Std capacity magazine ban -- effective?

[konata88]

This has probably been discussed many times here before but I'm still searching for a thread with this information.

On the assumption that the std capacity magazine ban had/has a purpose, there are probably some metrics that:

1) ban proponents track to verify the ban is effective and justify their legislature

2) ban opponents track to argue against the ban effectiveness

Does anyone know where these metrics might be viewed?

[Oceanbob]

This has probably been discussed many times here before but I'm still searching for a thread with this information.

On the assumption that the std capacity magazine ban had/has a purpose, there are probably some metrics that:

1) ban proponents track to verify the ban is effective and justify their legislature

2) ban opponents track to argue against the ban effectiveness

Does anyone know where these metrics might be viewed?

Nobody who shoots for sport/hobby can figure out WHAT the purpose of this backward Law is..!

That would include 10 million California gun owners.

A serious Criminal with intent to kill really doesn't care about following a Law.

Only law-abiding people like you and me will follow this Law. Which makes it MOOT for preventing whatever crime normal capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) would have prevented.

The Liberal Lawmakers who thought this law up and forced it thru used Scare Tactics to pass it. I doubt there are any statistics that show any proof that crime has dropped because regular folks were restricted to 10 rounds; especially when a magazine change takes only 1.4 seconds.

It's a DUMB LAW.

[drdarrin@sbcglobal.net]

This has probably been discussed many times here before but I'm still searching for a thread with this information.

On the assumption that the std capacity magazine ban had/has a purpose, there are probably some metrics that:

1) ban proponents track to verify the ban is effective and justify their legislature

2) ban opponents track to argue against the ban effectiveness

Does anyone know where these metrics might be viewed?

I'm pretty sure no one keeps any such metrics, besides the FBI crime statistics, and I don't think they care about magazine capacity. Unless caught in the act, with the smoking gun, so to speak, how would anyone but the shooter know?

The proponents don't give a krap, IMHO, if the ban has been effective or not. What they care about is how to get it to 8 rounds, or 5 rounds or ban handguns altogether.

[louderthangod]

I would venture to wager that if there were stats on the number of "high cap" mags used in crimes in restricted states like California the numbers might be skewed because there's a good chance that an illegal gun used to commit crimes in California could come from another state or even another country and it wouldn't make sense to smuggle an AK47 in from Mexico and then change the mag to fit Ca law. When analyzing use of "high cap" mags in mass murders that would be tricky too because (thankfully) they're not common enough to really make many statistical inferences about them.

[IllTemperedCur]

The high-cap mag law is like most gun-control laws. They were never intended to enhance public safety. It's all about our "betters" dragging us knuckle-dragging gun-loving troglodytes kicking and screaming into their modern utopian society.

And make no mistake, it's the "dragging us kicking and screaming" part that they like, not the "compliance with the law" part.

[Lapietra]

I believe the are no metrics; just a belief that limiting the ammo carrying device will prevent mass killings or the police from being out gunned. It doesnt help when there are mass shootings like the more recent Cogress Woman Gifford shooting in AZ where the shooter used a 33 round 9mm mag and was only subdued after he ran out of ammo and tackled while reloading. The supporters of mag capacity limitations are all over that right now pressing the point that if the mag only held 10 rounds the shooter could not have killed and injured so many people because he would have been subdued during his reload; thus 23 rounds lesser would have been fired.

[CSACANNONEER]

The law has obviously saved many kittens and puppies.

[23 Blast]

^[sigh] It does kind of make the point, though - right?

I hate the stupid laws as much as anyone, but to non-gun enthusiasts, it makes a certain kind of sense. It's like if there was a CA law that put governors in cars such that they could only travel a maximum speed of 60mph. In AZ, no such governors are required and so a drunk driver can plow into another vehicle at 100+ mph. If restricted to only 60mph, damage is less severe, no? That's the kind of analogy the grabbers trot out.

[SMR510]

^[sigh] It does kind of make the point, though - right?

I hate the stupid laws as much as anyone, but to non-gun enthusiasts, it makes a certain kind of sense. It's like if there was a CA law that put governors in cars such that they could only travel a maximum speed of 60mph. In AZ, no such governors are required and so a drunk driver can plow into another vehicle at 100+ mph. If restricted to only 60mph, damage is less severe, no? That's the kind of analogy the grabbers trot out.

Yea but what about those of us who aren't drunk driving and don't need the government to keep us from doing something stupid?

It makes absolutely no sense, controlling law abiding people changes absolutely nothing about the behavior of people who plan on breaking laws and committing crimes.

So now I can put 10rds into someone, but thankfully I will run out and that will make the damage less severe?

[bartt]

Yea but what about those of us who aren't drunk driving and don't need the government to keep us from doing something stupid?

It makes absolutely no sense, controlling law abiding people changes absolutely nothing about the behavior of people who plan on breaking laws and committing crimes.

So now I can put 10rds into someone, but thankfully I will run out and that will make the damage less severe?

Surely you practice reloading and have several magazines handy, so again the point of the law is an illusion of control, rather than any real affect on crime.

Perhaps if law makers were required to protect themselves (not use body-guards), they would take up some training and understand the use of fire-arms, and in turn protect our rights instead of deny them.

[Librarian]

This has probably been discussed many times here before but I'm still searching for a thread with this information.

On the assumption that the std capacity magazine ban had/has a purpose, there are probably some metrics that:

1) ban proponents track to verify the ban is effective and justify their legislature

2) ban opponents track to argue against the ban effectiveness

Does anyone know where these metrics might be viewed?

No such metrics. The value of the law comes from appearing to do something, thus suggesting effectiveness, thus suggesting 'vote for me'.

And standard capacity magazines for 1911 pistols are not affected by this law - you can buy and sell 7-round magazines for those pistols.

When talking about (idiotic) California gun laws, it's important to use the existing legal term; in this case, that term is 'large-capacity magazine'. In that context, using any other term creates confusion. Outside of a discussion of California law, legal precision is not necessary.