This might be the best summary of the myth that premeditated killers will be thwarted by a magazine ban (as if they would follow one) https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/20/how-magazine-bans-thwart-self-defense/ gun banners usually claim that magazine changes allow victims to escape. YET A study of all U.S. mass shootings 1994-2013 in which shooters used semiautomatic firearms and detachable magazines, found only one case, Tucson 2011, where the shooter may have been tackled by bystanders while swapping magazines. Gary Kleck, Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages, 17 Just. Res. & Pol'y 28 (2016). As Kleck noted, eyewitness reports conflicted about whether the Tucson shooter was trying to reload or his gun jammed. Id. at 39–40. In addition to being blatantly unconstitutional, magazine bans-like most left wing schemes involving "firearms safety" are designed to harm lawful owners or clearly will have that intended effect
I thank you, once again, for reminding me about all the silly falderal about guns in blue states. Here in my state we have none of that... no waiting periods, no magazine capacity restrictions, no registration, no training requirements, no permits, no background checks for ammo purchases (just for gun purchases)... "Constitutional Carry" here and declaration of our state as a "sanctuary state" for the Second Amendment. Thanks for reminding me! TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!
Magazine bans are just a step in the "boil the frog" strategy. California has a roster of firearms that are legal to buy. For every new gun added to the roster, 3 must be removed. Im sure you can see where that is going.
You oppose a ban. Who would have thunked it about you? Maybe you could provide us a list of the gun/ bullet/ magazine bans that you do support and a list of those you don't, so we see a fine nuanced and subtle mind at work rather than a biased, kneejerk and closed mind which just looks for a rationale to do what it wanted all along.
I don't support banning any magazines-it is a stupid idea and unconstitutional. why don't you tell us what you want to ban and why that will deter people who aren't concerned about the consequences of committing mass murder No firearms should be banned-by that I mean a hand held individual weapon firing an inert projectile under 3/4 inch in diameter or smaller I don't support any bullet bans either though I do support banning the use of incendiary projectiles in areas where forest fires are a concern. you see if you think the government has the power to ban 40 round magazines then you also think it has the power to ban 20 round magazines same with firearms
How about telling us what sort of bans you support-we know you support lots of restrictions on lawful gun owners so why not tell us?
"Between 1990 and 2017, there were 69 high-fatality mass shootings. Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. 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
"The 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, AZ, where six people were killed and 13 others were wounded, including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was interrupted when the gunman stopped to reload his weapon and was tackled by a bystander. Similarly, during the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, students were able to escape down a stairwell while the shooter paused to reload his weapon." https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/large-capacity-magazines/ Do the cons of large capacity magazines outweigh the pros? I can't think of any pros except for maybe shooting being a little bit more convenient at the gun range.
wow one case. let's think this through 1) people planning on committing mass murders don't obey magazine limits 2) people planning mass murders generally have plenty of magazines or maybe two guns 3) people responding to an attack rarely have time to arm themselves with extra magazines duh
https://www.cato.org/legal-policy-b...mpty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions Unlike mass murderers, who usually spend weeks or months planning their crimes and anticipate the need for spare magazines,52 people who use guns defensively rarely carry spares. This decreases the efficacy of guns in defensive situations, making their effectiveness even more a function of the would‐be victim’s skill. A 5- or 10‐round magazine could severely limit the ability of crime victims to defend themselves, especially against multiple assailants. Firearms are effective for self‐defense because they are “the great equalizer,” but putting law‐abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals is likely to result in more victims. Effective self‐defense should not be available only to those who are skilled and physically capable. gun banners often intend that honest people are handicapped because honest people are the real targets of gun banners. While some might not intend that, it's a price they are willing to pay so as to advance their jihad against gun rights and lawful ownership
Least Common Machinegun? Lowest Current Manipulator? Loudest Constricted Mocambo? What the heck is LCM?
probably the fictional creature that exists only in the minds of gun banners Large Capacity Magazine.
I don't agree with such bans either, but the idea behind 30-40 round magazine is that you can keep firing without reloading. Which has more firepower, a bolt action Mauser rifle with 5 round clip, or AR15 with 40 round magazine? The answer is obvious, and anyone who is willing to look at things from multiple angles would understand THIS is the argument the "banners" are making. They believe that reducing the magazine size would reduce the firepower, and there has to be some truth to it. Why would anyone want 30 round magazine if it made no difference vs 5 round magazine? Of course large magazine makes rapid fire easier. Its the whole idea. For the same reason a lawful gun owner would benefit from large magazine in a dire situation, - you can fire more in less time. It goes both ways. Having said that, I don't think self defense shootings usually require more than few rounds. A prolonged firefight with a robber is a very rare scenario. Even a Derringer with 2 rounds is far better than nothing. Whether or not a ban would reduce mass shootings and casualties is another story, because there are millions of high cap magazines out there?
who is more likely to be affected by a magazine ban 1) someone planning mass murder 2) a shopkeeper or homeowner who has 15 seconds to arm himself in the face of an unannounced robbery or home invasion the bottom line is that the only people handicapped by such a stupid law are law abiding folks
I did not weigh on that. I just made some points, which I thought were relevant. In a sense you validate the "banners" point, its just that you don't want to support it because you believe it would also hurt the "law abiding" gun owners. Fair enough. If I was a shopkeeper, I'd be armed with a shotgun, where the issue would be irrelevant but to each his own.
There are a lot of people who use firearms daily as essential tools in their work. I’m one. For people like me who use firearms daily, the AR-15 and 20 rd and 30 rd magazines are ideal. The AR-15 I’ll try and leave for another discussion, but standard capacity magazines are in and of themselves invaluable to me. To help with brevity I’ll attempt bullet points with just enough commentary for clarity. —20 rd mags are a good balance between capacity and compactness. If it wasn’t for weight and the extra protrusion of 30 rd mags I would use nothing else. The AR I have with me all day every day always has a 20 rd mag just because I’m in and out of vehicles constantly. —Any time I’m certain the need to shoot is imminent a rifle gets a 30 rd mag. When I know I’m going near a prairie dog town I want to be prepared to shoot as many rounds as possible without having to reload. I don’t shoot dogs often and always shoot suppressed, so unnecessary movements to reload are more likely to spook the critters than anything else. I’m not out for recreation, it’s business, so efficiency is very important to me. A semiautomatic rifle with 30 rd mags is the point where efficiency and reliability intersect when controlling prairie dogs. —Backup/spare mags are always 30 Rds. When you are away from home all day it’s important to have your ammunition in enough volume to cover any circumstance but in as efficient of storage as possible. Thirty rd mags keep sufficient ammo well organized, clean, protected and ready for use. —Continuing from above, there are many circumstances that can develop that require efficient sized primary and back up mags. Probably the most common is having to confirm zero or re-zero an optic after a rifle is subjected to some kind of abuse such as being dropped, banged up against something, etc. If this happens it’s almost always far from home and you know you may need to use your rifle soon. I’ve missed shots that cost me money because I didn’t confirm zero. Now, if I’m at all suspicious, I fire however many rounds it takes to confirm or re-zero. Once this is taken care of, you don’t want to be low or out of ammunition. If all you had was 5 rd mags, you would be. —30 rd mags are the best for medium term storage and readiness of ammunition. Many months of the year I simply don’t have time to mess around loading magazines. And those times are when there is the most economic risk for me if I’m not prepared. So I load mags in slow times and then have them ready when I need them. If I use 18 rounds out of a mag, instead of fooling around loading it back up to capacity, I just throw it in an ammo can, grab a full magazine and go. If I used five or ten round mags, I would have to keep track of and care for 3-6 times the number of mags. And I’d have a lot more money tied up in magazines as well. —A 30 rd mag acts as an improvised mono pod for stability when shooting from the prone position and sometimes in other unorthodox positions. For me, no other sized mag puts the rifle in the correct position when used in this manner. Hopefully that gives some idea of the utility of standard capacity magazines. In conclusion, removing 30 rd mags from my world would be like forcing accountants to go back to paper ledgers, construction workers to revert to plumbs and water levels, or requiring mechanics to give up their ratcheting combination wrenches.
how do I validate the gun banners? does anyone with an IQ over 50 believe a person planning mass murder will obey a magazine limit or will be unable to find plenty of magazines?
You did it by agreeing the high cap magazines do in fact enable shooters to fire more rounds consecutively. That is why they want to ban them, and its also why you want to keep them. They are designed for that purpose. I didn't say they would. On the contrary, I said this: "Whether or not a ban would reduce mass shootings and casualties is another story, because there are millions of high cap magazines already out there"
you ever use one-they are a PITA to reload quickly I have a Saiga-Ishmatz AK shotgun with a 20 round drum magazine. far faster to reload
you just don't seem to want to admit that the law is far more likely to handicap honest people who follow laws vs those who don't.
