A better argument for high capacity magazines

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by CrazedJava, Dec 20, 2012.

  1. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    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
     

  3. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. firedawg60

    firedawg60 New Member

    365
    0
    0
    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?
     
  5. PSYCHOFREAK3

    PSYCHOFREAK3 New Member

    299
    0
    0
    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.
     
  6. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,450
    356
    83
    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.
     
  7. armed1212

    armed1212 New Member

    201
    0
    0
    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
     
  8. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    Oh, but having 500 horsepower is a right, right? Ban evil "assault cars". I do not recall any metion of cars in the Constitution.
     
  9. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,448
    566
    113
    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.
     
  10. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,379
    626
    113
    I use ten round mags for the AK when firing prone. If shooting seriously, I would rather have good cover then extra rounds.
     
  11. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    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.
     
  12. sputnik1988

    sputnik1988 Active Member

    2,883
    2
    38
    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.
     
  13. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,450
    356
    83
    ... Because the NDAA now allows indefinite detention of Americans without trial...
    End thread.
     
  14. Threetango

    Threetango Audentes Fortuna Iuvat Supporter

    4,521
    208
    63
    Guilty as charged of more than 500 hp and loving every minute of it. :D

    [​IMG]
     
  15. bonney

    bonney New Member

    85
    0
    0
    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.
     
  16. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0
    Bad example. She escaped while the gunman was reloading!
     
  17. Alpha1Victor

    Alpha1Victor New Member

    782
    0
    0
    If you limit the amount of rounds a person is allowed to carry, you can guarantee that they will make every round count. What's next after the hi-cap ban? Ban training because people got to be to good with the 10 rounds the can carry?
     
  18. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0

    500 HP and poor trigger control! :eek:

    Sorry, it needed to be said. :D
     
  19. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0
    From another thread, but this is the best argument. The argument shouldn't be why 30-round capacity, but why not.

    Props to drvsafe.

     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  20. Threetango

    Threetango Audentes Fortuna Iuvat Supporter

    4,521
    208
    63

    No need to be sorry, my land my rules. :D