Why "High capacity magazine" bans are pointless

originally posted by: face23785
So if someone could respond in less than 2 and a half minutes it might make a difference in how many rounds you could fire.

You've never been shot at have you?

a reply to: Edumakated


No. Your average shooter is not going to change magazines and reacquire a target in 2 seconds.
Sorry.

And the point is not to prevent mass shootings - It will reduce the number of rounds a shooter can get off.

originally posted by: Lab4Us
10 round magazines are small and can fit many in pockets or on belt in holders.

This is actually something I forgot to address in my OP where I was talking about the mechanics of the shooting. The 30-round mags are bigger, so you can't fit as many of them in easily-accessible places like ammo pockets. You end up having to store some in a cargo pocket or a backpack, someplace where it takes longer to get them out. So overall, that extra time to get out the larger-capacity mags after the first few might actually make it take longer for you to complete the overall shooting. The larger size and weight also makes them more cumbersome to handle, slowing down your mag changes. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm gonna add it to the OP.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: face23785
So if someone could respond in less than 2 and a half minutes it might make a difference in how many rounds you could fire.

You've never been shot at have you?

I have not. Does that change the validity of anything I said?

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Do you know how long it takes a skilled shooter to do a mag swap? Less than a second.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: Edumakated


No. Your average shooter is not going to change magazines and reacquire a target in 2 seconds.
Sorry.

And the point is not to prevent mass shootings - It will reduce the number of rounds a shooter can get off.

What are you basing this premise on? There is no special skill in changing a magazine. Secondly, I'd venture anyone that attempts a mass shooting will likely have practiced changing magazines and will be familiar with the firearm.

Just face it, your emotional position is not based on logic and facts.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: Edumakated


No. Your average shooter is not going to change magazines and reacquire a target in 2 seconds.
Sorry.

And the point is not to prevent mass shootings - It will reduce the number of rounds a shooter can get off.

Secondly, I'd venture anyone that attempts a mass shooting will likely have practiced changing magazines and will be familiar with the firearm.

In fact, we usually find a lot of these shooters had practiced and planned meticulously. And as you noticed, changing magazines isn't exactly a high-end skill. You can teach anyone to do it efficiently over the course of an afternoon.

I can hear the next wave of gun control advocating,

"We should make it take longer to change magazines. Add a key lock requirement to do that. Make a law that says all semi-auto firearms need to be unable to change magazines in less than 5 minutes"

Well, a law like that will do 2 things:

1) Force someone intent on killing (which is breaking one of our ultimate laws) to merely manually modify the weapon beforehand to disable that "feature".

2) Jeopardize someone defending themselves that follows the law by keeping that "feature" intact. Thus, allowing their attacker to have time to recover/rush them during the magazine change.


Banning and addressing the efficiency of the tool will only risk the lives of the law abiding. When will people get it into their thick heads that criminals will NOT follow the law. Regardless of that law. If they have already decided in their mind to kill someone, no law we can pass will stop them from that goal.

a reply to: Edumakated

www.youtube.com... granted this one would take a bit longer to reload then most but they do have speed tubes for such purposes that's about 10 from a gun styled on technology from the 1800s in about 5 seconds


www.youtube.com... this guy is using lever action,revolvers and a shotgun that at the end is manually reloading via the breech

www.youtube.com... now in all fairness this guy is the god of speed shooting and reloading

www.youtube.com... 16 rounds in a wheel gun in four seconds reloading a revolver not a magazine

www.youtube.com... last one but think of it in this context its alot easier to practice reloading quietly then shooting,what i mean by this is a potential shooter can easily learn to get around any magazine restrictions by just practicing reloading his or her weapon 50 times a day to develop muscle memory

originally posted by: Edumakated


What are you basing this premise on?

Four years in the United States Marine Crorps.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Edumakated


What are you basing this premise on?

Four years in the United States Marine Crorps.

Why "reacquire" a target, Just pick a new target. One of them that are huddled in front of you in an enclosed space with no exits. See any problem here? Why doesn't each room with an external wall not have a one-way escape exit (like fire exit) to allow rapid escape from danger?

Oh, that's right.....the cost. And what is the cost of a child's life compared to the cost of that door over a mutli-year amortization?

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Do you know how long it takes a skilled shooter to do a mag swap? Less than a second.

Factor in target requisition. Magazine placement. Factor in most people (despite what they'd have you believe) are in fact not skilled shooters.

Sorry. ~2 seconds to reloading, reacquire, and sending rounds down range again is a very skilled shooter - I don't even think my PMI was that damned good.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, picking a target, any target takes time - particularly if you intend to actually hit the target.

Building architecture is beyond the scope of this conversation.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Edumakated


What are you basing this premise on?

Four years in the United States Marine Crorps.

Appealing to authority is not making a logical argument....

Even if you say it takes 4 seconds...heck, say it takes 10 seconds. It still does not change the fact that reloading due to magazine sizes will not make much of a difference overall. First off, after the first shots are fired, people are going to scatter to get away from the shooter. The odds of any one person being within range and timing it perfectly to pounce on the shooter when they drop a mag for a reload is slim to none.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Notice all of em are good enough to warrant videos being posted?

From what I reading here any random Joe should be able to do the same AND hit moving targets.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Edumakated


What are you basing this premise on?

Four years in the United States Marine Crorps.

Appealing to authority is not making a logical argument....

Even if you say it takes 4 seconds...heck, say it takes 10 seconds. It still does not change the fact that reloading due to magazine sizes will not make much of a difference overall. First off, after the first shots are fired, people are going to scatter to get away from the shooter. The odds of any one person being within range and timing it perfectly to pounce on the shooter when they drop a mag for a reload is slim to none.

The point isn't to 'pounce' the shooter. The point is to reduce the time the shooter is sending rounds down range. A smaller magazine = less rounds sent down range. Period.


And no one is 'appealing to authority'. You asked me what I was basing my position on and I told you.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I can hear the next wave of gun control advocating,

"We should make it take longer to change magazines. Add a key lock requirement to do that. Make a law that says all semi-auto firearms need to be unable to change magazines in less than 5 minutes"

Well, a law like that will do 2 things:

1) Force someone intent on killing (which is breaking one of our ultimate laws) to merely manually modify the weapon beforehand to disable that "feature".

California has laws already which intend to make it take longer to change magazines. We've already seen cases where shooters just illegally modified their firearms to defeat it. San Bernadino

If memory serves, I believe the North Hollywood shootout perps had illegally modified their weapons too.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Do you know how long it takes a skilled shooter to do a mag swap? Less than a second.

Factor in target requisition. Magazine placement. Factor in most people (despite what they'd have you believe) are in fact not skilled shooters.

I factored all that in in my estimate on the previous page. I gave 5 seconds per reload. The additional time is still negligible. All of these shooters reload multiple times, it simply doesn't slow them down enough to save lives. You were in the Corps. Would you charge an enemy position while he was reloading a detachable mag? Or try to run from one piece of cover to the next, much less run far enough to escape the shooter's range? Without covering fire, which none of the victims in these scenarios have? What do you think that extra 2 or 3 seconds buys you when you're huddled in a closet or under a desk? The limiting factor on victims in these shootings is almost never that he ran out of time. Adding a few extra seconds here or there isn't going to make an appreciable difference. They usually just run out of potential victims and leave or kill themselves. Whether they do that after 2 minutes or 3 minutes or 10 minutes because of a few extra reloads, the body count is the same.

a reply to: face23785

I cannot tell you how I would advance without cover because I have never been in the situation. I don't think anyone intends for anyone else to 'charge' the shooter.

Let's just agree to disagree - you think the time spent reloading is negligible. I disagree.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

Four years in the United States Marine Crorps.

We're not talking about a downrange or military setting, here, we're talking about one person with a firearm in a building with a bunch of sitting ducks.

You're making no sense at all in the scenario that is being discussed.

Marine or not, your points are invalid.

BTW, 4-year Army vet who has also trained in the Israeli point-and-shoot method as a civilian. I can unholster, rack the slide, and put three rounds on center mass in less than one second with a pistol.

But none of my credentials just listed means that anything that I say is more valid than anyone else, because an appeal to authority means nothing when there are stats that can be accessed and discussed.

These stats counter your claims in this type of scenario.

ETA:

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: face23785

Let's just agree to disagree - you think the time spent reloading is negligible. I disagree.

But you're not using logic and statistics to form your conclusion, nor do you seem to be considering the scenario, and that's why people are countering your claim. Discussion is meant to clear up misconceptions and incorrect claims--if you don't want to do that, I suppose that's okay, but it makes no sense to me why you would start arguing, then...