4 ms·

Notwithstanding "because", why does a civilian gun owner need a firearm with more than (say) 5 round capacity?

ducktales 4y ago
The same reason that the FBI (and other policing administrations) did away with the service revolver. There's actual a distinct tragedy where some FBI agents died in a firefight that spurred this, apologies for lack of citation - it is late. It is scarily easy to miss, even at physically close distances, when fighting for one's life. I feel most people that haven't shot a gun, or have only shot a gun while sitting perfectly still and undistracted, underestimate the above fact. If you do have access to guns and the ability to test this, do some sort of exercise to get yourself breathing heavily before shooting, you'll see the difference. All of this presupposes that we agree the average citizen has the right to defend their life with adequate tools. Some may, with good statistical arguments at hand, determine that the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime does not meet the threshold for allowing this level of self defense. I hope that partially answers your question
- multjoy 4y ago
  How many firefights do you expect a civilian gun owner to get into?
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Statistically, around 0.005 per year (note that there's a HUGE range of estimates for how common defensive gun use is, so there's definitely some error bars there). However that's still many orders of magnitude more than the average number of mass shootings that the average civilian gun owner is involved with.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      So realistically the actual need for a large capacity magazine is zero?
      - Rebelgecko 4y ago
        The number of people who have used 10+ round magazines for self defense is greater than zero.
        multjoy 4y ago
        Used, or needed?
        pirate787 4y ago
        Who cares? It is a foundational human right. I don't have to prove my "need" for freedom of religion or speech, or right to bear arms.
        ahtihn 4y ago
        Why is it a foundational human right? Who decides that? It seems to me that a lot of people disagree. Human rights only exist because enough people believe in them. All of them, including free speech are up for debate and constantly need to be defended.
        Rebelgecko 4y ago
        Both
      - cebert 4y ago
        I think part of the intention of the Second Amendment is to have a well-armed population that has the capability to push back against a government that has overstepped. Five or ten rounds isn’t going to help much there.
      - magicalhippo 4y ago
        The need for a magazine is close to zero, but if you need one, you probably need, or would have a significantly improved outcome with, a 10+ magazine.
      - ahh 4y ago
- GiorgioG 4y ago
  > It is scarily easy to miss, even at physically close distances, when fighting for one's life. In my state it's required to qualify at a gun range in order to obtained a concealed carry permit. When my turn came I experienced a huge adrenaline rush. I did hit the target adequately but was surprised at how difficult it was under pressure. I've never experienced this before when going to the range and casually shooting. I expect in a real world scenario where the assailant is not a static paper target, you're more likely to miss than not.
- rascul 4y ago
  > There's actual a distinct tragedy where some FBI agents died in a firefight that spurred this, apologies for lack of citation - it is late. I think this is it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
lliamander 4y ago
Do you know how many shots on average it takes to take down a single assailant? I'll give you a hint: more than 5. This includes the fact that, when you are firing under pressure, you will very likely miss or not hit critical areas. Most assailants don't stop because you've hit some vital organ, they stop because of blood loss. That takes time. Bullet wounds aren't typically huge (like knife wounds can be). And let's be clear: the onus is on you to justify denying a law-abiding civilian the right to possess such a weapon. Given that we are talking about a constitutional right (one which the text clearly states "shall not be infringed") you would need to show a standard of strict scrutiny to justify denying those citizens their right.
- multjoy 4y ago
  >Given that we are talking about a constitutional right (one which the text clearly states "shall not be infringed") It also says "well regulated". >Bullet wounds aren't typically huge (like knife wounds can be) Someone's not seen the mess a 5.56mm round makes.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    > It also says "well regulated". Which, at the time and in context, meant "properly trained". The point of the text was that an armed and trained society was necessary to preserve freedom, which is why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. > Someone's not seen the mess a 5.56mm round makes. Sure, it's not going to be pretty. Even a 9mm (or a .22) is not going to be fun. Let me put it a different way: I've heard multiple knowledgeable people say they would rather get shot than stabbed.
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    Regulated in the 2nd definition sence of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate > to bring order, method, or uniformity > to regulate one's habits That being said, we should make gun safety classes low cost/ free for all interested citizens.
numpad0 4y ago
Modern guns are not designed to have that low capacity or non-removable magazines, so regulations like that force dead ends of (mal)compliance items that aren't necessarily safe. Authority personnel with domain knowledge also tends to sympathize with owners and could borderline sabotage regulations. Trigger cranks, folding braces, "forced-reset" triggers, tac-sacs, CA compliant mag releases, featureless grips, they come up with lots of those stuffs.

The same reason that the FBI (and other policing administrations) did away with the service revolver. There's actual a distinct tragedy where some FBI agents died in a firefight that spurred this, apologies for lack of citation - it is late. It is scarily easy to miss, even at physically close distances, when fighting for one's life. I feel most people that haven't shot a gun, or have only shot a gun while sitting perfectly still and undistracted, underestimate the above fact. If you do have access to guns and the ability to test this, do some sort of exercise to get yourself breathing heavily before shooting, you'll see the difference. All of this presupposes that we agree the average citizen has the right to defend their life with adequate tools. Some may, with good statistical arguments at hand, determine that the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime does not meet the threshold for allowing this level of self defense. I hope that partially answers your question

multjoy 4y ago
How many firefights do you expect a civilian gun owner to get into?
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Statistically, around 0.005 per year (note that there's a HUGE range of estimates for how common defensive gun use is, so there's definitely some error bars there). However that's still many orders of magnitude more than the average number of mass shootings that the average civilian gun owner is involved with.
  - multjoy 4y ago
    So realistically the actual need for a large capacity magazine is zero?
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      The number of people who have used 10+ round magazines for self defense is greater than zero.
      - multjoy 4y ago
        Used, or needed?
        pirate787 4y ago
        Who cares? It is a foundational human right. I don't have to prove my "need" for freedom of religion or speech, or right to bear arms.
        ahtihn 4y ago
        Why is it a foundational human right? Who decides that? It seems to me that a lot of people disagree. Human rights only exist because enough people believe in them. All of them, including free speech are up for debate and constantly need to be defended.
        Rebelgecko 4y ago
        Both
    - cebert 4y ago
      I think part of the intention of the Second Amendment is to have a well-armed population that has the capability to push back against a government that has overstepped. Five or ten rounds isn’t going to help much there.
    - magicalhippo 4y ago
      The need for a magazine is close to zero, but if you need one, you probably need, or would have a significantly improved outcome with, a 10+ magazine.
    - ahh 4y ago
GiorgioG 4y ago
> It is scarily easy to miss, even at physically close distances, when fighting for one's life. In my state it's required to qualify at a gun range in order to obtained a concealed carry permit. When my turn came I experienced a huge adrenaline rush. I did hit the target adequately but was surprised at how difficult it was under pressure. I've never experienced this before when going to the range and casually shooting. I expect in a real world scenario where the assailant is not a static paper target, you're more likely to miss than not.
rascul 4y ago
> There's actual a distinct tragedy where some FBI agents died in a firefight that spurred this, apologies for lack of citation - it is late. I think this is it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

lliamander 4y ago

Do you know how many shots on average it takes to take down a single assailant? I'll give you a hint: more than 5. This includes the fact that, when you are firing under pressure, you will very likely miss or not hit critical areas. Most assailants don't stop because you've hit some vital organ, they stop because of blood loss. That takes time. Bullet wounds aren't typically huge (like knife wounds can be). And let's be clear: the onus is on you to justify denying a law-abiding civilian the right to possess such a weapon. Given that we are talking about a constitutional right (one which the text clearly states "shall not be infringed") you would need to show a standard of strict scrutiny to justify denying those citizens their right.

multjoy 4y ago
>Given that we are talking about a constitutional right (one which the text clearly states "shall not be infringed") It also says "well regulated". >Bullet wounds aren't typically huge (like knife wounds can be) Someone's not seen the mess a 5.56mm round makes.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > It also says "well regulated". Which, at the time and in context, meant "properly trained". The point of the text was that an armed and trained society was necessary to preserve freedom, which is why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. > Someone's not seen the mess a 5.56mm round makes. Sure, it's not going to be pretty. Even a 9mm (or a .22) is not going to be fun. Let me put it a different way: I've heard multiple knowledgeable people say they would rather get shot than stabbed.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  Regulated in the 2nd definition sence of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate > to bring order, method, or uniformity > to regulate one's habits That being said, we should make gun safety classes low cost/ free for all interested citizens.

numpad0 4y ago

Modern guns are not designed to have that low capacity or non-removable magazines, so regulations like that force dead ends of (mal)compliance items that aren't necessarily safe. Authority personnel with domain knowledge also tends to sympathize with owners and could borderline sabotage regulations. Trigger cranks, folding braces, "forced-reset" triggers, tac-sacs, CA compliant mag releases, featureless grips, they come up with lots of those stuffs.