The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 10, 2013, 10:49 AM   #1
pat701
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2005
Location: Beyond OZ
Posts: 230
My case for having Hi-Cap mags

IMHO at least 50% of this nation lives rural. After 8:00pm the town P.D. shuts down. 911 calls get forwarded to the county sheriff dept for service and/or state police. At 3:00am when 3 thugs are kicking in your door and your wife a daughter are in the house in there baby doll P.J.'s a 45 minute response is a long time to wait for help as your family is being savaged by the thugs. This is the reason the people of America need/ have to have hi-cap mags. 10 rds mags are or not enough fire power. God forbid you need more fire power during the long wait for 911 response to your call for assistance.
pat701 is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:05 AM   #2
tulsamal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
God forbid you need more fire power during the long wait for 911 response to your call for assistance.
The problem with that argument is that it undercuts one of our other arguments. That a mass shooter could kill just as many people with 10 rounds mags, swapping guns and mags as he goes. If he can be just as deadly with 10 round mags, why can't you?

IMO... trying to justify mags based on that nasty word "need" is a losing battle. I don't have to prove a need to the government. I'm a citizen, I can buy whatever product I want to buy. If I then use it in a criminal manner, then the gov't can step in.

Instead of "need" on our end, the ultimate SAF question will be, "Under what authority CAN the gov't ban such things?" Factors such as common use, use by the police, prior legal possession of many millions of them nationwide, etc.

Gregg
tulsamal is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:13 AM   #3
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
The spree shooter is not being fired back at in the Newtown or Aurora style scenario.

I'm more likely to object to the stiplation that 50% of the country is Rural.

And need a shower after putting a hypothetical daughter in a hypothetical baby-doll.


It is not incongruous to say that high capacity magazines do not overly assist a spree shooter facing zero resistance while still providing benefit to a high-stress home defense.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:25 AM   #4
tulsamal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,454
If you really want to have an arguing point, try this one. I've already flummoxed a couple of anti's with it.

We all drive cars. And many, many people die in those cars every year. And the amount of foreign oil we import is a national security issue. The carbon they emit as well. So there is a "clear and pressing need for gov't action." We tried the nationwide 55 mph limit years ago. It actually "worked" if you mean it reduced traffic deaths and fuel consumption. But people didn't like it and gradually people just started to ignore it and drive way over the limit.

So that's where the problem lies. Those darn people that won't follow the rules. So what the President needs to do is "find a way" to REQUIRE every vehicle in the nation be fitted with a governor set to 55 mph. It's INSANE and DANGEROUS --- especially to the CHILDREN ---- that people actually buy cars with top speeds over 100 mph. Some "fringe types" even buy cars that can drive over 140 mph. Clearly there is no legal place in the US to drive such death machines so these radicals must be spending money buying them for some other nefarious reason.

If we put a mandatory governor on each car, we WILL save thousands of lives every year. "It's worth an infringement on some personal liberties if we just save one life!" Hey, we are talking thousands of lives. And how many fewer lives would be lost in pursuit of policies involving the importation of foreign oil? And the amount of carbon pollution would slow dramatically so that will save many thousands of lives as well.

Some lobbyists from the terrorist Car and Driver organization will make the laughable argument that a car needs to have higher maximum speeds so that they can easily pass other cars or even to avoid an accident in an emergency situation. Drivers should never be passing other drivers in the first place and their "emergency situation" is a scenario dreamed up by uneducated trailer park dwellers. There is no reason we should let their delusional rantings guide the policy of the US.

It is possible that we will run into so much political opposition to this idea that it will have to be approached in stages. The Administration has called a commission to make recommendations for how this situation can be resolved. We are hoping that we can release an Executive Order requiring all new vehicles be fitted with these governors. We will tell the public that they can keep their existing cars as long as they register them by VIN with the gov't. Of course our ultimate goal is to eventually pass legislation requiring governors on all those older vehicles as well.

Ultimately.. the most desirable outcome is to require all cars to have lower horsepower and therefore top speeds. A governor would be unnecessary if cars were required to be so low powered that "putting the pedal to the floor" will result in a maximum speed as low as politically possible. Some members of the Administration are known to actually prefer the eventual outlawing of cars altogether but the majority SO FAR believes that is unnecessary as long as top speeds are low enough.

But it is true that an ideal society would probably be one without cars. Where everybody rides a bike. What a beautiful and idyllic place that would be. The wild animals would come right out of the forests and eat food out of our hands. And every person around the world would treat each other like brothers!

Gregg
tulsamal is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:26 AM   #5
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulsamal
The problem with that argument is that it undercuts one of our other arguments.
You are correct about the problem with entering the "need" discussion. The problem with not entering that discussion is that it leaves on answered the challenge of the assertion "no one needs a high-capacity magazine, or more than 10 rounds for legitimate self-defense".

There is another problem with answering the assertion of "no need". I have been in a situation in which a prudent person would have many more than 10 rounds. I did have many more than 10 rounds, and at the time I wish I had more.

However, in describing this event to a journalist who made the "no need" assertion to me, the reaction I received suggested that she placed me beyond normal experience and that I was therefore irrelevant.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:49 AM   #6
AndyWest
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2011
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulsamal
The problem with that argument is that it undercuts one of our other arguments. That a mass shooter could kill just as many people with 10 rounds mags, swapping guns and mags as he goes. If he can be just as deadly with 10 round mags, why can't you?
Mmm, this counter has been countered before but I wanna try it myself. If you're shocked awake to defend your property/loved ones at 3am you're unlikely to be wearing a tactical vest full of 10rd mags unlike some delusional nutjob on a planned "assault" or robbery.
__________________
Shoot smart. Shoot S-Mart.
AndyWest is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 02:22 PM   #7
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,049
After the election three guys at work came to me asking about 9mm handguns. I pointed out that .45ACP is also a good option, but they insisted that they wanted the high capacity of a 9mm because in a shooting situation even the cops hit their target only 10-20% of the time (a statistic I have read before myself). That's another factor that I believe infrequent shooters are looking at when making a purchase decision.
spacecoast is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 02:52 PM   #8
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
IMHO at least 50% of this nation lives rural. After 8:00pm the town P.D. shuts down. 911 calls get forwarded to the county sheriff dept for service and/or state police. At 3:00am when 3 thugs are kicking in your door and your wife a daughter are in the house in there baby doll P.J.'s a 45 minute response is a long time to wait for help as your family is being savaged by the thugs. This is the reason the people of America need/ have to have hi-cap mags. 10 rds mags are or not enough fire power. God forbid you need more fire power during the long wait for 911 response to your call for assistance


When posts are put on this forum regarding carrying extra ammo . You always get quoted that most shootings only 3 rounds are fired so no need to carry extra ammo. So they woldent have a problem with 10 rd magazines. If you have 10 magazines with 10 rounds in each you would think enough.

Lots are happy carrying 1911-s with 7 rds or revolvers with 6.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 10:58 PM   #9
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,844
Quote:
When posts are put on this forum regarding carrying extra ammo . You always get quoted that most shootings only 3 rounds are fired so no need to carry extra ammo. So they woldent have a problem with 10 rd magazines. If you have 10 magazines with 10 rounds in each you would think enough.

Lots are happy carrying 1911-s with 7 rds or revolvers with 6.
As one of the people who feels comfortable carrying a revolver, I would point out that, in my mind, concealed carry and home defense are two different things. When I'm out and about, I need only enough ammunition to allow me to get away from whoever is trying to harm me. I have no intention of standing in the middle of the street shooting it out with the bloods or crips. As Mike Irwin once said, my gun serves as the starter pistol in the mad dash fat man's tactical retreat.

When defending my home, however, things are a bit different. Should a group of home invaders start breaking my window in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be retreating because I've got nowhere to retreat to. My strategy for home defense is to try to barricade myself somewhere and keep the wolves at bay long enough for the cavalry (meaning the police) to arrive. In that case, I see a much greater need for a high capacity firearm and I keep a semi-automatic .223 rifle with a 20 round magazine as part of my home defense plan.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:23 PM   #10
Tex S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TEXAS
Posts: 773
Quote:
It is not incongruous to say that high capacity magazines do not overly assist a spree shooter facing zero resistance while still providing benefit to a high-stress home defense.
This is so true.

They could come in awfully handy if someone is shooting at you, though.
Tex S is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 11:41 PM   #11
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
When hunting "non-game" animals on private land in florida, there is no capacity limitations...

I would rather load one 30 round mag in the rifle to go hog hunting, coyote hunting or feral cat hunting than take up "Scooby Snack" pocket space with additional 5 round mags...

Hows that for LEGITIMATE HUNTING USES...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 07:26 AM   #12
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
As one of the people who feels comfortable carrying a revolver, I would point out that, in my mind, concealed carry and home defense are two different things...

When defending my home, however, things are a bit different. Should a group of home invaders start breaking my window in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be retreating because I've got nowhere to retreat to. My strategy for home defense is to try to barricade myself somewhere and keep the wolves at bay long enough for the cavalry (meaning the police) to arrive. In that case, I see a much greater need for a high capacity firearm and I keep a semi-automatic .223 rifle with a 20 round magazine as part of my home defense plan.
Great point. Just make sure you are empty-handed when the cops arrive, because they are "trained to shoot anyone holding a gun".
spacecoast is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 08:45 AM   #13
USA SHARK
Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Posts: 37
Tulsamal

Thanks a lot for giving the Government another really legitimate reason to take another one of our rights away. I've been saving to buy a new Corvette, but by the time I can afford it they probably won't exist because everyone will go out and buy them all in fear they will be gone soon, causing the dealerships to be completely out of stock.

No guns, no fast cars. What's next. Alcohol? Just think of all the lives that would be saved if we eliminated alcohol, or maybe just made it all 5% proof instead of 40% proof.

Uh oh, I think I just gave them another crusade to go after!

No guns, no fast cars, no alcohol. Well at least they can't take away being intimate with my wife. Oh crap....
USA SHARK is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 08:50 AM   #14
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
I have no intention of standing in the middle of the street shooting it out with the bloods or crips. As Mike Irwin once said, my gun serves as the starter pistol in the mad dash fat man's tactical retreat.
What if you get cornered and cant get away.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 09:03 AM   #15
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,844
Quote:
Quote:
I have no intention of standing in the middle of the street shooting it out with the bloods or crips. As Mike Irwin once said, my gun serves as the starter pistol in the mad dash fat man's tactical retreat.

What if you get cornered and cant get away.
Then I've already made a lot bigger mistakes with more serious consequences than what gun I carried.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 09:16 AM   #16
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Then I've already made a lot bigger mistakes with more serious consequences than what gun I carried.
If its not that importent why carry. You can't prepare for every serinieo. But having a sensible amount of extra ammo is one you can. One extra mag for example.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 09:39 AM   #17
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,844
manta49, PM sent.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 11:02 AM   #18
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,699
He didn't say it's not important.

What he DID say, however, is that you should, no matter whether you are carrying or not, always be aware of your situation, including ways of extracting yourself in an emergency.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 11:45 AM   #19
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
I have watched a couple of series of riots in Los Angeles, and those situations require both high capacity magazines and semiauto rifles.

Magazines because you may have multiple attackers (called a mob) and one misses occasionally.

Semiauto because engagement distances are short, and likely should be. With a bolt gun, you have to decide to fire at some longer distance, perhaps without seeing the clear intent, rather than waiting. This increases the likelihood of firing on people who may not actually pose a danger to you. Rioters don't usually wear uniforms.

Relatively short engagement distances also call for more rounds in the magazine, as time to act could be rather short. Taking time to reload multiple times might be a big difference.

Given the uncertainties involved, it is hard to predict with accuracy what anyone might need. Individuals should be free to select their path as they see fit.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 11:56 AM   #20
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
The only strong argument would have to be somehow demonstrating that high capacity magazines are vital component of the arm thus being protected by the 2nd amendment. If a small magazine compromises the intended purpose of the arm than it would be an infringement.

That is my thinking anywayz.

.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 02:02 PM   #21
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,240
The strange thing with all the gun control in the UK limiting mag capacity is not one of them. Why do the ones calling for this in America think it will make a difference.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 02:17 AM   #22
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
Another reason to fight hard against magazine limitations would be this.

That once it is shown that a limit can be placed on magazines and that a court would uphold the law, than they could go ahead and one day leave a person having to use a one or two round magazine. If I am not mistaken in some countries you can only own a semi-auto if it has a magazine that holds only a few rounds.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 02:57 AM   #23
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,639
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495800

The above thread gives a nice, real-world example of why 10 rounds may not be sufficient to stop even ONE attacker.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 03:29 AM   #24
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,192
Quote:
You are correct about the problem with entering the "need" discussion. The problem with not entering that discussion is that it leaves on answered the challenge of the assertion "no one needs a high-capacity magazine, or more than 10 rounds for legitimate self-defense".
The "need" discussion can be an eye opener.

Start by talking about illegal deaths involving guns being balanced by the positive effects of firearms. Briefly mention self-defense, national security (remember Yamamoto's quote from WWII about a rifle behind every blade of grass and the Swiss national defense paradigm), note that they provide some level of defense against tyranny, note the deterrent value of an armed society in discouraging certain types of crimes (e.g. burglary of predominantly occupied homes in "gun-free" societies vs. burglary of mostly unoccupied homes in "gun-rich" areas).

You may want to touch on the idea that the "equalizing" factor provided by firearms has a civilizing effect on society by elevating it from the state where the biggest, strongest person rules by virtue of nothing other than his physical prowess to a level where democracy is possible and decisions must be discussed because even the physically weak and unimposing can't be ignored.

Then you note that it is hard to quantify those benefits and state that the easiest way to justify firearms is via their recreational value--and pause to give them a little rope.

When they jump on that one, interrupt and ask them about the need for drinking alcohol, owning jetskis, or trampolines. We, as a society, tolerate the decidedly negative aspects that these things (and other similar and common things) often bring in terms of death and injury in spite of the fact that the only real point in their favor is that they provide recreation--people like them and want them.

If society can turn a blind eye to DWI deaths in the name of recreation, why is anyone even daring to talk about restricting firearms when everyone knows that they provide important and quantifiable benefits beyond recreation.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 11:21 AM   #25
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,190
The mall shooting in Utah a couple of years ago is a perfect example. The shooter was initially engaged and pinned down by an off-duty police officer from another jurisdiction. He was armed with a compact Kimber 1911 and no spare magazine. So he had, IIRC, a total of either 7 or 8 rounds.

He was quoted after the event as wishing he had had more ammo.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13954 seconds with 9 queries