Originally Posted by manta
What are the facts. ?
Let's use an example.
Magazine capacity limits.
How does a magazine capacity limit make us safer?
A popular argument is that mass shooters would need to reload more often. Well, first of all, mass shooters are the exception and not the rule. More people will die in Chicago this weekend than in any mass shooting and mass shootings are not as common as the sensationalist media makes them out to be.
Second, there have been mass shootings where the shooter had limited capacity magazines. That didn't stop them. Typically, mass shooters carry more than one weapon. Also, since they tend towards Gun Free Zones, reloading is not an issue. The idea you can "rush the shooter" is right out of Hollywood, not reality.
Ok, so what about everyday criminals? Well, that doesn't really matter. Crimes are usually committed as one-to-one or many-to-one where the numbers favor the criminals. A criminal with a single-shot weapon against an unarmed victim has all the ammunition he needs.
However, restricting magazine capacity does make citizens less safe. Again, this is not Hollywood. A 6 shot revolver does not mean I can take on 6 bad guys. I *MIGHT*, if I'm lucky, have enough shots to stop 2 attackers. Or, I might not even have enough to stop a single attacker without needing to reload. In that situation, the need to stop and reload may be deadly.
A single armed aggressor against multiple unarmed defenders has an advantage and the luxury of reloading.
A single armed defender does not have the luxury of reloading regardless of how their multiple assailants are armed.
In other words, I cannot find anything quantifiable that would indicate magazine capacity limits would make anyone safer except criminals.
Unless someone has facts that prove otherwise. Though considering the community I don't think anyone here will try to debunk me.
(Sidenote: Capacity limits are a gun control item I NEVER supported)