If you go to some of the anti gun sites-such as the Giffords Gun banners or the Bloomberg astro turf gun banning organizations, they all claim that banning normal capacity magazines will prevent mass shooters from killing more people because the killers will have to reload (2 seconds or so). While this sounds good to ignorant people, anyone who understand criminal activity and has studied mass shootings (such as Las Vegas or SandyHook) realizes how incredibly stupid this claim is. It also ignores the very real differences between premeditated attackers and those forced to defend in a moment's notice 1. banning the sale of normal capacity magazines will not deprive killers of them there are millions upon millions of normal capacity magazines in circulation. They are easily available now and most serious shooters have dozens for each gun. They will last for decades and are easily repaired 2. Making it a felony to possess currently legal magazines has no impact on criminals criminals already violate numerous federal and state laws by merely obtaining, possessing and using firearms. the only people affected are those who legally own firearms and would b afraid to use a normal capacity magazine for self defense. 3. magazine bans favors attackers over defenders. By definition, lawful citizens are not attackers. It is invariably illegal to initiate an attack upon another citizen with a deadly weapon. Even if someone has robbed or raped you in the past-you may not start shooting at him at a later date. Attackers, by definition, initiate an attack and usually prepare for it. The Las Vegas killer-planned his massacre for at least a year. He had 12 different rifles. Felons-undeterred by laws severely punishing their crimes-including mere possession of firearms, are clearly not going to be deterred by using banned magazines. A defender usually does not have time to prepare extensively for an attack. Few homeowners have much notice that their home is being invaded-the same with shop keepers. Maybe they have a few minutes when a dog starts barking or a minute when the alarm goes off. Most of the time, defenders do not have time to fill their perhaps non-existent (at the time of a break in) clothing with extra magazines or additional firearms. Often time they can only grab a weapon and are limited to the rounds in that firearm. A magazine ban ONLY harms lawful defenders. So the next time one of the liars from Giffords, Brady or the other victim disarmament movement claim magazine bans will stop or limit mass killings-think it through. In the SandyHook massacre or the recent one in texas, the killer had at least a half hour to shoot defenseless children. Lanza could have killed as many kids-with the time he had with them in a classroom that they could not escape-with a couple revolvers or a sword. Paddock, shooting from cover with 12 rifles would have been no less deadly if those rifles were all limited to 11 shots each, And again, if someone is willing to commit mass murder, why are they going to obey a magazine limit?
There are approximately 20,000 gun laws on the books across this nation. But the geniuses that be, think that adding more laws is going to fix something when we don't enforce laws we already have like making it illegal to shoot someone for no good reason. If we make guns illegal no one will get shot anymore. . That's how we stopped people from doing drugs..
the entire purpose of magazine bans is to harass lawful owners and try to whittle away on what firearms people can own. It has nothing to do with mass shootings, no matter how many times the scumbags in office and who work for the "safe working conditions for criminals" lobby say so
High-capacity magazines allow shooters to fire a large number of rounds in a short amount of time without having to stop and reload, which can result in more casualties and injuries. By limiting the number of rounds a shooter can fire without having to reload, a ban on high-capacity magazines can give potential victims more time to escape or seek cover and can also give law enforcement time to respond and intervene.
except it doesn’t work that way at all. That ban has done nothing to stop any shooters from engaging multiple targets, it’s masterbatory.
In reality, however it doesn't work that way. And it in no way changes the fact such bans violate the constitution.
The freedom to use a gun is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable regulation. A limit on magazine size is a reasonable regulation aimed at promoting public safety. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that states with limits on magazine size had fewer casualties in mass shootings compared to states without such limits. "The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher. In multivariate analyses, states without an LCM ban experienced significantly more high-fatality mass shootings and a higher death rate from such incidents." https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311
Mass shooters can be stopped when reloading: The more often they have to reload the more opportunities for bystanders to stop them. Jared Lee Loughner was stopped from reloading during the Tucson shooting by two brave bystanders, Patricia Maisch and Roger Sulzgeber. Maisch tackled Loughner and knocked a magazine out of his hand, while Sulzgeber helped subdue him until police arrived.
there’s no point in punishing .001% of gun owners because of something that MIGHT happen. so far the mag bans have done nothing. Do can drive an hour from Cali and buy any capacity mag you want. because no one can guarantee 10 rounds is enough.
tell us how a magazine ban will impede someone who is also breaking several other laws by using a gun that accepts a normal capacity magazine . and you obviously prove you know nothing about shooting
where do you come up with this nonsense. many premeditated mass murderers have several guns or are in closed rooms where their victims cannot escape. tell me why a magazine ban won't hurt honest people
False. The USSC threw out "reasonable regulation" in Bruen: n Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. And thus, the right to keep and bear arms is subject only to regulation "consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation". See above. Demonstrate that a limit on magazine size is "consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation"
In reality, however it doesn't work that way. Pulse nightclub. One shooter. 300 people. Several mag changes. No one did anything.
given magazine bans are far more likely to harm innocent defenders than premeditated attackers, such laws don't even meet a rational basis test
With a little practice one can reload a new mag within 2 seconds. Virginia Tech mass shooting resulted in 32 killed and 17 wounded and the shooter had ten round mags.
I am curious to know how many people ended up dead because they had a ten round mag instead of a 15 or 17 round mag. And no, asking that question doesn’t mean I support mag capacity bans because I don’t. I disagree with mag cap bans. I don’t agree with mag cap bans. I’m against mag cap bans.
I don't know. but every civilian police department I can think of in my state issues 15 to 17 round magazines. Same with every federal agency I have worked with. I think that is a pretty good argument that they might one day need it.
yeah and in southern Ohio, a state trooper (and in Ohio, that agency usually posts the highest qualification scores on the OPOTA qualification course)got into a close range gun fight with a mope and lots of rounds were fired-no hits. I will see if I can track down that video. But there is no valid reason to tell an honest gun owner he cannot have a normal capacity magazine since we know the criminals will.
