High capacity magazines

[44 AMP]

One real problem not addressed is the concept that many have that since they do not see a need for something or other, that same something or other ought to be prohibited or restricted. And their justification for this position is always the same, someone may (or has) done something bad with the something or other.

It doesn't seem to matter much specifically what it is, people who don't see a "need" (or have a personal use) for the thing are quite happy to agree on laws restricting it. As long as its not their personal ox being gored, they don't care. In fact, lots of them will actively work at getting what they don't "need" restricted.

Coffee drinkers are often fine with a sin tax on soda (which they don't drink), but if you want that same tax to be applied to coffee, whoa! slow down there fellah, can't do that....

It wouldn't bother me if there was a $200 tax on golf clubs. I mean, after all, why do you need a whole bagful of clubs, anyway? One can take that line of reasoning a long way, false though it is.

I don't have a need for a baby stroller, or an SUV, but I wouldn't even begin to think of telling anyone they shouldn't be able to buy one.

Recent shootings with hi-cap mags are bad, but then all murders are bad. Dahmer, Gacy, and Bundy, etc.. killed dozens + and never used a gun at all.

A handful of fanatics killed over 2,000 people one September day, and didn't use a single gun or extended capacity magazine to do it.....

People who spend their time and energy trying to restrict/ban spring loaded metal or plastic boxes don't have their priorities straight.

[Malamute]

Been some good comments. I agree with the main gist of want, not need.

Saw this commentary on PBD's blog. He makes some good points. Heads up for languge if you go to the blog.

Quoted from PBD's blog,

".....The free exercise of my rights is not contingent on the approval of some parasite government bureaucrat or their pathetic fan club. My right to free speech is not confined to what is considered inoffensive or sensible. I explicitly lay claim to be as offensive as possible without causing provable harm to another. Similarly, the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment to my natural right to keep and bear arms is not limited by “reasonableness” or the comfort level of my neighbors. The words “shall not be infringed” seem completely unambiguous to me, and the use of “militia” in the preamble indicates that anything that is available to light infantry should be available to citizens."


The page in it's entirety,

http://www.papadeltabravo.com/blog/?p=1397

[JC57]

Well I agree completely with the original poster. There's no need for anyone to have a magazine with more than 17 rounds. I chose that number because I have a pistol that comes with 17 round mags, and what's right for me must be right for everyone else.

[wogpotter]

I was done postinG nere then I went to wally-world, & had an epihany, so I proudly present, (a little tongue in cheek).

The top ten ultimate A#1 reason for having a high capacity magazine

*drum roll, please*

Because watermellons come in gaylords!

[C7AR15]

when it comes to Hi-Cap mags , well Pandoras box has been opened.
There are Millions of Hi-Cap mags in the world and they will not be disappearing any time soon.
My Advice: Read the serenity prayer.

There are several Pandoras boxes which have been opened by man,
1. creation of Nuclear weapons
2. Making steel - guns, knives, pots , pans, bicycles.....
3. Etc.....

To me the real issue with all these Rampage killings is to identify
the mental health issues of these broken people and get them proper medical
treatment for their psychotic, paranoid, delusions.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is a good link on this topic. JohnKSa's "Capacity, Hit Rate and Multiple Assailants" thread. If you shoot as well as a typical big city police officer in LA or NYC and manage a 30% hit rate, and you face the typical scenario (2 assailants), a 10 round magazine gives you a 35% chance of being able to land 2 hits on each attacker.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494257

When you start thinking about how likely it is you get effective hits, you start getting an appreciation for just how much of a handicap people who suggest magazine capacity limitations are really pushing. And worth noting, just a measly 2 extra rounds (12rd magazine) brings you from a 1/3 chance to an even 50% chance of getting 2 hits on each attacker.

[wayneinFL]

I don't have any high capacity magazines. I have full capacity or regular capacity.

The problem with a "high capacity" mag ban is not so much that I need all 15 rounds in my Beretta. My problem with a ban would be that:

1. It doesn't solve anything. Do the anti-gunners really feel safer letting homicidal nutcases run loose as long as they can only shoot 10 people at a time before reloading?

2. This useless law would put law abiding people at risk. I flew to CA not long ago. I had to read up on all the laws to ensure I was in compliance before I went there. I'm sure there are people in my position who haven't spent a half hour online and were arrested for felonies that would be perfectly normal, legal activities in their home states. Depending on the details of another federal ban, people could end up going to prison for pulling their old gun out of the safe, and selling it or carrying it, not realizing a new law has passed since they bought or inherited it.

3. There are better ways to deal with the problem, if there is one. Loughner, Hasan, Page, Holmes, Cho, etc. all exhibited warning signs before the shooting. Isn't it better to go to the root cause and get these people help than to strip the rights of a whole bunch of gun owners?

4. Is there even a problem to begin with? Violent crime is down despite the sensationalistic news reports of mass shootings. There are more effective things we could work on if we want to reduce murder rates.

[akguy1985]

Why do i want or need high-cap mags??? Because this is america and i can own them because i want to.

[9mmsnoopy]

Maybe i want to go to the range and fire off 32 rounds before i have to reload.

[Discern]

I have used 50 round magazines for the 10/22, and they work great when you are hunting gophers at close and long ranges. It could also be a lifesaver for HD if necessary (would not be my first choice).

Most of the bad element are either cowards or smart - which means they do not come calling solo. A person may need a hi-cap mag for personal protection against the ring leader and their multiple pawns.

[ET.]

I don't need my 33 round mags for my Glock...that is until our society breaks down...then I'll need them just to protect what little I've accumulated over the years.

[akguy1985]

and high-cap mags come in handy in a defensive rifle competition.

[44 AMP]

When the 94 AWB became law, along with its 10rnd limit for new mag capacity, do you know what one of the unintended consequences was?

Service class pistols, ones that were designed to have 13, 15, 17, etc.. round mags now could only be sold with mags that held 10rnds. Same size as the so called "hi cap" mags, but only 10 rnds.

There were two entirely predictable responses by the gun makers and shooting public. Grandfathered "hi cap" mags saw a huge increase in price (constant demand, limited supply - basic capitalism) and gun makers came out with models having smaller gripframes (balanced with shorter slides) to take the smaller 10rnd mags.

They called them "compact" versions. And you know what? To the gun banner's horror, the smaller, compact versions were easier to conceal!

One result of the "hi cap" ban was a flood of smaller, more easily concealable pistols. Instead of rendering the service size pistols less likely to be "on the street" what it did was actually increase the number of more easily concealable handguns availabe to the public! Somehow, I don't think that was what the "hi-cap" banners had in mind.

[freedash22]

I want to have guns with high-capacity magazines because they give me the advantage (more rounds) in an emergency situation. And in an emergency situation where my life is on the line, and I have more than 1 aggressor, I don't want to be fair, I want to have the advantage.

Even with proper training, I know I will sometimes miss thus having more rounds gives me some room for error in an intense situation.

I know some people are extremely well-skilled and can do great with fewer rounds but I have yet to reach that level so there you go.

[alex0535]

Home defense is one of the big ones. It isn't always just one guy breaking into your home, sometimes its 3 or 5. These things just have a way of happening.

You have 5 guys and 7 rounds in the gun, you better hope your really good with whatever 7 rounds you have. Personally for a home defense weapon I want as many bullets ready to go as I can manage. 30 rounds of .223 and I like my odds a lot better against 5 people trying to do me harm. I don't want it to be a fair fight.

In any case I live in a fairly pro-gun state, and I don't think we will ever get to the sort of situation new york is in. This is a place where if you shoot a home invader, you did the right thing.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by randersonabq

My USGI 1911A1, for example, holds seven rounds. If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that?

Answer your own question. Why do you 'need' 7 rounds when a lot of people have 5-shot revolvers?

The premise of the question is that whatever the person who poses the question happens to want is automatically valid beyond question, but what others might want has to be justified in some way. It would be difficult to find a perspective on life that conveys a more self-centered and arrogant sense of personal entitlement.

[NWCP]

If more Americans were truly familiar with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers they would realize the true purpose of the Second Amendment. I own 5 and 10 round magazines for my AR15 rifles specifically for hunting. I am allowed to hunt with a semi automatic rifle, but am restricted to the number of rounds it can carry and be legal for taking game. I also own standard 30 round mags because that's what they were issued with. Most every hunting rifle made today is based on a previous, or current military design. That goes for all your bolt action rifles as well as semi autos. The same can be said for handguns. I own them because it is my right to do so. I collect military style rifles as well as older military rifles. All are legal and many have standard capacity magazines exceeding 10 rounds. I have no intention of surrendering my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so some politician can say they are doing something to stem gun violence. I strongly believe firearms should be kept in a gun safe and out of the hands of crazies and criminals of which I am neither.

[Verge]

I was going to start this with the statement that you sir are a fool however I found that opening judgmental in nature and probably something a Christian man should not do. I do not believe you are a fool but I do believe you are foolish to believe limiting the capacity of magazines will have any effect on the violent nature of the United States.

Are you aware that more Americans are killed with hammers every year than are killed with long guns? Are you aware a very small number of those killed with long guns are killed with "assault weapons" with high capacity magazines?

The recent killings are a tragedy for the nation but all of them have been carried out by people in the mental health system who legally should not have had any gun "assault weapon" or otherwise. Indeed, going back for years even to Columbine these are people known to someone to have mental health issues yet were not receiving adequate help or supervision. These people kill with no regard to victim or weapon, whether stabbing a family to death or burning them to death in their home or shooting children in their classroom.

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/inde...of_killin.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ng-west-family

Nobody would ask the federal government to ban hammers or register them or limit their weight or length because the hammers are not the problem. We should not be attempting to limit the rights of law abiding citizens with respect to what firearms they can own or how many cartridges they should be allowed to carry because the guns, magazines and cartridges are not the problem.

If you truly want to have an impact, lobby for a reexamination of the societal issues leading to these mental health problems and mental health system which is allowing mentally ill people to roam our streets killing our citizens with nary a care from our government until they do something like this. Then everyone wonders why and how this could happen and blames the guns or magazines and wants feel good legislation which will have zero to negligible impact because while it may make you feel good it does not address the problem.

[lcpiper]

Guys, do not try to rationalize with the anti-gunners. They will take every inch you give and then take another foot. they will find a way to twist every statement or fact you offer.

Don't reason with them and try to justify it with irrelevant issues like hunting, target shooting, or anything else.

The reason is simple. The 2nd amendment exists so that we possess the ability to fight for our freedoms if the need arises. And we are allowed weaponry with the ability to do so.

When they develop Hand-Phasers I want one of those too

[dahermit]

I cannot see the need to have high capacity magazines. My USGI 1911A1, for example, holds seven rounds. If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that? I have seen ads for a 100 round magazine for the Ruger 10/22- why?
(I know that this is an emotional issue but I would like to hear calm, reasonable responses about this issue.)

It is because the 2nd Amendment is about using guns for military, not sporting purposes. Those who think otherwise, miss the point.
In the event of war, a large capacity magazine in a military rifle is a requisite for establishing superiority of fire. The side with the superiority of fire will prevail on the battle field.
That is why we "need" them. Because all civilizations have eventually collapsed, been invaded and or, disappeared. It is not a matter of if that will happen to us, it is a matter of when.

[lcpiper]

dahermit, your statement is correct. Civilizations as defined don't usually last very long and although easy-listening history lessons try to cite the cause of most downfalls as the result of some grand military victory, like Rome falling to the hords after being weakened by decades of decadent revelry. The reality is that they more often simply slowly changed from one civilization into another new civilization.

They say the Romans became so powerful because of how they offered citizenship to the common man, a place in the civilization regardless of origin. I would say that the same thing combined with new peoples being accepted into the body but being allowed to keep their old cultural beliefs what did them in.

As long as America continues to not only respect, but actually accommodate other cultures we in essence create a situation of co-habitation. Multiple cultures living together, multiple religions living in harmony. It sounds great unless intolerance is allowed to take root. Then the apple cart is all upset. When one group can't respect another then we got a problem.

That's what we have now in America. We have groups who's beliefs are so polarized that they can't leave each other alone. No live and let live, no just get along. So now everything is about who can pass laws to force the others to do it their way.

America was born in freedom, but it is being destroyed in tyranny. It is happening slowly as it always does and when the point of balance shifts far enough then one good kick will send it falling.

At that point the most powerful war machine ever assembled will be in the hands of monsters and the world will again go to war.

[colbad]

Its not a question of need. If you are not a criminal and want to shoot hi cap mags why not.

Do you "need" a car that goes 100 miles per hour? I guarantee more people get killed by vehicles and alcohol than guns every year! Do I hear anyone wanting to ban cars or booze?

Its a slippery slope when your socialist president starts deciding what YOU need.

[DaleA]

Every time this comes up I wish we would instantly wave our hands in the air and yell:

All Right!!! Let's Play the "NOBODY NEEDS GAME"!!!!!

Jet ski's, snow ski's, sailboats, private airplanes, sports cars, college football, red meat, flower gardens, dogs, cats, pets...etc. etc.

Until the world is PERFECT you have to spend the time and money you would have spent on any of the above on making it PERFECT for EVERYBODY!

That's 'reasonable' and 'sensible' isn't it?

[lcpiper]

There absolutely is a need for a 30 round magazine such as a Glock or an AR-15 has.

The reason is to match the 30 round magazine that an M-4 has.

Never miss the point. The second amendment was written for one purpose. It was written so that the people of this nation would possess the ability to fight if necessary. That implies killing.

I would hope that prevailing in a conflict was implied and that symbolic gestures of resistance were not the full scope of their intent.

[coachteet]

Most firearms are designed to operate best with a certain style magazine. Like your 1911 and the 7 round mags. The high capacity magazines usually are more trouble than they are worth.

My Springfield Armory XDM 9mm uses 19 round magazines. It works flawlessly. My Yugoslavian AK-47 has never, ever misfired, had ejection issues or failed to feed the next round reliably using a 30rd Bulgarian surplus magazine. I have never once thought that high capacity magazines were any trouble at all. YMMV.