 7, and a New Jersey lawmaker's bill to lower it from 15 to 5 rounds per magazine.

Funny how he rejects something happening before his own eyes in real time.
 
Timmy-----until people who want to ban firearms etc. understand firearms it is a useless argument. I am a single female highly educated professional (physician). I do not support any "gun control". It does not work. All it does is effect people like me. What good is that going to do. If you trust me with your life how in the world will taking away things from me make society safer?????? My father gave me my first firearm at age 18. He showed me how and when to use it. It had it in my dorm room in college etc. I graduated HS in 1977. What has happened if anything to the younger generation in that time span and how do you correct it???? Oh yea, he gave me all this knowledge because I would be living 20 miles from home. And yes, I am a female. Never would I give up my firearms and magazines. My father taught me better than that.
 
What happens when the next mass shooting happens with a psycho using 10 round magazines?

Another thing, my shotgun holds 8 rounds. Firing 00 buck that means I can put 72 32cal balls on target as fast as I can pull the trigger. Don't try and compare lethality of different types of firearms. They are ALL lethal, and ALL of them can be used by criminals. Why stop law abiding citizens from owning one?
 
Another thing, I go to UWW and I am 20 years old. On friday we had a shooter on campus scare, and I was told to just sit in my room and stay put. Unfortunately, my life isn't valuable enough to hold a CCW, let alone a CCW on my campus. Thats where the real gun discussion should be in the media. Why can't I have the right to protect myself?! I have a job, go to school, pay my taxes, belong to a gun club, and obey all laws. How come my life isn't valuable enough in the laws eyes?
 
Do you have any proof of the efficacy of intervention against someone with a smaller mag than a larger?

You have a hypothesis: smaller capacity magazine means intervention is more effective. It seems that if you want to change the law you would be able to provide statistically significant evidenced of your hypothesis. Meaning it would bye repeatable.

At this point you're only offering conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Limiting your argument to one set of circumstances, and ignoring all else, is a common tactic of the grabbers. "If we can only save ONE child!!!" comes to mind... but they don't tell you about the thousands endangered by not allowing their parents the tools with which to protect them.
The OP is, at best, intellectually dishonest, but I won't put too much effort into debating with a troll, so have at it.
 
Tuner, can you site a source for this?

"Well Regulated" is not to be taken to mean government regulated. It means self-regulated, by the members of the militia...a militia that we all belong to.

I'm not doubting you, I just would love a source for this.
 
It was the language of the time. I don't think you'd expect a bunch of anti-government rebels to include wording that would immediately place a monopoly of power in the hands of a government that nearly all of the Founding Fathers warned us about.
You regulate the barrels on a double shotgun to shoot at a certain point of aim. It doesn't require a vast government agency to dictate the process. Besides, it isn't the defining clause in the Amendment anyway. The key phrase is "shall not be infringed." Whatever leads up to that may be taken as context, but that's it.
 
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload.

So, if I am a defender fighting off multiple criminal assailants, the easiest time for them to overrun me is when I'm trying to reload.

This must be why the police and military favor the 30 round magazine. It's also why I favor standard capacity magazines.
 
Is Timmy some kind of Troll? He joined THR two days ago, already has 108 posts, and he makes some BS statement about not being in favor of high capacity magazines on this forum. Must be trying to stir up trouble. Why else would he make such a post - to better educate himself? Yeah right....
 
I would say, on the "chance" that the responses here will be used for other purposes, that we remain as civil and constructive as possible.

I dont want to risk banning, of course, but whatever the purpose of Timmy's appearance here, we do have the opportunity to make our case for the 2nd Amendment and proposed restrictions clearly and effectively. People have done so in both of his threads; it's been really impressive.

However nothing stops him from cherry-picking the few that might be taken the wrong way or were misleading or extremist...and using them for his purposes.

I'm not focusing this on any High Road member....mostly I am incredibly impressed by the range and depth of knowlege here. kudos.
 
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle.

Loughner was using a Glock 9mm which is most likely faster reload then a rifle. The argument that a smaller capacity magazine will save lives is ridiculous. You better hope an unarmed person is brave enough to make a split second decision to attack an armed person who is reloading. Not going to find many of those types.
 
Last edited:
I got that from an editorial by George Gascon, district attorney for San Francisco

Enough said.

I believe this thread is an exercise in futility, IMHO.

Timmy4 cannot be convinced but enjoys the the ongoing pontification.

Not sure his assertions deserve any more comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top