High Capacity Magazines

[uhlan1]

I've been training police dogs for 20 years and have seen a lot of random bad stuff out there. I have also trained personal protection dogs for rape victims, stalking victims, some home invasion victims and even a guy who was shot in the head by a burglar and survived. Just because evil hasn't visited your doorstep, and probably never will, does not mean it never will.
Evil is out there and it is random generally in its selection.

You should have zero interest in a fair fight. Where I live the SO response time is 21 minutes on average, we're on our own. 3 guys get past my dogs I don't want a DiFi 10 round special or a Cuomo 7 rounder. I want overwhelming superiority. I want no doubt as to the conclusion. How about you?
And finally, don't let the "grabbers" into your head. It has nothing to do with "needs" and everything to do with rights. Threaten one, threaten them all. It's a very slippery slope.

Rant over.

[762.DEFENSE]

There is a lot of things we don't need:

Fast cars
Booze
Tobacco Products
Big Houses
Free Speech
Candy

Just remember, its a Bill of Rights not a bill of needs, if it bothers you, there are plenty of places in this world where they don't allow guns let alone high capacity magazines.

Amen.

[CBruce]

Okay here is my question and I am going to get a lot of probarly negative feedback on this, buyt why do we as citizens really need high capacity magazines?

Prior to all this last 15 years or so crazyness with magazines and stuff a lot of people, including law enforcement agencies made do with either 6-shot .357 revolvers or 7 or 8 shot .45 semi auto magazines.

I mean for most people, me included I will not need my gun for most of my life for any type of protection. It will just be a gun loaded in the nightstand by the bed, that I take fishing or I slip into my waist band when I hear a loud noise or dogs barking at night.

If I can't eliminate the threat with either 6 rounds out of .357 revolver or 8 rounds out of 4506 45 what good would 15 shoots of 9mm be?

Would either just be a overkill or oh endanger my neighbors, or family if I let loose that many rounds.

I am not for laws against high capacity magazines, but where is the need for people to have them?

This happened a few miles from my home:

So I ask you, how many bullets do you want to defend yourself from 3 men armed with knives?

How about 5?

Admittedly, these type of events are rare, but they are not hypothetical scenarios. Isn't that what we have arms for, to hopefully give us better odds in a rare, life-threatening event? How many rounds do the police carry to defend themselves? Why shouldn't we be able to have as many when we're facing the same dangerous people they are without body armor, partners, and backup? What turns a human being into a criminal in the first place? It's not their first encounter with a police officer, it's the victimization of one of us.

There's no rational reason to restrict capacity other than part of a program of disarmament. 10 rounds is an arbitrary restriction to begin with. We've already seen NY ratchet that down to 7, one day it will be 5.

Is 7 rounds enough for you to defend yourself in any potential scenario? Would 5?

3?...2?...1?...

[epilepticninja]

I am not for laws against high capacity magazines, but where is the need for people to have them?

You have obviously never been in a gunfight of any type before. You can never have enough ammo when things go south.

[Anschiss]

You should have zero interest in a fair fight. Where I live the SO response time is 21 minutes on average, we're on our own. 3 guys get past my dogs I don't want a DiFi 10 round special or a Cuomo 7 rounder. I want overwhelming superiority. I want no doubt as to the conclusion. How about you?
And finally, don't let the "grabbers" into your head. It has nothing to do with "needs" and everything to do with rights. Threaten one, threaten them all. It's a very slippery slope.

Amen. Shoot to kill. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

[spdtiger]

Let me quote my Dad, on the second day of martial law in the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos declared himself a dictator, and told everybody to turn in your guns, at that point, all people power was de fanged and hence he started his power of dictatorship, my dad escaped Philippines with the help of a 38 special and a 45 1911 made from a jungle shop where they made guns back in world war 2 against the Japanese , my dad told me never give up your guns never trust a dictator

Never give up your High Caps
Because history tends to repeat itself

[tchurchill1]

There is a lot of things we don't need:

Fast cars
Booze
Tobacco Products
Big Houses
Free Speech
Candy

Just remember, its a Bill of Rights not a bill of needs, if it bothers you, there are plenty of places in this world where they don't allow guns let alone high capacity magazines.

By the way, I would take that along with my high caps ! lol
ps: land of the free ?

[Pell]

I am of the opinion that it is rediculous to ban standard capacity magazines. But, what would stop the government from banning all magazines? Theoretically, you could still own the gun, but would be stuck with a single shot. Since you could still own the firearm, would your second amendment rights still be infringed?

[bohoki]

we don't "need" lots of things honestly we do not "need" guns sometimes i go for a couple days without touching one but a needs based test for a "right"
is wrong

[CGT80]

I am of the opinion that it is rediculous to ban standard capacity magazines. But, what would stop the government from banning all magazines? Theoretically, you could still own the gun, but would be stuck with a single shot. Since you could still own the firearm, would your second amendment rights still be infringed?

The right to keep AND BEAR ARMS!

What is the point of a gun, if you can't use it. I know the anti's won't see it that way, but eliminating magazines is an infringement on our rights. I just reread your post, yet single shot is possible in some guns, but it is still infringement and not at all practical.


OP, have you ever had a semi auto jamb, or a revolver with a round that didn't go off due to a light primer strike or bad primer? Have you ever shot one of the many competitions out there?

There are many needs for normal capacity magazines. Like others said, the military and government LEOs get a pass on these laws, but we are controlled and held back. When you consider the other abilities and assets of the government, we are really at a disadvantage. The government is supposed to be for the people and by the people, but it seems to often be neither. At minimum we should be able to use the same small arms as our military and LEOs. We are supposed to be a free people, but it is feeling less and less like it is actually happening.

"Slippery slope" also sums it up nicely.

[sfbay]

The OP has a valid question as a concerned citizen.

Also, there is another point which may need a bit of clarification and i hope someone here can help clear up my example.

For instance, a police officer having to protect himself or another has his duty weapon and a duty belt with several additional magazines. Those magazines are, "essential" with a semi auto that may jam, FTF, FTE, etc... he/she may need to rack the slide several times, or strip the mag out and put in another etc... tac reload, etc... in a crisis, you may limp wrist it causing the above issues...

For a civilian, he/she wont have a duty belt on her night stand or even pockets for that matter. What ever is in the gun may be it. To deal with a variety of variables, he/she will most likely have what's in the gun. You start doing malfunction drills with a pistol and 15 is way better than 10.

Also, if it's okay to have 10, is an extra 5 that big of a stretch? No.

Just my humble opinion, i'm sure i left something out...

[TKM]

There are no stupid questions.















Just kidding.

[Noble Cause]

Okay here is my question and I am going to get a lot of probarly negative feedback on this, buyt why do we as citizens really need high capacity magazines?

Prior to all this last 15 years or so crazyness with magazines and stuff a lot of people, including law enforcement agencies made do with either 6-shot .357 revolvers or 7 or 8 shot .45 semi auto magazines.

I mean for most people, me included I will not need my gun for most of my life for any type of protection. It will just be a gun loaded in the nightstand by the bed, that I take fishing or I slip into my waist band when I hear a loud noise or dogs barking at night.

If I can't eliminate the threat with either 6 rounds out of .357 revolver or 8 rounds out of 4506 45 what good would 15 shoots of 9mm be?

Would either just be a overkill or oh endanger my neighbors, or family if I let loose that many rounds.

I am not for laws against high capacity magazines, but where is the need for people to have them?

Why do Americans need "high capacity magazines" ?

Listed just about any reason I could think of...

Some occasional over lap and duplication, but otherwise a rather
comprehensive list:

* In case of multiple assailants. If you are attacked by 5 or 6 thugs,
New Yorks 7 round limit doesn't improve your chances of surviving..
it decreases your chances of surviving.

* TRUE high capacity mags would be mags beyond the original design
and in uncommon use (example would be the 100rnd mag for AR15).
Once again, a 30 round AR15 mag is a NORMAL capacity mag.

* Normal capacity mags should be protected under Heller.
AR15's are designed to use, and often ship with, 30 round mags.
Magazines are considered a functional part of the firearm, and
30 round mags are "in common use".

Ergo, limiting mags to 10, or 7 or 5 or Zero nullifies the intent of the 2nd
Amendment and violates Americans Civil Rights.

* Defensive situations are stressful & reduce accuracy tremendously.
You could empty your restricted 7 rnd mag, & miss your attacker.
With a normal 13 to 30 rnd mag, you greatly increase your chances
of surviving the attack, and protecting your family. Police accuracy
can drop to 17% in a gun battle. Yours could be even lower.

* In many rural areas in could take 30 minutes or more for police to
respond to an attack. The family could be on its own for long time,
and if they have to reload their magazines because they are restricted
from 10 to say New Yorks 7 limit, while under fire it decrease's their
ability to defend themselves.

* Ability to use suppression fire to keep bad guys from advancing.
or using it so you can move to a better defensive position.
Supressive fire with 30 rounds is feasible. With only 7 or 10, you are
quite likely to run out of ammo before you can reach a better position,
allowing the criminal / predator to shoot you with impunity.

* An attacker can sustain a few hits, and still be trying to kill you.
This is rarely a 1 shot = kill world. You never know how many rounds it
will take to stop a threat. Or mutiple threats. Criminals have been shot
28 times and lived to see their trial and conviction.

* An attacker is on drugs, & is irrationally determined to kill you.
You could empty your restricted 7 round magazine into them with
little or no apparent effect. If you emptied a normal capacity mag
of say 16 to 19 rounds of 9mm, your chances are greatly improved.

* Despite multiple hits, even though they are "dead man walking"
some violent people will continue to try and kill others until they
lose blood pressure & bleed out. This can take several minutes.
Its not like the movies where one shot from the good guy kills the
bad guy within 2 seconds (unless its a head shot). You need every
round you have to keep them from killing you or your family.

* Americans with a legal conceal carry license would now have to carry
extra mags to match what they currently allready have.. this increases
their chance of "printing" and may result in them running out of ammo
and putting themselves and the people they are protecting in mortal
danger.

* A person unable to shoot proper defensive rounds because of recoil
(they have arthritis, they are veterans who were severely wounded,
they are of small statue or frail, they are disabled in some respect.)

If they can only handle a 22LR recoil, and are restricted to only 10 to 5
rounds, they will be at a disadvantage, since 22LR is not considered to
be a reliable defensive round, and it would take a lot more hits with 22LR
than say a 9mm or 45acp. Allowing them to have 20 to 30 rounds in
their firearm might allow them to live thru an assault.

* A person with a disability unable to change out magazines.

* A law restricting magazine capacity only punishes the law abiding.

* Criminals can easily make "high capacity" mags even if outlawed.
They simply extend the bottom of existing mags and add a spring.

* Criminals and the insane will use 30+ mags no matter what the law is.

* Has any politician asked the people who actually used a firearm to
defend themselves and their family, how they would feel with having
even less defensive rounds the next time theirs lives are in danger ?

* If "high capacity magazines" are such a concern to law enforcement,
explain why the FBI doesn't track it. (and, btw, so called assault rifles
murder useage is so low, the FBI simply lumps them together with
other rifles... in 2011, All rifles (including AR15) accounted for only
323 murders (2.5%) for the entire nation. The AR15 probably less
than 2%. since the 323 (2.5%) figure includes every type of rifle.

* There are millions of so called high-capacity magazines in the hands of
Americans, and have been for decades. They are used millions of times
each year by Americans for defense, hunting, target shooting. So you
have millions used legally & safely each year, versus a few used by
a couple of mentally disturbed predators illegally. And now you want to
blame & scream at all the Sane, normal people who did not harm anyone ?

It is irrational to think by punishing the millions of Americans who
legally own & use them, you will somehow stop criminals & insane
predators from using them.

On previous magazine neutering laws (California / New York ):

* Slippery Slope. New York reduced it to 10, and now 7, another state
is apparently considering 5. When the next massacre occurs
(and it will, since gun-free zones attract insane predators intent on
killing as many defenseless innocents as possible without resistance. )
politicians will push for 3 rnd mags, or just simply outlaw magazines.

* No panels of Firearm experts were consulted about the effect of
restricting magazine capacities on normal people.

* What scientific study was performed on the effects of outlawing
normal magazine capacities (making them now high-caps) ? (None).

* What public hearings were conducted before some states banned
normal capacity (high caps) magazines ? (None) New York only gave
elected officials 20 minutes to read the bill before voting.

* Why are people who have never held a firearm, owned a firearm,
shot a firearm, or know anything about firearms (other than
fictional accounts in movies) shouting for restrictions on magazines.?

These people are easily identified online. They call magazines "clips",
or assault clips, or High Capacity Assault Clips, or Military grade
high capacity assault clips. Most of these people we call "The Media",
parroting what the anti gun politicians have told them what to say.

* Would political leaders, Hollywood celebrities, the rich and affluent,
insist that all their bodyguards have restricted capacity magazines ?

* Would police officers feel better about using reduced capacity
mags to protect themselves and family when they retire ?

* Police officer can have 20 rounds in his XDm to defend himself from
a criminal. A law abiding citizen would only have 10 to 5 to defend
himself from the same criminal. How is that even remotely fair ?

* The 2nd Amendment is to protect us from Tyranny. An AR15 with a
30 round magazine is an excellent choice for our first line of defense.

* Telling me I do not need a normal capacity magazine to defend myself
and my family is the same as telling Rosa Parks she did not need to sit in
the front of the bus. It is a Civil Right.

Noble

[Oceanbob]

What he said.^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent wrap-up.

Thanks Noble Cause.!

[ElDub1950]

Prior to all this last 15 years or so crazyness with magazines and stuff a lot of people, including law enforcement agencies made do with either 6-shot .357 revolvers or 7 or 8 shot .45 semi auto magazines.

Prior to the last 15 years there was never a case where 3,4,5 people kicked in your door while you and your family were watching TV.

Do you suppose the police had a good idea when they dumped their revolvers?