5 ms·

The magazine size restriction only looks reasonable if you're unfamiliar with guns and how they're used in crime. The most common criminal use of a gun consists

by wl 13y ago

The magazine size restriction only looks reasonable if you're unfamiliar with guns and how they're used in crime. The most common criminal use of a gun consists of a few rounds, rarely exceeding the capacity of these restricted size magazines. If we move to the much more rare mass shooting, we see that magazine size doesn't really reduce the body count. In the Virginia Tech shooting, for example, the shooter killed 32 people and injured 17 more with only 10 and 15 round magazines. In exchange for this limited or non-existent benefit, you seriously inconvenience gun owners who will likely never misuse their guns. The opposition to background checks isn't necessarily unreasonable, either. Pretty much all of the mass shootings in the US in the past 15 years have been carried out by people who would have been able to pass background checks. In the more common cases of illegal gun use, the user tends to be a felon who already got the gun through black market channels. Perhaps the benefit here is greater than the magazine capacity restrictions, but I don't know. I do know that background checks have been used to create a special tax on firearm transactions that greatly exceeds the cost of doing the checks. I also do know that these background checks have been used to create databases that were later used to confiscate firearms. Pretty much all the practical objections to background checks could be worked around if legislators wanted to. The problem seems to be that legislators who promote such bills don't seem interested in doing so.

dm2 13y ago
The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout These high-capacity magazines are devastating when used to commit a crime and there is zero legitimate use of them for a civilian. Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies.
- waffle_ss 13y ago
  > The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. No. Drum magazines are prone to jamming, which is exactly what happened in your linked scenario (the gunman then decided to drop the rifle rather than clear the misfeed). The same thing happened to the Aurora, Colorado shooter and his drum magazine. An efficient killer would be better off with a MOLLE vest with the pouches filled with smaller-capacity magazines. > Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies. The 2nd amendment was not written for hunters or people who enjoy recreational shooting. It is an emergency brake against tyranny and a prodding towards militia defense of the country rather than standing army (read what James Madison wrote about the subject), so yes it actually is about killing people. In a time when all branches of federal government seem to be ignoring the Constitution, I for one am glad that we still have it.
- lwhalen 13y ago
  Right, but consider this - the bad guy knows when and where he is going to strike, the good guy doesn't. Say we were able to wave a magic wand and all the magazines over X rounds were to magically disappear and turn into (X-1)-round magazines. The bad guy, because he can choose where and when he is going to act, can adequately prepare and just bring many magazines regardless of artificially-restricted mag limits. The 'good guys' generally prefer to carry one or two magazines for convenience, regardless of capacity, because they have other things to do with their day besides committing crimes. Laws that restrict magazine capacity reasoning that criminals will be 'less dangerous' with lower-cap magazines are misguided - those laws (like all gun laws) only apply to law-abiding gun owners, and only serve to weaken them.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    Indeed, when you are defending yourself you have no control over timing of the attackers. You are forced to respond whenever your attackers make a move. The more you need to reload the more chances that you won't be able to respond in time. On the other hand, on the attacking side, you can choose your timing freely and the capacity of the magazine is not as important (it's only important when your target turns against you and you become a defender yourself). Magazine caps are so popular because the goal of "gun control" is to limit the people's ability to defend so much that they will have to rely on the government for protection. It has exactly zero effect on crime as the crime is already illegal and if criminals cared about these laws they would not be criminals in the first place.
freehunter 13y ago
Seriously inconvenience? I'm a hunter and I also target shoot for recreation, and I can't say a 10 or 15 round limit is an inconvenience at all, let alone a serious one. If you're hunting and you need to fire 10 or 15 shots without taking the time to reload, you're dangerously ill-equipped to be using a gun. You're placing everyone else at risk as you're wildly slinging bullets through the forest. If you're target shooting, you need to take time to adjust your aim between shots anyway, and the target isn't going anywhere. If you're using a gun in self defense and you need more than 10 or 15 rounds, again, you're woefully under-equipped to be using a gun. Chances are if you can't hit your target in 10 or 15 rounds, you're going to hit someone else or your target has already killed you or isn't a real threat. Even the police are known to fire wildly at a suspect and end up hitting innocent bystanders. I do subscribe to the argument that gun control laws are a slippery slope for lawmakers, but the real need for high capacity civilian firearms just isn't there in lawful use. Does banning high capacity magazines change anything? Not really, it's a useless law. But as a rallying point, I think there are more substantial arguments to be made.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pandaman 13y ago
  > If you're using a gun in self defense and you need more than 10 or 15 rounds, again, you're woefully under-equipped to be using a gun. Unlike game and paper targets, people you are defending yourself from, can shoot back at you.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    In what reality would a long drawn-out firefight between me and a bad guy happen often enough for me to be "seriously inconvenienced" by the fact that I only have a 10 round clip? Does that ever actually happen? The only way I can see that happening is if I'm wildly firing rounds towards a target hoping something hits. Not very realistic.
    - pandaman 13y ago

by wl 13y ago

dm2 13y ago

The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout These high-capacity magazines are devastating when used to commit a crime and there is zero legitimate use of them for a civilian. Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies.

waffle_ss 13y ago
> The problem is that high-capacity magazines can be extremely dangerous if actually used in a crime. A prime example of this is the North Hollywood shootout where the gunmen had several 75 and 100 round drum magazines. No. Drum magazines are prone to jamming, which is exactly what happened in your linked scenario (the gunman then decided to drop the rifle rather than clear the misfeed). The same thing happened to the Aurora, Colorado shooter and his drum magazine. An efficient killer would be better off with a MOLLE vest with the pouches filled with smaller-capacity magazines. > Do hunters or those who enjoy shooting weapons legally NEED high-capacity magazines? The answer is no. Under no circumstances does a civilian actually need or would even benefit from a high-capacity magazine unless they were killing people, cops, or zombies. The 2nd amendment was not written for hunters or people who enjoy recreational shooting. It is an emergency brake against tyranny and a prodding towards militia defense of the country rather than standing army (read what James Madison wrote about the subject), so yes it actually is about killing people. In a time when all branches of federal government seem to be ignoring the Constitution, I for one am glad that we still have it.
lwhalen 13y ago
Right, but consider this - the bad guy knows when and where he is going to strike, the good guy doesn't. Say we were able to wave a magic wand and all the magazines over X rounds were to magically disappear and turn into (X-1)-round magazines. The bad guy, because he can choose where and when he is going to act, can adequately prepare and just bring many magazines regardless of artificially-restricted mag limits. The 'good guys' generally prefer to carry one or two magazines for convenience, regardless of capacity, because they have other things to do with their day besides committing crimes. Laws that restrict magazine capacity reasoning that criminals will be 'less dangerous' with lower-cap magazines are misguided - those laws (like all gun laws) only apply to law-abiding gun owners, and only serve to weaken them.
- pandaman 13y ago
  Indeed, when you are defending yourself you have no control over timing of the attackers. You are forced to respond whenever your attackers make a move. The more you need to reload the more chances that you won't be able to respond in time. On the other hand, on the attacking side, you can choose your timing freely and the capacity of the magazine is not as important (it's only important when your target turns against you and you become a defender yourself). Magazine caps are so popular because the goal of "gun control" is to limit the people's ability to defend so much that they will have to rely on the government for protection. It has exactly zero effect on crime as the crime is already illegal and if criminals cared about these laws they would not be criminals in the first place.

freehunter 13y ago

Seriously inconvenience? I'm a hunter and I also target shoot for recreation, and I can't say a 10 or 15 round limit is an inconvenience at all, let alone a serious one. If you're hunting and you need to fire 10 or 15 shots without taking the time to reload, you're dangerously ill-equipped to be using a gun. You're placing everyone else at risk as you're wildly slinging bullets through the forest. If you're target shooting, you need to take time to adjust your aim between shots anyway, and the target isn't going anywhere. If you're using a gun in self defense and you need more than 10 or 15 rounds, again, you're woefully under-equipped to be using a gun. Chances are if you can't hit your target in 10 or 15 rounds, you're going to hit someone else or your target has already killed you or isn't a real threat. Even the police are known to fire wildly at a suspect and end up hitting innocent bystanders. I do subscribe to the argument that gun control laws are a slippery slope for lawmakers, but the real need for high capacity civilian firearms just isn't there in lawful use. Does banning high capacity magazines change anything? Not really, it's a useless law. But as a rallying point, I think there are more substantial arguments to be made.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pandaman 13y ago
> If you're using a gun in self defense and you need more than 10 or 15 rounds, again, you're woefully under-equipped to be using a gun. Unlike game and paper targets, people you are defending yourself from, can shoot back at you.
- freehunter 13y ago
  In what reality would a long drawn-out firefight between me and a bad guy happen often enough for me to be "seriously inconvenienced" by the fact that I only have a 10 round clip? Does that ever actually happen? The only way I can see that happening is if I'm wildly firing rounds towards a target hoping something hits. Not very realistic.
  - pandaman 13y ago