[Ralgha]

I don't believe I've seen this particular argument crop up here before. Before I throw it in a letter to politicians, I thought I'd run it by here and see what people think. Tell me if it's good, bad, crazy, stupid, whatever. It's only a draft, don't worry about grammar, I'm just after thoughts on the idea itself.

Originally Posted by My Idea

Let's assume that the criminal will abide by a 10 round limit on magazines, so instead of one 30 round magazine that he would prefer, he brings 3 10 round magazines. There is an unexpected benefit to the criminal in doing this. The weakest point of most guns is the magazine itself, most malfunctions can be attributed to the magazine, it's so common that one of the first things you do when faced with a malfunction is switch magazines.

Let's look at a mass shooting scenario with a magazine malfunction. In a place with no magazine capacity limits, the shooting only brought one magazine with 30 rounds in it. After firing one shot, it jams, the magazine has malfunctioned. He doesn't have another one to use, so it's over.

Now, take the same situation in a place with a 10 round limit (and assume that the criminal followed this law), the criminal would have 3 10 round magazines. The first one malfunctions after the first shot, but now he has two more with him as a direct result of the 10 round limit law. He simply swaps out magazines and resumes his shooting spree, down only 9 bullets instead of 29.

So what do you think? Obviously it would need editing and such, but how's the idea itself? Factual problems? Is the whole thing just a bad idea that I'm not seeing?