Firearms Talk banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It is a common argument. "Why does anyone need 30 rounds?" That is a question asked by someone who doesn't understand firearms used for a lawful purpose. Unfortunately, the common response I hear and read from gun owners is "Because it's my right".

That is not a compelling argument, especially not for people who question the validity of the 2nd Amendment. Let me humbly suggest this tact.

For spree shooters, the number of rounds is irrelevant. Assuming their weapon of choice is a gun, which is not always the case, spree killers are not hampered by reloading. Their victims cannot shoot back and the ability to rush the killer when they are reloading is not as easy as it sounds. Granted, single shot weapons might help reduce the carnage but two very prolific shootings happened during the previous "Assault Weapons Ban" that limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds (Columbine and Virginia Tech). The Clocktower Shootings in Austin, TX were committed with no weapons that held more than 10 rounds. A determined killer will always find tools of mayhem regardless of the law.

However, for self defense purposes, capacity matters. Shootings in real life do not happen like Hollywood. Self defense can take place with one person against multiple assailants. Reloading may not be an option or seriously increase risk. Limiting ammunition capacity would not have made a difference in any of the shootings we've had recently, but it could potentially cost the life of someone using a firearm for lawful self defense.

If you live in a rural area, you may be on your own for a quarter of an hour or more. A lot of gun control advocates think only urban. Someone armed with an AR-15 and 30 round magazines might be the only defense they have for their land and property. A short range handgun or shotgun may not cut it. If you are defending yourself at medium to long range against multiple assailants, does it make sense to limit your magazine to 10 rounds?

The counter to this is "Those situations are rare", and that is true. But they are actually more common than spree killers, and that is including killings done without firearms. Spree killers are actually relatively rare compared to defensive gun uses. They are just incredibly sensationalized by the media. We're going to take a tiny percentage of criminal activity and put lawful citizens at risk? We're going to further reduce people's ability to defend themselves as an answer?

Now, some of the knowledgeable people of this forum will counter with "I carry a J-Frame..." That's your choice and what we're talking about here is choice. If someone feels they need a Glock 19 for self defense and live in a bad area, that should be their choice. They should not be forced to limit their Glock 19 to 10 shots before a reload. That is potentially fatal. You hope that no one needs that many rounds if they do actually have to shoot, but no one ever complains about too many bullets in a gunfight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
The anti-mag argument is made by people that have zero experience with firearms...

"You don't need 30 rounds to kill Bambi"...IIRC, most states have limits on how much ammo a hunter can legally carry in the gun, 4-6 rounds, again, IIRC...and the AR is arguably the most popular deer rifle in this country...

They completely discount the fact that the AR platform is wildly popular on the competition level and some, if not all competitions REQUIRE 30 round mags...but they're not hearing that either...

If a goblin has 10 ten round mags, even an amateur goblin can execute a mag change in what, 2 seconds? Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp anyone??? Since these shootings are done at their beloved GFZ's, said unchallenged goblin has time to swap out his mag, make a sammich, take a nap and get back to work. They're reasoning for this is to "limit casualties"...ummm, how about putting a stop to it altogether??? The only prescription for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...Clackamas anybody???

The whole "nobody needs a..." is a completely facist, elitist concept. I don't "need" lots of things that are legal, yet harmful but you won't see me trying to impose my will on others. Socialism runs strong with these folks...They feed off of fear and ignorance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
No argument here, but this is for when you're talking to someone who is parrotting talking points but is not a dedicated anti-gunner. There are plenty of those people out there that simply do not have the facts and could easily be swayed to our side.

The problem is, on the surface the magazine limitation looks entirely reasonable if you have no knowledge of firearms. A little education goes a long way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
I prefer the 30 round mags because I'm lazy. When I'm out target shooting, I don't have to reload as much. A friend of mine at work were talking about this the other day. His answer was why does anyone want a corvette?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
His answer was why does anyone want a corvette?
Exactly, why does anyone "need" a car that will do 0-60 in 3 seconds or will top anything more than 90 miles an hour as I don't believe anyone can reasonably say that they can drive on city/county/highway at more than 90 miles an hour with traffic without being a danger to society.

Still not a great argument, but it's something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,482 Posts
My girlfriend asked that. Not as a stupid anti gunner, but honest question.

I loaded a mag in my xd, ejected the mag, loaded a new one, ejected that. 5 times. I can slap a new mag and chamber in around one second.
I asked her... 'What's the difference?'

She instantly agreed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Thank u! Why do we sell fast cars then, sh!t why can all cars even do more than 65mph anyway if thats the legal speed limit. U dont see anyone trying to bam sports car, wait even better. U can nos to make ur car go way over the limit. No one bam that, kids die everyday to street racing. Unfair
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,374 Posts
Oh, but having 500 horsepower is a right, right? Ban evil "assault cars". I do not recall any metion of cars in the Constitution.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
26,757 Posts
FWIW, there have not always BEEN 30 round mags for the AR/ M16. I can remember carrying a claymore bag filled with 20 round mags. Worked for us- and actually to be preferred when shooting in the prone position.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,224 Posts
FWIW, there have not always BEEN 30 round mags for the AR/ M16. I can remember carrying a claymore bag filled with 20 round mags. Worked for us- and actually to be preferred when shooting in the prone position.
I use ten round mags for the AK when firing prone. If shooting seriously, I would rather have good cover then extra rounds.
 

·
Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
robocop10mm said:
Oh, but having 500 horsepower is a right, right? Ban evil "assault cars". I do not recall any metion of cars in the Constitution.
If the government were to try to force people to do something to their cars so they would not go over 60mph, there would be an outrage and the government would be sued for everything they have because they would be infringing on our car rights, which is not protected by the constitution, but when they go after our gun rights, which is protected by the constitution, it's ok.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,880 Posts
It's not a question of if I need it. You dont need designer clothing, a V8 in your car or brick on your house.

The question is will it benefit society in any way if I don't have them, the answer is no.
 

·
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
Joined
·
4,609 Posts
Oh, but having 500 horsepower is a right, right? Ban evil "assault cars". I do not recall any metion of cars in the Constitution.
Guilty as charged of more than 500 hp and loving every minute of it. :D

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
85 Posts
NAME me a case wherein a US civilian, since the advent of the 1911, has NEEDED to HIT more than 2 attackers, or needed this "medium range" stuff with the rifle. :) What you need is to get to cover, get on the cell phone, and don't let the enemy outflank your cover. HE has to flee, soon, all you need to do is stay covered, peeking out (one eye only) now and then, from different spots, to keep track of what the enemy is doing. I love the AR, I will fight to keep it, literally, but your argument is very, very weak here, dude.

Eff whether or not it "benefits society". All I need or ask of society is that they leave me be, they have no right or reason to ask more of me than I ask of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
Guilty as charged of more than 500 hp and loving every minute of it. :D


500 HP and poor trigger control! :eek:

Sorry, it needed to be said. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
From another thread, but this is the best argument. The argument shouldn't be why 30-round capacity, but why not.

Props to drvsafe.

I feel that the question isn't why want it, it's really what is claimed will be accomplished by banning them. Will mass murders not murder in masses because they only have access to 15 rounds magazines? Is it the 30 round magazine that prompts people to snap and head out to kill people in masses?

If there is empirical evidence of the fact that mass murders can be prevented if 30 round magazines were banned, then I'm in, sign me up. <--THIS

If not than it's another example of swinging a hammer on a screw head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
No need to be sorry, my land my rules. :D
That's the spirit. Celebrate your inability to follow basic gun safety rules. :D

Fail to see that how you handle the weapon in "relaxed" moments could bleed over to other moments.

Yeah, yeah, we know he gun wasn't loaded, the safety was engaged, no one was down range, yada, yada, yada...

/rant
:p
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top