The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 30, 2012, 11:32 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 2010
Posts: 241
Notice the op has not wrote back. Probably scared to write anything else lol.
freebird72 is offline  
Old July 31, 2012, 12:09 AM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
OK, you get to tell me what I can do and I get to tell you what you can do.

The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment, without it, you won't be able to tell anyone anything, your freedom of speech and thought will disappear.

And to top it off, the gangs and thugs will still have guns with high capacity magazines. So will the authorities, and they will not enter gangland, instead, they will enter your space.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 31, 2012, 05:49 PM   #28
Join Date: November 2, 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 70
Freebird's comment

No need for meanness and belittling comments. Common courtesy should be one of the hallmarks of this forum.
I raised a question for the sake of discussion. My feeling about high capacity magazines is of no consequence to the discussion.
randersonabq is offline  
Old July 31, 2012, 09:07 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 2010
Posts: 241
I was not belittling you, I was actually trying to come to your aid in the fact that most people who responded jumped on your case. I was saying you did not write back in fear of being ridiculed again.
freebird72 is offline  
Old July 31, 2012, 09:18 PM   #30
Junior Member
Join Date: July 5, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 9
One of the problems with a ban on high-capacity magazines is that it's tantamount to admitting that the firearm itself (or some component of it) is intrinsically responsible for potential bad acts. It might then stand to reason that if high-capacity magazines are thusly "evil", so are the weapons to which they are paired. If these weapons are also "evil" and in need of restrictions, why not all weapons?

Does anyone need them? A "well-organized militia" might make the argument in today's world. The bottom line, as others have said, is that "need" doesn't have a place in the conversation about whether or not their ownership is permissible.

Also, as others have said, there have been attacks which could have been worse had the attacker not used a high-capacity magazine that resulted in a malfunction.

I'm glad to see that folks on this forum can have a mature, civil discussion about a controversial issue such as this one.
CamTheWookie is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 07:37 AM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,647
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.)
Well don't buy them then. But don't you dare tell me I can't.

BTW if you have to deal with multiple home invaders, you may wish you had higher magazine capacity.
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 12:51 PM   #32
Join Date: June 4, 2012
Posts: 33
"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."

-- What if that object was a nuclear bomb? Something absolutely destructive? A plutonium warhead?

Sure, you may be a great person. You may be responsible. You may be a gentlemen but what about you nutty neighbor? Would you still feel the same way?
TimeRegained is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 12:58 PM   #33
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,723
That is a use of the exception proofs the rule technique. Before we go down that vein of whether I can have a tanker of nerve gas or a nuke, let's say we stay with magazine capacity for good ol' rifles and pistols.

The BOR are not a suicide pact and we don't have absolute freedom in many domains. But, let's stick to hi-caps.


NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 2, 2012, 10:27 PM   #34
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,511
Generally speaking, when it come to "protection" of any kind.. self defense, security, fire, etc.. Its not about what you need but rather what you may need. What you may need in sitations that are considered to be "reasonably possible" in relation to the subject matter threat.

What a person may need should be determined by the individual' in their specific situation. I dont think that it is prudent for someone else to determine that for me.

I carry a 5 shot Jframe.. not because I dont want more rounds but because its what fits me in my particular environment and its what Im used to. My home defense handgun is a 19+1 Springfield XDM.
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old August 2, 2012, 11:33 PM   #35
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,246
Framing the argument....

First off, why do we continue to use the framework of the right deniers?


They always demand for us to explain why we have a need for this, or that. They demand that we justify ourselves to them. That assumes that THEY have both the right and the power to decide, for US what we should be allowed to have, based on our convincing them of a need.

This automatically places us on the defensive, a weaker position in the argument. As a mild reminder, there is a line in one of those old, musty "outmoded" documents that refers to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Nothing in that one about having to justify a need.....

in fact, it has been reported (although seldom lately) that early drafts of that document used the phrase "pursuit of property" or "posession of property"....

I have a couple of guns with a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine of 100rnds. That's the way the factory made them.

Since we already have laws that say you cannot shoot people for fun and profit (and these are routinely broken) what possible good can laws limiting any physical features of a firearm do? Nothing but annoy the people who want such things but would never break the law.

I consider telling me I cannot do or have a thing, because someone else might do somthing bad with it to be a prior restraint on my rights (that pesky pursuit of happiness thing), as well as treating me like a child that is incapable of making a good decision.

How odd it is that these same people who actively treat us as incapable of making important decisions are completely willing to accept our decisions as rational and valid, when it is a vote to put them in office.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 3, 2012, 12:39 AM   #36
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,354
Given the option of more ammo capacity vs less, I would always opt for more ammo!

That, and you don't have to reload so much. Why do our service men carry 30-rd mags when they used to carry only 10 or 20?
Justice06RR is offline  
Old August 3, 2012, 06:06 AM   #37
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2011
Posts: 147
Keep in mind that in both recent mass-murders where high-cap magazines were used, the killer was forced to stop/pause for several seconds due to failures.

In Arizona, that Jared creep was stopped because his high-capacity Glock magazine caused a failure. In Colorado, police found the front of the theater littered with unused .223 rounds, and noticed that the drum mag had failed, causing the shooter to cycle through several rounds in an attempt to get it going again.

I wouldn't trust my life to the cheap junk that is often sold as novelty "high capacity" items.

I have a feeling that quality high-capacity drum magazines go for a pretty penny, and that gun collectors who know what they've got aren't about to sell them to Johnny on the street, simply because of investment purposes. And Johnny on the street isn't going to pay for quality.
baccusboy is offline  
Old August 4, 2012, 03:46 PM   #38
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,167
Let me start by saying that most of the guns that I own and use on a regular basis have a magazine capacity of less than 10 rounds and that for most of my needs, that is plenty. I do, however, own a couple of guns that have "high-capacity" magazines (CZ-75 and 922r-converted Saiga .223) and, under certain circumstances, they can be my preferred firearms.

While I live in a rather low-risk area and try to live a low-risk lifestyle, I do sometimes have to venture into areas that are not so low-risk. In certain parts of large cities where gang-activity is not uncommon, the 17+1 that my CZ-75 holds is much more comforting than my revolvers or single-stack semi-autos.

Likewise, the Saiga is my dual-purpose home defense/wait-out-the-crisis rifle. Four years ago, the town in which I live flooded and much of it was cut off from the outside world for a couple of days. While the police, fire department, hospital, and even National Guard (there is a large military base just to the north) did the best they could, the flood happened so fast and was so devastating that they were simply overwhelmed and we did have some looting problems (though thankfully there were no acts of violence). This made me think that, should a similar natural disaster occur and take more than a couple of days to resolve (such as what we saw with Hurrican Katrina), help might be simply unable to reach me and my family and a high-capacity firearm would be a very nice thing to have should I need to defend myself for an indefinite amount of time.

More to the point, however, my ownership of high-capacity magazines and firearms hurts no one that doesn't already intend to do evil upon me and my loved ones. That being the case, I fail to see why someone who does not know me, my situation, or my wants and needs should get to tell me how many rounds my gun can hold.

Even more to the point, I've watched the tactics of gun-banners long enough to realize that they would not be satisfied simply by banning high-capacity magazines. Various figures within the anti-gun movement have admitted over the years that their ultimate goal is a total ban of all privately owned firearms (such as Dianne Feinstein's infamous "Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America" comment), but because that's too big a pill to swallow at once they instead try to chip away at our rights a little at a time. The goal of this strategy is to zero in on small minorities within the gun-owning community thereby dwindling its numbers until the gun-owning community itself is a small minority. At that point, the gun-owning community would be too small to stop whatever draconian regulations the gun-banners wish to impose upon them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "we must all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately."
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 August 4, 2012, 06:04 PM   #39
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,328
My USGI 1911A1, for example, holds seven rounds. If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that?
A capable marksman should be able to make do with 1 shot no?

So why not just a single shot?
No brass. No ammo.
checkmyswag is offline  
Old August 4, 2012, 06:32 PM   #40
Senior Member
Join Date: September 1, 1999
Location: IL
Posts: 293
To the original poster. To raise this question, at this time, is to many people an obvious troll attempt. Maybe your next question, for discussion, can be about how nobody "needs" a semi-automatic gun.

Now, this may not be your intention, but that is how it comes across. With the antis in full force across the land, along with their pet MSM leading the way as usual, it smacks of trolling.

It would be like going to say, Democratic Underground, and raising similar questions about hot button items, "simply for discussion". Say, about a certain birth certificate, for example.

And as many have said, we have standard capacity magazines, because that is what they actually are, because we want them.
PoiDog is offline  
Old August 4, 2012, 06:46 PM   #41
Join Date: November 2, 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 70

No troll attempt was intended. But I think that we need to have thought through our attitudes and arguments in favor of hi-cap magazines specifically BECAUSE of what happened in Colorado. There is going to be an outcry against them so it is in our interest to have begun to think about our response.
Remember when you were a Boy Scout that the motto was Be Prepared?
I was writing as a Devil's Advocate, not as a troller.
I do in fact have several hi-cap mags myself. My real problem with them is more feed failures than capacity.
I apologize to any I have offended.
randersonabq is offline  
Old August 4, 2012, 08:42 PM   #42
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2011
Location: WV
Posts: 871
Only a handful of my guns take removable magazines, but their capacity's range in my set of guns from 2+1 with my Marlin Goose Gun, 10+1 with a Remington 597, 15+1 with my Baby Eagle, and I have 30+1 and a 75+1 drum for my AK pistol.
I understand that we for the most part only need single shots, and I do own a few, but I also understand what alot of bullets can do. And regardless, last time I checked I don't have to explain myself to somebody. I do many many things and have no detailed reasoning why I do such things. I have obsessions with many things and owning them, no need to explain myself. Just because someone believes everyone never needs anything more than a 1911 doesn't mean they are right. And they have the right and freedom to that, as do I with my beliefs.
WV_gunner is offline  
Old August 5, 2012, 12:08 AM   #43
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2006
Posts: 134
I do in fact have several hi-cap mags myself. My real problem with them is more feed failures than capacity.
I apologize to any I have offended.
Depends on what you consider a "high capacity" magazine. The Glock 17's 17 round magazine holds a lot more than your 1911 but is basically considered the pinnacle of reliability when it comes to handguns.

Now admittedly there are a lot of ultra-cheap gimmicky AR15 and 10/22 drums and such out there ('course there are some quality ones too), but in modern times 15-20 rounds has basically become "standard" capacity when it comes to handguns, and guns that carry that many certainly don't exhibit any undue reliability issues.

In particular I think that's why the anti's focus on banning anything over 10 rounds raises so many eyebrows. They got it once back in 1994 and they want that same 10-round limit again, but back in 1994 when revolvers and 1911's were more commonplace 10 rounds sounded more reasonable. Fast forward to today and the insistence that anything over 10 is excessive is laughable. It'd be as if they proposed that all cars be chipped to not drive over the "excessive" speed of 25 mph.

In a way I'm kinda glad they keep shooting for that though. Honestly we'd have a lot harder time fighting a cap on capacity to something like 20 rounds.
MGMorden is offline  
Old August 5, 2012, 02:00 AM   #44
Terry A
Senior Member
Join Date: December 27, 2008
Location: Washington, Pa
Posts: 757
July 29, 2012, 10:52 PM #13
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member

Join Date: June 13, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,115 Quote:
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.

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.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; July 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM.
This was a great post in a thread that had many other great replies.

Personally speaking, I debate this with one of my brothers all the time. He's a wheel gunner. I'm a double stack semi afficionado.

I remember back in the day when I was in police work, from 1981 until 1985, we were mandated to carry any .357 mag as long as we qualified with it. I started with a S&W 19, then got a S&W 66 and then a Ruger GP100.

And then, after BEGGING our chief, writing reports on other departments that switched to semis and taking him out for testing, he finally gave the ok for us to switch to semis in 1985 IF we wanted to. All but the 3 oldest members of our department switched. A few years later, semis were mandatory. The 3 revolver men were "intimidated", to say the least, with the semis.

THE primary reason I loved them was simple.....available firepower. Not the spray and pray type of firepower. The firepower needed for a Platt and Matix type encounter.

Yes, the odds are SLIM that you'll need that in LE, however, nobody can PROVE you won't need that kind of ammo at some point.

I got so used to carrying that type of pistol that even when I retired in early 2011, they're still my 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice for a carry or home defense pistol.

A quick note on civilians and high capacity. I'm just an regular retired guy, no longer an officer. But I have found out that I've either become so comfortable with carrying the high capacity 40's and 45's that when I carry a slim stack, I just don't feel like I'm "ready". I know that's not the right way to put it, but it's honestly how I feel.

And last but not least, the old stand by....."It's better to have the extra ammo and not need it than to need it and not have it."
2 Thes 3:16 "Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all! "
Terry A is offline  
Old August 5, 2012, 01:39 PM   #45
Willie Sutton
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
"In Arizona, that Jared creep was stopped because his high-capacity Glock magazine caused a failure. In Colorado, police found the front of the theater littered with unused .223 rounds, and noticed that the drum mag had failed, causing the shooter to cycle through several rounds in an attempt to get it going again."

Maybe the law should REQUIRE aftermarket extended mags and "rely on their unreliability" as a safety feature...


Willie Sutton is offline  
Old August 6, 2012, 09:16 AM   #46
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 804
What 44AMP wrote should be printed as an appendix to the BOR; We should not have to justify NEED to exercise a right. I don't need Free Speech because I seldom exercise it, but it is nice to know that it is my right if I want to use it. And I'm darned tired of the Nanny State, particularly of it's President Bloomberg and his mouth.

I don't NEED hi-caps to shoot, but they sure make it more enjoyable because I hate to waste time reloading magazines at the range. Nothing irks me more than, say, a 22 rifle with a 5 round magazine...takes about 2 seconds to go through it. The 10/22 10 round mags are bad enough. If limited to 10 rounds I'm going to buy a whole lot of mags for range time.
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old August 9, 2012, 09:24 AM   #47
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,529
I live in an area prone to hurricanes. We saw what happened to the business owners of New Orleans during a natural disaster. Is a 7-round handgun going to help me defend my property and family against a crazed mob? No. I have a right to have and use enough firepower to resist a crazed mob trying to destroy me, my family and my property during such an event.

There are many areas in this country that are prone to hurricanes, horrific tornadoes, blizzards, floods, tsunamis, earth quakes, and other natural disasters. With "global warming" the occurrence of these things will be happening with far more frequency....(so we are told by those who don't want us to have guns). Over 20% of this nation are unemployed. The FBI has many terrorist groups inside our nation on their "watch list" - I'm sure even the Southern Poverty Law Center will agree with this.

Do you think we should all become victims to those who would take advantage of any natural disaster, killing, butchering, rioting and stealing just to get "free stuff"? Where were the police in New Orleans? The police chief lied - they didn't exist and couldn't protect anyone from anything!
Skans is offline  
Old August 9, 2012, 01:04 PM   #48
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
I think it breaks into several parts. Lets start with who needs what?

How do you shoot a 10-round group with a 7-shot magazine?

If I go squirrel hunting on a camping trip in the woods for several days (which I’ve done) a single 25 round magazine is easier than 2 10-rounders & a reload in deep leaf litter.

I shoot in steel plate matches where there are several plates at 100, 200, 300, 400,500, & 600 Yds. The object of the match is to drop them all faster than the other shooter. Trust me on this you’ll want more than 7 rounds for that kind of shooting, I frequently use 5 X 20 round ones, if they weren’t so long I’d be using 30’s!

Using dueling post targets the match lasts longer with bigger magazine capacities.

I’d say there’s a need there. Maybe you don’t feel a need but others who do different things might & it not just about your needs.

Next I’d ask why is the need even relevant?
I know of no reason why a need is mandatory; sometimes a want is what is the driving force is made up of. The fun of making a foam ball target bounce about for 25 rounds is more entertaining than having to stop after 5, that’s reason enough for me, I don’t NEED to do it, but I do enjoy doing it.
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old August 9, 2012, 02:06 PM   #49
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 509
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?
(I know that this is an emotional issue but I would like to hear calm, reasonable responses about this issue.)
Just because you see no need for "high capacity" magazines does not mean that none exists.

You are arguing from an unsupported conclusion (I cannot see the need to have high capacity magazines.), an unsound basis at best and any conclusions based upon it (If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that?) will be equally faulty.

Your question, "If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that?" suggests on its face, that you have an incomplete understanding of what can go wrong during a gunfight; the innumerable, darned near infinite variables that can arise, and the fact that although you may be a really great marksman, your abilities will be lessened under the life-threatening stress of such an event in spite of how good you are on a static non-threatening range.

Your statement also suggests that you haven't thought of encounters that will involve more than one assailant or that each one may require multiple shots to incapacitate them. If you truly believe that you can handle all of these contingencies and all of those unanticipated variables with just one magazine filled with 7 rounds of .45 ammo, you are either extremely gifted or fooling no one but yourself- you'll need to decide for yourself, which that is.
My favorite "gun" book -

481 is offline  
Old August 9, 2012, 03:56 PM   #50
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 466
I've had to deal with the "why isn't this a reasonable limitation" argument on occasion. The best of those conversations typically goes something like this:

Me: Would you say that is a reasonable limitation to apply to the police?
They: Of course not! They have to deal with bad guys on the street!
Me: Exactly...

Might not be the perfect approach, but it's one that at least gets some people thinking...
NRA Life Member
Fargazer is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 01:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14990 seconds with 7 queries