30rd Mags & Competition shooting??

l98ster · January 4, 2013, 09:24 AM

Hi everyone,

As you know, you cant turn on a TV or radio without someone saying "there is NO reason to ever have a hi cap magazine". Just yesterday, there was a congresswoman on Geraldo (770am in NY) that insisted on calling 30 rd mags "masacre mags". When asked why she calls them that, her reply was "the ONLY use for such capacity is to kill people".

Now, I am a regular USPSA/IDPA and 3 Gun competitor. If we were to ban hi cap magazines, there would be several classifications (open, Limited, etc...), that would seize to exsist.

My point is, there IS a lawful purpose for hi cap magazines. NOBODY has mentioned this at all!!

Im curious to see if USPSA has made an official statement on this matter!

-George

Gary L. Griffiths · January 4, 2013, 11:01 AM

Don't take me wrong, but the ability to compete in matches under current rules is laughably insignificant when talking about saving the lives of young children.

That's nothing I'd care to advance as an argument against the magazine-limit legislation. I would hang my hat on the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to promote marksmanship with military-type weapons, and the possession of "high-capacity" magazines giving citizens some degree of parity with soldiers of an invading nation, or our national government turned tyrannical.

Glenn E. Meyer · January 4, 2013, 11:17 AM

Exactly, the sports argument was used in Australia and the UK and no one gave a blah,blah about it.

The only defense for the 2nd Amend. is that having deadly weapons (not tools or sporting instruments) is crucial to our Republic's prevention of tyranny.

Jefferson did not say:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by going bowling or the right to shop at Home Depot.

johnwilliamson062 · January 4, 2013, 09:48 PM

The sports arguments is a trap many fall into. It won't work an in most cases hurts. When you agree to "sporting purposes" you agree to government control.
If swimming pools were filled with a chemical that was linked to cancer and would there be a chance in hell of stopping legislation to ban the chemical even if it meant most pools faced increased costs that would close them? No.
The right to self defense is a natural right, not a gift from the government.

johnbt · January 6, 2013, 12:31 PM

" but the ability to compete in matches under current rules is laughably insignificant when talking about saving the lives of young children."

And talking about mag capacity when school buses don't have seat belts or air bags for the students seems even more laughably insignificant.

www.safeguard4kids.com/faqs.htm

"California is the only state requiring lap-shoulder belts on new buses. New York, New Jersey and Florida require lap belts on new buses. Starting in 2010, all new buses purchased by Texas school districts will require lap-shoulder belts."

Webleymkv · January 6, 2013, 12:45 PM

The best defense for owning <10rd capacity magazines is that there is absolutely no guarantee that a violent attack can be brought to a halt with 10 rounds or less. If you need an example to use, consider that Michael Lee Platt had to be shot 12 times in order to bring his murderous rampage to an end during the 1986 Miami Dade shooting. Now, if one person, who was not under the influence of mind-altering chemicals, can require that many shots to stop them, how many might it take to stop someone who is drugged out of their mind or worse yet, a group of people with malice in their hearts? For someone trapped amidst the roving gangs that we saw during the Rodney King Riots or Hurrican Katrina, a "high capacity" magazine would be a very comforting thing to have.

Adamantium · January 6, 2013, 03:38 PM

I tell people I have a bill of rights not a bill of needs. I'm happy to explain what I use them for, but not why I need them.

PawPaw · January 6, 2013, 05:43 PM

Quote:

My point is, there IS a lawful purpose for hi cap magazines. NOBODY has mentioned this at all!!

How many times have I seen this "high-capacity" nonsense. Now, they've got y'all saying it.

Probably the very first magazine I was issued in the Army held 30 rounds. Yeah, occasionally I'd stumble onto a 20 round mag, but the vast, overwhelming majority were 30 round magazines. I actually like a 20 round mag better than the 30 round, but that isn't the point.

The 30 round magazine for the AR rifle is not "high capacity". It is a standard magazine.

dascottsman · January 6, 2013, 08:27 PM

The 30 round magazine for the AR rifle is not "high capacity". It is a standard magazine.

My thoughts exactly.....

I heard the term go from high cap while we were under the Clinton ban, but then it seemed to change to full capacity after the ban expired.....now we are back to high cap I guess.

If I remember correctly, the idea in a gun fight is to stay low, keep firing until the other guy stops firing back, and don't run out of ammo first.....

Webleymkv · January 6, 2013, 08:43 PM

Quote:

How many times have I seen this "high-capacity" nonsense. Now, they've got y'all saying it.

Probably the very first magazine I was issued in the Army held 30 rounds. Yeah, occasionally I'd stumble onto a 20 round mag, but the vast, overwhelming majority were 30 round magazines. I actually like a 20 round mag better than the 30 round, but that isn't the point.

The 30 round magazine for the AR rifle is not "high capacity". It is a standard magazine.

Hence the reason that I always put quotation marks around the words "high capacity" to differentiate the words of someone else from my own. That being said, I think the semantics fight is probably one we've already lost. When talking to someone not well versed in firearms terminology, going off on a tangent about "high capacity" vs. "standard capacity" is likely to lose their attention. Rather than debate semantics, I think it's more important to explain to the fence-sitters that magazines holding more than 10 rounds, regardless of what one calls them, do have a place in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

l98ster · January 7, 2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Don't take me wrong, but the ability to compete in matches under current rules is laughably insignificant when talking about saving the lives of young children

This would be very true, if in fact the ban of 30 round magazines would in fact save the lives of young children. I agree that using sports as an argument to keep 30 round magazines is not a strong argument. What we need to be concentrating on is our second amendment rights.

The reason for my post, was the fact that nobody recognizes a lawful purpose for a 30 round magazine. It seems as though the only place that anti-gunners and even people who are neutral on the subject get there information are from TV personalities who are the least educated when it comes to firearms.

RickB · January 7, 2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

there was a congresswoman on Geraldo (770am in NY) that insisted on calling 30 rd mags "masacre mags". When asked why she calls them that, her reply was "the ONLY use for such capacity is to kill people".

The 2A is to protect us from her, so how can we possibly allow her to take it away from us????
Do you have a henhouse? Would you make a deal with foxes to protect the hens?

January 4, 2013, 09:24 AM	#1
l98ster Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2010 Location: Hopewell Junction, NY Posts: 454	30rd Mags & Competition shooting?? Hi everyone, As you know, you cant turn on a TV or radio without someone saying "there is NO reason to ever have a hi cap magazine". Just yesterday, there was a congresswoman on Geraldo (770am in NY) that insisted on calling 30 rd mags "masacre mags". When asked why she calls them that, her reply was "the ONLY use for such capacity is to kill people". Now, I am a regular USPSA/IDPA and 3 Gun competitor. If we were to ban hi cap magazines, there would be several classifications (open, Limited, etc...), that would seize to exsist. My point is, there IS a lawful purpose for hi cap magazines. NOBODY has mentioned this at all!! Im curious to see if USPSA has made an official statement on this matter! -George

January 4, 2013, 11:01 AM	#2
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	Don't take me wrong, but the ability to compete in matches under current rules is laughably insignificant when talking about saving the lives of young children. That's nothing I'd care to advance as an argument against the magazine-limit legislation. I would hang my hat on the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to promote marksmanship with military-type weapons, and the possession of "high-capacity" magazines giving citizens some degree of parity with soldiers of an invading nation, or our national government turned tyrannical. __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

January 4, 2013, 11:17 AM	#3
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Exactly, the sports argument was used in Australia and the UK and no one gave a blah,blah about it. The only defense for the 2nd Amend. is that having deadly weapons (not tools or sporting instruments) is crucial to our Republic's prevention of tyranny. Jefferson did not say: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by going bowling or the right to shop at Home Depot. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 6, 2013, 03:38 PM	#7
Adamantium Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 1999 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 1,021	I tell people I have a bill of rights not a bill of needs. I'm happy to explain what I use them for, but not why I need them. __________________ New gun, same ol' shot.

January 4, 2013, 09:48 PM	#4
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	The sports arguments is a trap many fall into. It won't work an in most cases hurts. When you agree to "sporting purposes" you agree to government control. If swimming pools were filled with a chemical that was linked to cancer and would there be a chance in hell of stopping legislation to ban the chemical even if it meant most pools faced increased costs that would close them? No. The right to self defense is a natural right, not a gift from the government.

January 6, 2013, 12:31 PM	#5
johnbt Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Posts: 6,004	" but the ability to compete in matches under current rules is laughably insignificant when talking about saving the lives of young children." And talking about mag capacity when school buses don't have seat belts or air bags for the students seems even more laughably insignificant. www.safeguard4kids.com/faqs.htm "California is the only state requiring lap-shoulder belts on new buses. New York, New Jersey and Florida require lap belts on new buses. Starting in 2010, all new buses purchased by Texas school districts will require lap-shoulder belts."

January 6, 2013, 12:45 PM	#6
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	The best defense for owning <10rd capacity magazines is that there is absolutely no guarantee that a violent attack can be brought to a halt with 10 rounds or less. If you need an example to use, consider that Michael Lee Platt had to be shot 12 times in order to bring his murderous rampage to an end during the 1986 Miami Dade shooting. Now, if one person, who was not under the influence of mind-altering chemicals, can require that many shots to stop them, how many might it take to stop someone who is drugged out of their mind or worse yet, a group of people with malice in their hearts? For someone trapped amidst the roving gangs that we saw during the Rodney King Riots or Hurrican Katrina, a "high capacity" magazine would be a very comforting thing to have.

January 6, 2013, 08:27 PM	#9
dascottsman Senior Member Join Date: November 9, 2011 Location: colorado-a-fornia Posts: 111	The 30 round magazine for the AR rifle is not "high capacity". It is a standard magazine. My thoughts exactly..... I heard the term go from high cap while we were under the Clinton ban, but then it seemed to change to full capacity after the ban expired.....now we are back to high cap I guess. If I remember correctly, the idea in a gun fight is to stay low, keep firing until the other guy stops firing back, and don't run out of ammo first.....