Reader freddy fender writes:
It’s probably safe to say that most readers are convinced they must have 30 or more rounds in a magazine for effective self-defense, at home or away. The reasoning seems to be that “you never know how big the threat is, and changing magazines can get you killed.” Pretty logical, on its face….
But a lot of the same people use the argument that low capacity magazines used by people bent on “mass killings” aren’t a limiting factor because magazine changes can be so quick, no one has time to tackle and disable the shooter. Doesn’t the speed of reload point out that high capacity magazines aren’t really necessary for self-defense?
What exactly.do you mean by high capacity magazines???? Are you referring of the standard capacity magazines that are shipped with the firearm?
Yep those are standard. So yeah.
Exactly.
People don’t believe in the slippery slope, either.
California had mag limits on standard capacity. Now they have NO NEW pistols allowed (under the pretense of a “reasonable ammo stamping” requirement), are causing background checks for ammo, trying to ban ARs completely…. I’m not from Cali and feel for those there fighting the good fight, but I’m not naive enough to think “it can’t happen here” when it comes to gun rights loss.
Yes. “Brick by brick I’ll seal his doom.” It’s not common sense, it’s just one little unconstitutional infringement after another.
You’re missing the point. He wasn’t arguing about high capacity vs standard capacity magazines. He was pointing out that the argument used against the gun control position of limiting magazine capacity (i.e., reloading takes mere seconds, therefore limiting mag capacity is futile) is juxtaposed against 2A supporters stating that reloading in a defensive situation could get you killed, therefore we need high capacity magazines.
Yes, and let’s say for argument sake that it is true that mag capacity doesn’t matter. A statist will argue that, since it doesn’t matter, you shouldn’t mind if we ban them. Whereas a free person would say, if it doesn’t matter, why are we even talking about this?
As a free person that is my question…. Why is this a question?
Who let them change the conversation to a point where they get to set the limit and we are just deciding what the limit will be?
“Who let them change the conversation to a point where they get to set the limit and we are just deciding what the limit will be?”
We did, the American people. We allowed people to be elected and appointed who decided the Second Amendment needed some restrictions, lest the populace be able to protect themselves against the duly elected government. Yes, the government meant to be reigned-in by an armed public took the power to determine with what weapons the public could challenge the government.
“What a country !”
– Yakov Smirnoff, 80s comedian
The issue here is an apples-orgages comparison between:
– a mass murderer;
– a self-defender
The mass-murderer, should he be effectively constrained to using “small” magazines, will prepare multiple small magazines and also carry a hand-gun. If anyone – presumably UN-armed – tries to rush him during the few seconds required to change magazines he will draw his handgun and stop them. Who would rush a mass murderer changing magazines on his rifle if he obviously had a handgun in his holster?
The self-defender is in an entirely different situation. She must presuppose that attacker(s) are armed. How many attackers? 1? 2? 3? Are they constrained to “small” legal magazines? If 3 attackers with 10 round magazines are prepared to lay-down a course of fire of 30 rounds, should she acquiesce to 2 magazine changes to keep-up with 3 attackers?
In any case, military practice is to carry 20 or 30 round magazines in combat. For the “necessary” purpose of maintaining the “security of a free state”, civilian magazines must be of comparable capacity.
Even if we were to concede that “small” magazines are sufficient for the purposes of: hunting; practice; and even self-defense, we must necessarily include the purpose for which the 2A contemplated as its “necessary” justification. The “arms” to which “the People” have “the Right” are necessarily those which would be competitive with arms in state arsenals.
Do potato guns deserve 2A protection as “arms” as contemplated by the 2A? Arguably not because they would not be competitive with the state’s arms. Potato guns are not apparently “necessary” to the “security of a free state”. Conversely, weapons of war are, apparently, useful – and therefore necessary – for the highest purpose for which they are to be retained by the People.
While! You present a good argument, AND! No argument is necessary, given the clear meaning of “shall not be infringed.” STILL! I have to say that if anybody plays their cards right, it all falls into “who cares?”.
Listen, let’s suppose I have been unconstitutionally restricted to 5-round mags. Or even CA non-removable mags, takes 20 minutes to load/reload the gun. Push comes to shove, 5-round non removable mag should be adequate to obtain 5 full-auto M4s with a couple dozen 30-rd easily swappable mags. Possibly a 7.62 MG thrown in, m40, whatever, next time is even easier. Argument about criminal activity is one thing, but actual revolution uses *THEIR* guns and ammo, APCs, MGs, aircraft and bombs. Every time I hear the poor darlings we are supposed to be supporting cry about how their guns are wearing out, I reflect on the question of, what have they been shooting, that they have not acquired replacements?.
True. They are STANDARD magazines. They are as much a part of the design as the barrel. The weight of a fully loaded magazine impacts the handling by balancing the weight. A manufacturer doesn’t design a weapon with a empty pocket that could hold ammo, just as the military doesn’t like a fighter with empty spaces that could carry additional armaments. It’s a waste of money and space.
yep….define “high capacity”….5, `10, 15, 20, 25, 30…(see the pattern?)….
All joking aside, I think you guys get the drift..
Here’s my take -true story of a spouse of a tire-kicking customer:
“How many bullets does this gun (Glock 17) hold?”
“17.” I replied.
“Why so many?”
“Because it’s magazine can only accommodate 17 without exceeding the length of the grip.” I answered, holding the magazine alongside the pistol grip to illustrate.
“But why does it NEED so many?” she pressed.
I decided to cut to the point: “A defensive firearm needs exactly enough ammunition to stop a threat, whether it be 30, 17, 10, 5 or hopefully, none at all. But since neither you, nor I, nor our elected leaders can predict what that magic number will be; I prefer to have as many chances to stop an attack as I feel comfortable carrying rather than being dictated by our government how many chances I am ALLOWED to have
to hopefully save my life.”
She blinked and said nothing, digesting this, so I added,
“How many chances to save your life would you like to be granted?”
Mass killers and self defenders have different objectives and mindsets.
Also, a different capacity for carrying gear. As a law abiding concealed carrier you are likely going to have on one or two magazines. So the mag capacity cap limits your ammo. As an attacker, the person knows they are going to a fight so they can take many magazines. It’s easy to carry 60 or 70 rounds on just your belt not to mention chest rigs or tac vests.
As clearly evidenced during the North Hollywood shootout. The baddies had AKs and lots of magazines, along with body armor. The cops were at a serious disadvantage until they appropriated weapons from a nearby gun shop. ARs are now commonly carried along with shotguns… just in case.
Seems to me the crazed mass murderers head to a “Gun-Free Zone” for several reasons: they like not getting shot before they do their sick bit; they like having time to switch magazines, whatever the capacity.
Defenders of hearth and home also prefer not to get shot before defending, but additionally have the rational and just desire not to have to switch magazines in the midst of an unprovoked gunfight with thugs of unknown equipage .
Exactly! A mass-shooter will ‘make it work’ with whatever configuration of weapon he has. If need be, he/she will do a New York reload by carrying multiple weapons. Their goal isn’t to survive a surprise gunfight. They already know they’re going into a violent encounter. A concealed carrier is laboring under a stigma for being armed in the first place. He doesn’t know the where, when, how, why, or how-many. He may not be able to carry a single spare mag, much less a pile of them. Often the rounds in the gun are all he has. This is the true reason for a high-round count per magazine.
The spree killer is generally acting at a time of his/her choosing, and coming prepared to act.
A defensive use is come as you are, and that could be a single mag or cylinder’s worth of fight, even with home field advantage.
Spot on.
Furthermore, spree killers do not have to place carefully aimed shots before or after a magazine change. Plus they can move to a strategic location and pause their shooting to change magazines at any strategic moment in their estimation. Finally, spree killers can carry multiple firearms as others have already stated.
Defenders do not have those critical luxuries. That is why defenders need as many rounds as possible.
They may be useful for self defense and they may make mass shootings more deadly, but people on an offensive mass shooting spree face a different dynamic and reloading may not be a hindrance. Also, a good guy with a gun may not like carrying multiple mags, it can be a pain. Easier to carry one mag usually than multiple smaller ones. If the police feel jt’s necessary, then they can’t ban it.
You’re second argument has merit. But, the first argument makes no sense. A person encounters the same complications performing a mag change under duress, regardless if they are the aggressor or defender.
Eh, I’ve seen at least one report of a spree murderer who took a “tranq” or “downer” beforehand. And short of the medical field, if you don’t know how much is the right amount, your dealer will….
DonJoe,
See my comment above … the aggressor has several huge advantages over a defender when it comes to magazine changes.
The aggressor will always be armed. Defenders, maybe not a single one, (VaTech), in which case the aggressor can take all the time in the world, preparing to reenter the killing field, he chained the doors closed, so there is (will be) no one to oppose him. Seems like a pretty stupid situation for *us* to force *ourselves* into.
As an IDPA competitor I’m pretty quick at mag changes, but I picture myself in a home defense scenario in my skivvies with no practical place to tuck a spare magazine.
When cops compromise on magazine capacity, so will I.
+1 I have 50 round magazines for my PS90. Will I ever need them? Hopefully not but I’d MUCH rather have too much ammunition and not need it than not enough ammo in a crisis.
You can only have too much ammo if you are drowning or on fire.
A recent home invasion reportedly was made by 7 bad guys. If something like that happens and defense is up to me, you can damn well bet I want high cap magazines.
Just get them to all stand in a row and you only need 1 magic bullet
Let’s get the nomenclature right. A 30 round AR mag is standard capacity. Calling it high capacity is a trick of the gun control movement.
That said, you’re talking two situations. A mass killer won’t be stopped by mag capacity limits because he’ll have planned for it. Multiple 10 rounders in easily accessible pockets. A mass shooting is a highly thought out event. And it’s not coming as a surprise to the shooter. They know what’s about to go down.
Not so a home defense situation, in which the homeowner will be surprised, possibly panicking, possibly half asleep dealing with an unknown situation.
Instead of a homeowner shocked out of bed by a door breaking down having to scramble for extra magazines, and find somewhere to stow them before engaging a threat, just let him have his standard mag.
Finally, most mass shooters go into their killings prepared to die. Not so the homeowner.
Hey, I learned M16/AR-15 with 20-round mag, still prefer them. Whole gun feels better. To each his own, I call 20 “standard”.
Sherriff’s opinions don’t matter.
If you believe that your weapon needs to be able to chamber a round more quickly than hand loading singly into the chamber, then YES, high-capacity mags
ARE
R E Q U I R E D
The only limitations being: weight (of the weapon as-held); bulkiness (reduced ease of handling); or malfunction-causing stresses caused by characteristics not taken into account in the design of the firearm or the magazine.
If you DON’T believe that weapons might be needed that are able to chamber a round more quickly than hand loading rounds singly into the chamber, then YES, GO FYOSELF with something sharp and heavy.
” I for one would like to welcome our new — ‘ Bill Of Needs ‘ that’s replacing The Constitution.”
Kent Brockman reporting. /s/
The Constitution can be replaced:
1) as prescribed in the Constitution (See Article Five)
2) by Civil War
Technically both of those are prescribed by the constitution, although one is a bit subtler than the other.
Wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, say no more.
OK, let’s review.
Constitution 1.0 isn’t strictly enforced by (name your favorite hated agency). Constitution 1.1 (from Article 5 of Constitution 1.0 that doesn’t work) will be another “founding” document that will codify whatever, and be enforced by whom again? Just how does creating constitution 1.1 change much of anything? What do you do with all those people and agencies that wrecked Constitution 1.0? Can’t let them remain part of government.
Laconically, you didn’t have to state “part of Government”, in your last sentence.
Agree.
Odds are you won’t use even half a reduced capacity magazine if you defend yourself but self-defense isn’t about playing the odds. It’s about being prepared as best you can given the circumstances.
Bottom line is, whatever the answer to that question is, it’s for me to decide, not the government.
For self/home defense? Probably not. For what the 2A was intended for (I.E.: mass civil unrest, natural/manmade disaster, war)? Abso-freakin-lutely!
Due to rise in gang violence incited by Black Lies Matter, I switched my carry gun to a Sig P320 with 21-rnd factory mags. I now carry two spare mags instead of one
Ugh.. you felon! Oh wait, I assume you are not in California….we only have high-capacity tax increases
Hillary will be bringing those, nationwide. Vote Trump.
When I practice at a range, I only load 5 rounds, because I am cheap and go for accuracy. For home defense, we should have the magazines fully loaded and why not 17 or 30 as the gun comes? We are defending ourselves — we are not the aggressor. This video points out clearly how the size of the magazine would not matter to the determined aggressor.
Unfortunately, the Hildebeast would interpret the video differently. She would say that this proves the Aussies right — 30 round AR’s for me, my guards, and my cronies; muzzle loaders and flintlocks for you peasants. And no sights on those flintlocks — with sights they might be more accurate.
How about the next person who asks what form of arms are pertinent to executing the professing prosecution of one’s birth-right (existence) in the U.S. Declaration of Independence Para. 1 & 2, GET’S KICKED IN THE JUNK. [?]
[sic]
Put people on-notice, don’t let that stupid sh_t fall out of your face again. Don’t even think it. Don’t let its ponderance even alter your countenance. If you want to argue that you have the right to say such things, you better have possession and knowledge of a gun and its usage. Or else, no, you don’t. We could argue it, but who said you’re worth the time?
30 round mags are STANDARD CAPACITY for certain guns, so are you talking about 100 round drums?
Since we have every right to own whatever we want, no good can come of considering this question in today’s social climate.
I agree, wholeheartedly!
Once again, No…we don’t have the right to own anything we want. We have whatever rights the courts determine; fact. Just attempt to display a 30rd magazine attached to your favorite scary black rifle anywhere in Californication and other states with magazine limits. What happens to your “rights”. Academically, you still “have your rights”, but effectively (which is all that really counts) you do not. “Rights” you cannot exercise are not “rights” you possess; real world. The only way to obtain your full rights is by winning all the legislative and legal battles regarding which weapons and accessories the courts will allow. If you cannot own whichever weapon you can afford and obtain, RTKBA is a restricted rights, just like all the others. The battle to contain the central government is long over; purists lost. Is that the right/correct outcome? No. But it is, as they say, what it is. Now what?
.
Civil War.
Frankly we should not be so reticent in promoting it as a desired activity.
Hi, Andy. Daylight over here. How’s things in your house?
I believe that for most of us who make a habit of avoiding stupid people in stupid places at stupid times, the odds of needing more than 5 or 6 rounds to get out of trouble are extremely low. Even LEOs rarely ever fire their guns in anger let alone need to fire them 30 times to stop a threat. Not that more shots aren’t sometimes fired, but it’s extremely rare that they are necessary. So rare that you might want to spend your time worrying about more likely events like being struck by a meteorite. If I didn’t believe this I wouldn’t carry a revo lver.
However, the 30 round magaz ine has a big advantage in a pitched battle, which is just the sort of scenario the 2nd Amendment was meant for. If we find ourselves defending our lives and our homes from agents of an out of control government, that’s when we’ll need those magazines. Which is why so many in government don’t like the fact that we have them. But unless you’ve stolen money from a drug cartel or something I wouldn’t worry about needing them to stop a criminal attack.
Discussions here and in some other places in the past few years seem to focus much more on reset points and mag dumps than on hitting what you aim at. The most a man should need under normal conditions is probably 5-10 rounds, leaving a nice comfortable margin with a 30-rd mag. But it is quite possible, even without select fire, to execute a mag dump without hitting shit, and congratulate yourself on how quickly you wasted all your ammo. I was raised among revolvers with 6 rounds, normally without thought of a reload. I regularly hit a soda can at 100 yards, but only with one round a minute or so, but with .357 mag hollowpoints it would only take one. Today, apparently, we need the ability to remove and replace a 20-round magazine or 2 in order to shoot one person.
Excellent point !!
Not to shoot one person. But to interfere sufficiently with his ability to shoot you before he succumbs, that you escape unharmed. Which, contrary to the belief that lack of marksmanship is what’s driving cops to magdump, requires more rounds at closer range encounters than at further ones. At 100 yards, unless you’re dealing with a bullseye shooter gone bad, one hit with a .357 is likely plenty. At 4 yards faced with some drugged up yahoo with one Glock 17 held sideways in each hand, otoh…….
At least in the worst case scenario of someone completely impervious any so called “psychological” cues to stop fighting. Which is the standard the FBI, and following their lead most departments, apply.
My personal superstition, (Borne out by having been “shot” and temporarily incapacitated by some conscript soldier in a foreign land deciding to use my shoulder to steady his rifle for a shot. Resulting in my immediate unconsciousness despite being “hit” by noting more than what I’d call neural overload from the blast), is that in by far most (though perhaps not all, as the FBI will attest to) very quick incapacitations, the “struck by a lightning bolt” effect officers fondly remember about their .357s, result from a similar “neural overload” effect. Nerves along the tissue destroyed firing, eye nerves firing from the bright flash, nerves in the auditory system firing from the bang, and nerves everywhere firing from sensing the shockwave from the gun and from the “slap a fatty’s ass” shockwaves emanating from the bullet impact.
The move to slower, more “polite”, “efficient” (as in, more penetration/expansion per unit of muzzle flash, loudness and recoil) rounds, works against that effect Something I fear ends up being a bit self defeating in MOST defensive and police shootings. By focusing solely on those few drugged up lifelong vets of Salvadorean civil wars, who grew up eating flashbangs for breakfast and couldn’t care less about having .50bmg fired out of their ear canals, the FBI may well have managed to create a situation where more rounds than what would otherwise be the case need to be fired, in order to incapacitate the more average threat.
But as I say, They’re the FBI, I’m just me, and even I would be hard pressed not to trust the FBI over just me…….
Suppressive fire, suppressive, pray and spray. Disrupt the attacker, than escape and evade.
Then get away quickly. Collateral damage is the price people pay for living in a modern society.
Yes
Ideally? No.
But if you have to use a gun in defense of the lives of yourself and your loved ones, then things are already far from ideal, and those extra rounds can make all the difference. Mass shooters attack the defenseless. 10 rounds or 30 makes no difference when nobody can fight back. When I am engaging someone intent on taking my life, then the 2-5 seconds for a reload becomes significant.
When mass shooters deliberately pick defenseless victims where they can reload without interference, when IIRC criminals on average fire 3 shots when committing a murder, what does limiting magazine capacity accomplish other than making it safer for killers?
If >10 capacity magazines are only good for mass murder, then why do police get an exception?
Reloading as a defender is very different than reloading as an attacker. Virginia tech proved that an unopposed attacker has zero problems reloading from reduced capacity magazines. The same cannot be said for someone in a defensive situation under active threat.
Exactly. The authors analogy about taking down an attacker during mag change does not equate to being attacked by one or more ARMED assailants. Since we honest, decent, law abiding POTG have no intention of slaughtering innocents why would we volunteer to bring less ammo to a gunfight? Certainly the bad guy(s) or gal(s) won’t be so considerate as to limit their options. As far as carrying, I bring as much ammo and as many magazines as I think I can get away with. Typically that was 15+15+1 for my BHP. I am in the process of switching to the TP9V2 and as soon as I get a decent holster for it the counts will be 20+20+1 with 18+18 as backups. As far as home protections goes I keep an SKS with 20+1 behind the bedroom door with 20+20+20 in my dresser drawer.
Yes, and for whatever reason you want. You shouldn’t restrict law abiding citizens from owning 30rd (or larger) mags because a few nut jobs used them in a mass shootings the same way you shouldn’t restrict law abiding citizens from having large families because a few nut jobs can’t raise children to not be criminals. Hello Chicago, can you hear me?
The magazine is not the problem; find a new scapegoat for your failed social policies.
I don’t think I personally need them, but I don’t presume to tell others they don’t or won’t. And especially that they can’t.
Of course they’re a must have. They’re pointless to ban because a bad guy would simply get one illegally, or fuckin make one. It’s not like it’s rocket science. Today’s firearms are a few jazzy optics and pictinnay rails from being World War One relatable.
IMHO, high cap magazines are more important for defenders than for attackers. If you know you’re going to get into a fight, carrying 6 (or more) ten round magazines as part of your preparations isn’t a big deal. Neither is carrying around a second backup gun, or a third gun, or wearing a tactical vest or whatever to make your reloads easier.
If you’re defending, you have whatever you brought with you. Looking through the EDC carry posts since Oct 1, there are 10 that only have the magazine in the gun, 5 with a single spare, 3 with two spares, and 1 with three or more spares. Unless you’re gearing up for something, it’s not easy to tote around a ton of magazines ‘just in case’ – much easier to carry 2 fifteen round mags than 3 ten round mags.
This may seem like a contradiction at first, but when it comes to fine motor skills there is a large difference between someone who fears for their life and someone who doesn’t. Not everyone can be Seal Team Six calm when doing a mag change in the dark at 3 AM after being rudely awoken by home invaders who wish to deprive you of your property and/or your life. It’s hard enough to do after you have trained extensively for it and have had to do it in the real world a few times.
In our house, by the time I’ve gone through half of my 21 rounds (mag 1) the wife will have 911 on the phone and her SR40C (15+1) brought to bear on the problem. Meanwhile the daughter at the top of the stairs is bring her SP2022 .40(15+1) and SR9C (17+1) into the fray. Of course, if all this firepower is actually required, my wife would probably stuff another mag up my ass for ready access. So we probably don’t need to swap mags very quickly in the middle of a fight.
ding ding ding we have a winner
There’s the real question people.
(it’s ok, I’m covering my junk) How many ass-mags are ‘really a must’?
There is a HUGE difference between swapping out low-capacity magazines when you are in control of the situation and swapping out low-capacity magazines when you are the one who is not in control.
Heck I don’t know…better to have it and not need it. My new Maverick88 is 7+1 instead of the slightly cheaper Pardner pump5+1. Would I “need”it? Dunno’…
Here’s how I feel about magazine capacity:
1) In a mass shooting scenario, they (overwhelmingly) don’t affect the overall outcome
2) In a self-defense scenario, they absolutely affect the outcome
Here’s why.
In #1, the mass shooting basically starts when the killer starts shooting and ends with the killer being neutralized in some way. This could be either from law enforcement neutralizing the killer, or from non-law enforcement efforts to neutralize the target (ie from armed citizens or other bystanders). The latter of the neutralization cases has been shown to be very rare, and will stay that way until more people are armed or more people decide to be like those on UA Flight 93 swarming the target. But in the vast majority of cases, we are left with mass killers being able to keep shooting until law enforcement shows up — which could be several minutes, tens of minutes, or in the case of Orlando, a couple of hours. With that amount of time on the killer’s hands, magazine size absolutely does not matter. Hell, even Charles Whitman killed 18 people, mostly with a bolt action rifle. Time is the key factor for the lethality of the attack, not magazine size.
Now, in the case of a self defense scenario, especially if there are multiple assailants, magazine size absolutely does matter. Gunfights are over in seconds, and if I have to sacrifice any precious seconds to reload because my state says I can only have 10 rounds in a magazine, that could mean the end of me if I had multiple assailants.
So that’s why I don’t like the magazine limitation argument. “What are you complaining about? Most gun fights are over in under 4 shots. 10 rounds will do you fine”… until it doesn’t.
“Dagnabit, I’ve got too much ammo!”
…Said no one ever. Besides, having mags with >10 rounds for use in home defense or an active shooter scenario is a happy by-product of what the 2A is actually meant for (tyrants and despotism).
Well, most defensive shootings only require 3 rounds or less, so the same logic could be used to eliminate anything but pocket pistols, single stacks and revolvers, which is the whole “slippery slope” thing we’re worried about.
Yeah, and cops used to carry 6 shooters too. Not so much anymore.
A standard-capacity magazine means that when you roll out of bed and grab just your gun because you hear footsteps and whispering down the hall, you don’t have to remember to grab a couple more magazines.
You forget to grab them and you face down four armed baddies- uh oh. I live in CA- am I going to make 40% of my shots on a two-way range from a dead sleep?
You remember to grab your extra mags and they’re in the pocket of your sleeping clothes, which have a loose waistband because it’s more comfortable. You begin to move down the hall, then your pants fall down and you’re hobbled. The fun gun’s out, and now you’re staring down four barrels. Uh oh, again.
Standard capacity magazines are intelligent when the danger is unexpected and you’re not performing at your best while others are acting their worst.
Standard capacity magazines also mean you can spend more time shooting and less time loading mags when at the range, maximizing time efficiency.
Oh yeah, I forgot to actually answer the question. If we grudgingly accept that “high” capacity is greater than 10, then the answer is hell yes. But to me the truly “high” capacity magazines are the drum type and in my experience they are too unreliable to use for life saving events. So I stick with the size that comes with the gun or seems to work best.
Because a high capacity magazine is less conspicuous than multiple mags in a chest rig.
At least when you are just walking around.
If the government doesn’t have a really good reason why I shouldn’t have something, and this video demonstrates that they don’t, then they have absolutely no authority to tell me I can’t have it. I don’t have to demonstrate why I need something. I don’t have to ask permission. Limiting magazine capacity has absolutely zero chance of being helpful to society in any way so the government has no authority to do it.
I think a more useful angle is one of planning. In terms of a mass shooter, they are planning, they are pre-staging, they are anticipating the action.
Now maybe as a defender, if I’ve also pre-staged all of my 10rnd magazines, in anticipation of an attack I know is coming, then maybe reloading isn’t going to be a hugely dominant issue.
But…
I’m also not anticipating an attack nor do I ever know it’s coming.
Therefore I’m not pre-staging my magazines, I likely just have what’s in the gun.
Pro tip. When the government or politicians say you don’t need x item….you need item x!!!!
I’m pretty sure toddlers can’t lift the bigger magazines, so bigger magizines, better. Right?
The right question is: “Why are we talking about magazine capacity?” This is another side issue, typical of the civilian disarmament people like Mothers Against Only Some Violence advocates in their Bloomie-funded agitprop, about restricting people who aren’t them, from doing things they don’t do. (Me, I’m all for having *those people* restricted any way at all, as long as it doesn’t touch me, or stuff I do.)
Or, in a more recent example, Candidate Hillary “for the toddlers” Clinton, discussing the Heller decision that 1) called the regulations under question an absolute ban, and 2) never uses the word “toddler”, or indeed the issue of children (For the children!)
— So, why are we restricting peaceful, responsible people, when predators, thugs, terrorists and crazies won’t follow the law in any case.
— What about the damage of ill-defined standards (like folding things that go up) creating accidental criminals (who didn’t know how to stay inside the law) and arbitrary enforcement (where vagueness is a feature, not a bug.)
Really, what’s the difference. If somebody “can” have a gun with one shot in it, what’s the difference if they have 50? They’re not crazy or dangerous, so let them do what they want. If they’re crazy or dangerous, why allow them a lethal weapon in the first place?
The best of the worst. Quotes by the enemies of Freedom.
Next time some idiot says there is no agenda to outlaw ALL guns, print them a copy of this !!
” Banning guns is an idea who’s time has come ” Joe Biden .
http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/QUOTES/Quotes_from_the_Enemy.pdf
“Shotgun Joe” Biden is a joke whose time will never come.
To me this is an illogical argument. Need or must plays little roll in choices we make. I don’t need or must have a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a Hemi, but it helps when needed.
Freedom is the ability to make choices for yourself. In a free society people can make their own decisions on what size mag they want. In most states at least. Some are already turning communist with only government sponsored choices. No big sodas, no mags over ten rounds, no pistol grips and what’s next? Pretty soon it will be like the USSR with only one choice in a car and other goods.
DeSantis Gunhide Answer of the Day: Yes.
Also, whatever mag I choose is a must because that’s how freedom works.
I think one thing being missed is: Chances are in a situation, you are going to empty that magazine, no matter how much it holds. Are you going to empty it accurately? Do you really think you are going to have the discipline to manage your shots? Are you going to have more of a tendency to spray and pray, because you have 30 rounds vs. 10. Something to think about.
What have you practiced? How fast you can empty the mag, or how many shots are in the 10-ring? Answer that, and you have the answer to your question.
Larry….
Make-up for accuracy with volume of fire; shoot big, miss big. Suppressive fire wins the day.
Right?
Faulty premise, wrong nomenclature, and moot question.
“Faulty premise, wrong nomenclature, and moot question.”
The question is moot? 🙂
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xewlks_moot_tech
Yes. I consider asking, “do you really *need* (so-called) high-capacity magazines?” to be an exercise in navel-gazing. Though, perhaps “irrelevant” would have been more fitting.
It’s unlikely that I would need 30 rounds during a defensive engagement in my private life.
HOWEVER. If I do need 30 rounds then I need them right. freakin’. now. Not a few seconds from now, not a dropped magazine from now, NOW.
A spree killer can afford those few seconds unless someone is actively attacking him (unlikely- he is, by his nature, on the offense). A defensive shooter is under immediate threat and cannot afford time wasted.
A guy sound asleep, jolted awake by home invaders, needs every last scrap of advantage he can get. He’s terrified for his family. He’s barely awake. He has no idea how many invaders there are, how well they’re armed, or the nature and extent of their motivation. Could be a professional rip crew (people who rob well armed drug dealers) hitting the wrong house. He’s just desperately trying to get it together and get out of it alive. He needs those magazines.
Compare that to a spree shooter who knows exactly what’s going on and why. He’s dreamed and drilled for this moment for weeks or months, if not years. He’s going up against….who? Christmas shoppers? Students taking midterms? Six year olds singing songs?
He’s already committed to dying. He’s probably on drugs, at least some kind of sedative or anti-anxiety med. He’s moving through the hell of his own making with aplomb. Ban 30 round mags if you want, but he’ll be just as lethal with lesser capacities, too.
Capacity limits just don’t impact a spree killer’s effectiveness in the same way they would a regular guy’s, because the two circumstances of use are vastly dissimilar.
“Doesn’t the speed of reload point out that high capacity magazines aren’t really necessary for self-defense?”
No, this creates no argument because the comparison is faulty. A mass shooter is completely different from a self/other-defender.
The mass shooter knows what is about to happen and is prepared for it. Their pucker factor is significantly less than the defender. The element of surprise and violence of action are in their favor and they generally probably know this on some level. They may have also selected their target to limit the chances of return fire. On top of that many of these loons are prepared to die going in. In fact that’s what they want. They’re not scared of this situation.
The defender on the other hand is, by definition reactive and taken by surprise (or they wouldn’t have been there). This means they’re scared and they don’t know what’s going on. They don’t know the number of threats or exactly where they are. This person has a lot more adrenaline going and therefore is more prone to make a mistake in changing mags. Maybe the drop a mag or can’t get it seated or they seat it improperly and cause a malfunction they then need to deal with.
Criminals and crazies gonna criminal and crazy. If they can get one gun they can get multiple guns. Limiting the law abiding citizen to a “low capacity” magazine will not affect the mass shooter’s ability to do what they do. It only hinders the the law abiding citizen who is already at a disadvantage in terms of their response. People high on drugs or out of their mind may take multiple hits to take down and the law abiding citizen may not be placing every round on target. If a guy is on meth and going to take eight rounds before he goes down a 5-6 shot revolver ain’t gonna get the job done. A 10 round semi-auto would require the defender to put 80% of rounds on target whereas a standard Glock 17 would only require 47.05% accuracy to assure a take down in this hypothetical. That’s a significant leveling of the playing field.
I sometimes carry an LCR which has no clipazines.
I also may carry an SR9 which carries a standard 17 rounder.
My SR9c came three 10 roundes.
I don’t feel undergunned with any of the three but I want them to be fully loaded. I do carry reloads so I can go home with a fully loaded weapon (nod to Col Cooper)
Yeah, i totally don’t need a 30 round mag when i wake up in the night with time only to grab a gun, because a lunatic in full combat gear (who is completely unrelated to my nighly home invasuon scenario) might have a chest rig and a battle belt that allow for fast speed reloads during his shooting spree. Now that is some flawless logic right there.
If you have only one magazine at you, better let it be big. If you have the opportunity to carry many small magazines it’s not so much an issue, but it isn’t what a free man with a second amendment right should be forced to do. Because bigger magazines and fewer reloads are still better. I won’t bet on my odds to reload fast enough if my life depends on it. I won’t bet on a criminal messing up his reload either. So yes, even if criminals can perform fast reloads i still want to keep my 30 rounders!
hmmm…. Do I need a 300 hp V8 Mark 8 and Nitrous? Normally no. Would I give it up for a Prius? No….
Do I generally Face “Scareface” type home invasions & need to be Tony Montana? No
Do I want a 30 round mag? Yeah! I remember the LA Riots of 1992. Help may be a long time coming…..
I definitely prefer a higher magazine capacity, but hearing all these people saying they have no where to put spare mags in the middle of the night makes me wonder if I’m the only one who sleeps in jeans….
My bride lured me away from that concept decades ago, the horrid beach. At least I’ll die happy.
Is it a contradiction to say magazine capacity is important for self-defense but makes no difference in mass shootings? Not at all. A mass shooter almost always chooses his victims, his venue, and his tactics so that nobody will be fighting back. He has all the time in the world, whereas a person who suddenly finds himself in an actual fight not of his choosing doesn’t have a second to spare.
If we ban hi-cap mags and salt waffles and go to neutered little 10-rounders, the next mass shooting will be committed by some guy with a sawed-off Mini-14 with 3-4 10-round mags welded together to make a 30-40-round mag. Personally I kinda like 10 rounds of .45 or .30cal, as that’s a nice round number in a nice grip size/low profile (in M1A mags and Enfields), but it should not be mandatory.
I enjoy the 33 round stick magazine for my ruger p89. I plan on getting at least two more.
“Doesn’t the speed of reload point out that high capacity magazines aren’t really necessary for self-defense?”
Actually, who gives a damn.
If I want a standard magazine for my rifle, I should be able to have one, or two, or as many as I can afford.
And no half-ass hare-brained hoplophobic pond scum political pig should be able to tell me otherwise.
Magazine capacity doesn’t matter so much for a mass shooter…they pick gun free zones so they have more than enough time to change magazines…for law abiding people….they might begin a fight by being injured at the outset…which means their small muscle control will be compromised by the effects of adrenaline…a 15-19 round magazine means they may not have to try changing magazines in the fight…while a 7-8 round magazine may require a change, which means an injured person will have a tougher time making the change……more rounds for good guys means less chance of having to change a magazine during a fight
Yep, I agree. Mass shooters have no opposition when they’re doing the killing.
Yeah, unnecessary. Because killing defenceless kids has the same dynamics as defending yourself from violent thugs or fighting govt goons.
I wonder how many of us run around with a single stack pistol or a revolver? If that’s what you carry you really don’t believe you need more than 5-8 rounds.
Could not the same question be asked of people who carry a spare 33rd magazine? But all seriousness aside, how many running gunfights have been reported where the non-cop “good guy” needed one or more spare magazines to end the threat?
I’m not so sure about that. My EDC is 8 rounds, today and tomorrow, but I could swap out in 2 minutes to a 20-round pistol or a 30-round rifle. I don’t need to carry a gun, right now, so a 8-rd 9mm is adequate. If or when I actually need a gun, my sons will be flanking me with 30-round 5.56 mags or 20-round .308 mags much like my own. Your statement is nonsense.
Large capacity magazines add a lot of weight to guns and some are not as reliable. If you find yourself needing 33 rounds of 9mm or whatever to defend yourself maybe you got yourself in a bad situation to begin with.
And what happens if 2/3 of a box isn’t enough for all hose zombies?
Firearms and minimum ammo count on hand: Pistol, 7 rds, two spare mags. 12 gauge pump, one belt, 15 shells 00, 10 rifled slugs, one grab bag, 25 shells 00, one back up bag, 100 shells 00. Hi-cap? No, but lot of practice. A shot gun should not run dry until you run out of ammo. (All 12 gauge is 2 3/4 standard, pistol is Bersa Thunder .380 90 grain JHP/FMJ). If I can’t save them all, I’ll save those I can.
I believe what is most important is that you regularly train on whatever platform and mag capacity you choose. Whether that be an AR-15 with a 30 round mag, or a lever-action carbine with a 10 round mag tube (you should see those CAS guys run those old cowboy guns), you are only as effective as your training.
Jeez! Home in bed a 3:00 a.m. In my jams. Do they have a place to slip in a few extra ten rounders. I don’t think so.
I too agree that it is not the same argument. My counter to it agrees with those who point out that a mass shooter is prepared for that scenario. He has made a plan on carrying extra mags. He has a load bearing vest, extra mag holsters or a bag with extra mags. It just isn’t practical for most of us in our daily lives to carry around a bunch of extra mags.
How many times do we hear the experts say we should conceal instead of open carry and that concealed means concealed. Fine, I can conceal my sidearm and maybe an extra mag. But even as a pretty big guy I can’t no-bulge conceal a pistol and 2, 3, 4 extra mags except in cooler weather with a loose coat. So if I have to go to urban areas, where I always CC, I can leave the 7-8 rd gun at home and CC an XDm9 and an extra mag and have 39 rounds, nearly equivalent of 3 extra mags with a 10 rd limit and pretty easy for me to conceal with a little forethought.
Anything over 30 rounds is not needed, IT IS WELCOMED!!!!!!!
Absence makes the heart grow fonder, here in Cali, truer words have never been spoken.
Evil people will find a way to have banned items or make illegal weapons or bombs. Or use planes and cars as weapons. Good people need “high capacity” mags to at least not put them at a disadvantage.
I don’t like this test at all, first off they are counting rounds and NOT shooting to slide lock. A slide lock reload takes longer and show me ANYONE that can count rounds in a deadly situation!. Second there is no adrenaline in this scenario. They have proven that people struggle to even dial 911 under adrenaline. Do you really want to have to reload when your heart rate is OFF the charts, when, your blood is pushed to the core of your body and your fine motor skills are out the window. HORRIBLE comparison to actual life and death. Gun fighting and poking holes in paper are two different things.
I understand the point trying to be made, but without bullets flying past your head, people around you screaming and getting shot, it’s not really valid. NEVER LET POLITICIANS TELL YOU HOW MANY ROUNDS YOU NEED!
You can’t pit these two arguments against each other for one simple reason: the argument that smaller magazines will lower casualties in mass shootings assumes UNARMED victims. It’s an argument about whether unarmed people can flee or attack the shooter while he reloads. In contrast, in a self defense scenario, it’s assumed that both attacker and defender are armed. Therefore, you cannot compare the two arguments.
There are many arguments in favor of standard capacity magazines for defenders. The simplest one is that bad guys often don’t work alone. If you’re going to be outnumbered, you want as many rounds as you can get.
On a side note, there is a major problem with the sheriff’s video. If you watch, the shooters are counting rounds and reloading before the gun is empty. Thus they save themselves the time of realizing that the gun is empty, and also the time to release the slide when the magazine is inserted. It may not be much, but it does add up. It’s extremely unlikely that a person in a high stress situation will count rounds, or realize instantly that the gun is empty and needs to be reloaded. They may also fumble with the slide release. Thus, the video isn’t truly representative of how much time is needed to reload.
How about we just limit mass killers to *ZERO* ammo? Wouldn’t that eliminate requirements on *my* armament?
No, a high-capacity is NOT a must – a standard-capcity magazine does just fine.
Seriously though, I hate the argument that changing magazines is so fast that it doesn’t matter, because thats also an argument equally applicable in favor magazine-capacity reduction laws – if it makes little difference, why be so resistent of the idea?
No sir, having as much ammo in the weapon as you can, without hindering operation of the weapon, is safer, and more convenient, regardless of intent. The standard capacity of any weapon design is determined by the compromise between thow two conditions. Laws be damned.
This video is terrible. The shooter in this video clearly shoots at a faster rate with the lower count magazines. He also shoots back and forth with the lower count magazines, and only shoots right to left with the 15 round mags. Bad demonstration, makes the video worthless. If shot at the same rate, it’s simple physics that higher magazine round capacity means less reload time and less time to shoot a given number of rounds. Which is why we need no restrictions, so we have what we need if ever in a terrible situation.
– And our guest today is magnificent Captain Obvious!
– Ah, thank you. Thank you! About the issue, right. Obvious flaw in logic is obvious: the argument fails to consider Tactical Situation.
Y’know, a citizen attacked is likely to be outnumbered by agressive criminal party. Having to reload means opening, which can, given bad luck, be a disaster. More rounds = less openings = better chance to deter the assault with longer string of fire. The place and time of assault are chosen by criminals, not law-abiding person, thus the latter may REALLY need this edge.
By contrast, mass shooters are (somewhat) savvy fellas. They go out and shoot confused, scared and defenceless people in specially provided gun-free areas. With probability of agressive/armed responce low, having small mags may indeed limit their frag/time ratio, but not their survivability. As you and our watchers know, few of those choose to shoot it out with armed responders, and,,,
– Uh, thank you. But what about politicians? They need something firearm-related to ban, so the public feels like Right Thing is done!
– I really don’t know about that. As you know, I have tried to get elected with agenda of banning fried fast-food to promote public health, and…well…let’s say it did not work and…
– Thank you, Captain! We now switch to hottest issue of the day: does strawberry impede erection in rabbits? Is that yet another consequence of evil Monsanto technology, or perhaps related to global warming? Stay with us!
Comments are closed.