High capacity magazines

[randersonabq]

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.)

[TheGunGuy]

Honestly... Because I can.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

[BarryLee]

Two primary reasons:

I feel we should be free to own items we choose to own. The right to own an object should be regulated based on my behavior not some else’s.

Secondly, from a more practical standpoint large magazines are excellent for range use. I generally shoot at indoor ranges where I am forced to pay for range time. I would prefer to spend my time shooting instead of loading magazines

Also, how would you feel if I said, “I see no reason for anyone to own a .45 caliber handgun. I personally own a 9mm and feel it is all anyone needs.”?

[ScottRiqui]

Well, there are (at least) two issues to address here:

1) How you do say what capacity is "enough"? Enough for whom? In what situation? I can't think of any objective criteria that allows you to draw a bright line saying "this is okay, while that is 'too much'".

2) Not everything has a 'why' associated with it. And we can't get in the habit of trying to justify our choices to anyone else, because even attempting to do so lends credence to the idea that we should *have to* justify our decisions.

[Hiker 1]

There are plenty of folks who do not see the need at all for civilian firearm ownership.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The question of need is contrary to freedom.

A great many people don't need cars at all.

No one needs a 500hp sports car.

No one really needs a 50mpg hybrid.

No one needs a motorcycle.

No one needs power tools.

No one needs an Xbox 360.

No one needs internet access. Remember way back, like 15 years ago, when no one had it?

No one needs a cell phone.

No one needs to be an atheist, or Christian, or Muslim.

No one I know has ever "needed" a firearm of any kind or capacity.

The question is one of freedom, not need.

[rgrundy]

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.

[Apple a Day]

... and the next guy to come along will say that he has lots of fun with his single shot pistol so no one needs anything more than that. Then some blackpowder shooter comes along and says that no one needs one of those brass cartridge things because he can load and shoot just fine without it...
The only 'necessity' the Second Amendment mentions is a militia, not how many rounds they can load or carry.

It takes less than a second to drop a mag and reload. Neutered magazine capacity won't stop someone from doing a mass shooting. You really think some nutjob will be driving to a theater and stop, then decide to go back home because he can only shoot seven or ten people at a time before he has to pause to reload? Absurd.

[rgrundy]

Apple you are right about the nut jobs and they usually pick the high cap magazines which many times malfunction (like in colorado) and save lives which is a blessing.

[Tom Matiska]

I remember the 1977 blackout in NYC when civilization went "out like a light". I was stationed below Miami(Homestead) in the aftermath of the 1980 Liberty City race riots when an officer told me to drive back to the base on the rim and don't risk my life changing a tire. ...also a near riot situation after Hurricane Andrew.... revolver on the nightstand is adequate for routine HD, but sometimes more stuff hits the fan than a 5 shot revolver can handle.

[FrosSsT]

No one needs an Xbox 360.

....how dare you

[teeroux]

Apple you are right about the nut jobs and they usually pick the high cap magazines which many times malfunction (like in colorado) and save lives which is a blessing.

Firearms are the first thing demonized by the media and politicians but they are actually poor tools for the task of killing lots of folks. Curse me for it but luckily the nut jobs use firearms in most cases. Places with strict gun control usually have a much higher bombing rates and higher casualties/greater property destruction to go with it. Some of this nations worst acts of terrorism weren't commited with firearms and in 1 infamous case that was a little over a decade ago wasn't even a bombing.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by randersonabq

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?

A capable marksman? The officer in this story was a veteran SWAT trained officer. He fired 36 of the 40 rounds he was carrying, achieving 14 hits, only 5 of which had the possibility of stopping the fight. All of this to stop just ONE assailant. If you find this guy in your living room at 2am - how many rounds do you want?

So what can we learn from this as it relates to "high" capacity debate?

1. Marksmanship - this officer was a veteran officer and SWAT trained. He averaged almost 50% hits in the adrenaline charged moment of saving his life. That places him far above the average LAPD/NYPD officer who averages only 28-33% hit rate in shootings. If you shoot as well as this officer, you may land 3 hits out of your entire magazine. If you shoot as well as the average police officer, you may land only two hits.

2. A gun, especially a pistol, is not a death ray. It isn't unusual for someone to be shot, even multiple times, and still continue to function. In this case, out of 14 hits, only 5 could have caused a physiological stop and 2 of those 5 would have allowed the assailant enough time to possibly kill the officer. So roughly 1/3 of the hits made were effective. If you get that lucky, you'll need 3 hits to get one hit that may force your attacker to stop 12-15 seconds later.

3. The majority of criminal assaults involve more than one attacker. JohnKSa has done a nice probability analysis that shows a 10rd magazine gives you about a 50% chance of winning a gunfight with two attackers.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495800

Of course, none of that is relevant to Aurora. Giving that person 10 ten round magazines is just as much of a problem as him having a 100rd magazine, probably more since the 10rd mag is actually reliable. Not to mention the entire idea that law-abiding citizens should be treated as potential lunatics. There is no safe amount of ammo you can give to a mass murderer. There is no safe magazine for a murderer.

And lets face it, from a practical perspective, you couldn't get rid of them if you wanted to. Detachable magazines with more than 10 rounds date back to the early 1900s. There are probably hundreds of millions of untraceable "high capacity" magazines out there.

[Bud Helms]

No one needs a motorcycle.

[freebird72]

"No one needs a 500hp sports car."
-1

Brian Pfleuger, what kind of monster are you? Do you know how many hearts you have destroyed with such talk? I have virgin eyes sir, I can not un-see what I have just read. You sir shall be hearing from my lawyer.

I say good day to you.

[Sparks1957]

The question of need is contrary to freedom.
A great many people don't need ___ at all.

So, because the OP's friend has opined that 7 rounds is "enough", the rest of are supposed to just accept that and surrender? Ridiculous

[BlueTrain]

Do you have a second magazine for your USGI 1911A1? If so, why?

While I agree that no one needs a high capacity magazine, they're handy so that you don't need to carry a second magazine.

[MTSCMike]

Needs:

Food, water, shelter

All else:

Wants

What we don't need are fellow shooters who would support useless, knee jerk, feel good legislation that would affect other shooters just because they don't happen to use those particular firearms and therefore see no "need" for them.

The more our own Government feels the "need" to restrict firearms ownership and use, the more we "need" these types of firearms. History...learn it...know it...don't repeat it.

[jmr40]

I don't much see the need for "high capacity" magazines either. It is the "reduced capacity" magazines have a problem with. My 1911's came with either 7 or 8 round mags, don't force m to use 6 round magazines. Same with my Glock that was designed with a "standard capacity" 17 round mgazine. Don't force me to use a "reduced capacity" 10 round magazine. Or my AR that came from the factroy with "standard capacity" 30 round magazines.

[radom]

I would say as we have a Bill Of Rights. Not a Bill Of Needs.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Lock up the baby formula. So says Mayor Bloomberg, today.

We need motorcyles as they are the greatest producer of hearts for transplants.

Hunting can be done with single shot rifles or two round shotguns.

Sporting use is not the issue. Perhaps average SD situations - one mugger be gone could be handled with just a Model 10. But some can't. The defense against tyranny and genocide can't. That's the answer.

No hi-caps, no big gulps, no baby formula. Let a short little rich man decide your life.

[Kreyzhorse]

I have large capacity mags because I enjoy them. That is reason enough. I don't believe that some person should tell me I don't need a large Coke or that my wife must breast feed.

When you open the door for someone to tell you what you need based on a arbitrary number, you open the door for someone to make even more decisions for you. Answer the following questions and you will under stand why I have some high capacity mags.

Why do you need a gun that allows you to fire seven shots without reloading?

Why do you need a military style, semi auto assault pistol? That is your 1911 by the way......

Why do you need a gun that fires a military cartridge?

If you allow a person to restrict your choices based on what they want you to have, your choices are going to become fewer and fewer. Don't think that the person who says you can't have a 100 round, or 11 round mag, won't tell you that you can't have your 1911 based on the questions I posed above.

[Sparks1957]

No hi-caps, no big gulps, no baby formula. Let a short little rich man decide your life

Well said, Glenn. Since when does this little twerp get to weigh on on every little detail of peoples' lives? What an arrogant and dangerous attitude.

[carguychris]

I take issue with the arbitrary political definition of what constitutes a so-called "high" capacity magazine, i.e. greater than 10rds.

In my opinion, the magazine a firearm was originally designed to accept is properly termed a standard-capacity magazine. For my M&P9 full-size, this is a 17rd mag. For a M1911, it's 7rds, although 8rds fit in virtually the same size mag. (Same basic concept applies to my S&W M3904, which was designed for an 8rd mag, but a 9rd M952 mag is the same size and works equally well.)

If a political jurisdiction arbitrarily decides to require a smaller mag, it is properly called a reduced-capacity mag.

If any mag can properly be called "high-capacity", it's one that's significantly larger than a standard-capacity mag, and projects much farther than normal from the gun. This applies to mags such as the DWM Luger "Trommelmagazin" drum mag, the G18 33rd mag, and various AR/AK drum mags. However, just because these mags are supposedly "high-capacity" does not necessarily justify restricting ownership of them.

[Master Blaster 2]

I think because USGI 1911A1s say US Property and they should all be returned to the Government.