Magazine Capacity Argument

[hyrise]

Enough said?

[SilverTauron]

This is just my perspective , nothing more.


That being stated , I believe the magazine capacity debate represents overblown BS on both sides of the issue. The hoplophobes' empty viewpoint is extensively known already to most of you.

On the other side of the matter, I have to wonder why people assume they're not adequately armed without a 33 round magazine in their defensive weapon. The Tuller Drill has since established that even slow, old people only need 2 seconds to cover 21 feet at a running pace. Only the fastest competition & special operations shooters can empty a 10+ round magazine and reload inside of that time window. If we armed citizens cannot accurately deliver fire against our attacker within 7 rounds we won't be around long enough to empty the rest of the magazine.

Insofar as multiple attackers are concerned , we come to a place of diminishing returns. If a group of thugs are up against one armed person with a gun, history in riot situations suggests the group will seek easier prey.If the group of attackers are armed, no one's walking away unscathed no matter how skilled the citizen is. If 3 people with weapons want you dead , the size of your magazine isn't relevant -you'll need to put down your opponents fast before they can shoot you.

When it comes to combat goal is to end the fight in one shot if at all possible. Prolonging hostilities until your magazine is depleted is a bad plan no matter how many it holds.

[Librarian]

Dupe - discussed in 2A