Why "High capacity magazine" bans are pointless

Why can't we just ban assault magazines?

It's not ALL magazines. People can still have those.

We just need to ban assault magazines and assault bullets.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

Then regulate the guns so each bullet has to be hand loaded to slow the shooter down. Then he has to carry a bag of bullets to do any real damage.

Or, we can keep things like they are and give people--the vast majority of gun owners--the access to an appropriate amount of ammunition in a firearm's magazine to facilitate effective self defense.

You know, either or...

"hi capacity" is actually just standard capacity.

30 rounds is standard capacity for an AR/AK/SCAR etc
17 rounds is standard for Glock 9mm handguns, while 15 is standard for Glock .40/.357 handguns
Whereas the Glock 18 9mm standard capacity is 33 rounds

There is no "high capacity" because it varies based on the specific firearm. For instance, using the happy-stick in a Glock 26 is "expanded capacity" whereas using the standard magazine is standard capacity

This "high capacity assault CLIPazine" BS the left is pushing is just that.

Oh, and it is obvious the people see it this way, because gun control is still failing. Not that I ever had any doubt.

I raised holy hell with Reps/Senators from all 50 states, and called the NRA at least once a day. I didn't want to brag, but also donated almost $6,000 to NRA (and several hundred to a right wing org that polices politicians for anti-gun bias/views)

Firearms (massive ones) are the guarantors of liberty, freedom and most importantly: sovereignty.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

This has pretty much been covered by other posters. These guns have other uses besides school shootings, and for some of those uses the extra magazine capacity is an advantage. It just doesn't translate to a school shooting environment, for the reasons already discussed. As I suggested to another poster, if you want to debate whether law-abiding gun owners need 30-round magazines, start another thread.

originally posted by: JBurns

Oh, and it is obvious the people see it this way, because gun control is still failing. Not that I ever had any doubt.

People like to ignore this part. The "gun lobby" is the voters. The NRA doesn't have to buy anyone's votes. Our representatives know if they pass absurd restrictions like a 10-round magazine limit they'll be out of office. That is, after all, how our system of governing is supposed to work.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

...do you really have to ask this? It seems pretty obvious to me.

Gives you the ability to engage hostile targets just a little faster than having to reload multiple times. During a high stress situation, hands tend to fumble around.

Even if I perform the reload perfectly, it is still wasting precious time I could've spent dumping lead into a violent and deadly attacker. I have no desire to waste one second, let alone 2 or 3.

That is why. Plus, its my right to own whatever weapon I want (including magazines to feed it). The second amendment says so. Feel free to take up your grievance with the Constitution though, there's a procedure for ratifying new amendments. You'd fracture the country into at least two separate parts by doing so, but the procedure does exist formally.

(good luck getting the level of support required though)

Time to go outside and shoot my AR with 150 round Beta-C mags....always a fun time.

a reply to: face23785



Face, it seems some folks are having a tough time grasping this basic reality

They seem to think that riot/protesting/wearing disgusting pink genital hats are the only way to accomplish anything politically (when it reality, their way accomplishes nothing)

While we're at it, let's ban spoons in an effort to stop diabetes.......

You know, cause that makes much more sense than attacking the actual cause of the disease....

Or we could ban drug dealing to stop drug addiction!

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
While we're at it, let's ban spoons in an effort to stop diabetes.......

You know, cause that makes much more sense than attacking the actual cause of the disease....

Not spoons. But perhaps banning high capacity straws that allow rapid consumption and speeds the diabetes threat is in order?

/sarc

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

What if we still allow people the use of spoons, but ensure they are only capable of holding 0.5ml instead of an assault-high-capacity 5ml-10ml spoon

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

What if we still allow people the use of spoons, but ensure they are only capable of holding 0.5ml instead of an assault-high-capacity 5ml-10ml spoon

Black cutlery of any type must also be banned. Black makes it deadlier.

Come to think of it, why do gun control advocates, who tend to be liberal, believe if something is black it's more dangerous?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
While we're at it, let's ban spoons in an effort to stop diabetes.......

You know, cause that makes much more sense than attacking the actual cause of the disease....

Not spoons. But perhaps banning high capacity straws that allow rapid consumption and speeds the diabetes threat is in order?

/sarc

After all, nobody NEEDS to consume that fast do they? So, why does anyone even need a straw at all? Especially those black straws, those assault straws are weapons of mass consumption and should be banned immediately.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

This has pretty much been covered by other posters. These guns have other uses besides school shootings, and for some of those uses the extra magazine capacity is an advantage. It just doesn't translate to a school shooting environment, for the reasons already discussed. As I suggested to another poster, if you want to debate whether law-abiding gun owners need 30-round magazines, start another thread.

I never said anything about banning anything... I simply politely asked a question about what the point of 30 round mags were, since your whole argument seems to be based on claiming their is no advantage compared to using a 10 round mag.

tbh, I don't feel my totally relevant question warranted outrages accusations of ulterior motives, or a snarky emotionally charged reply...

Though, at least their was one logical & honest answer to my question, which wasn't based on pure emotions.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

When farming people are hunting feral hogs, they want to kill as many as possible before the group run out of sight. Feral hogs aren't native to the area and will dig tunnels under fences, kill lambs and calves, destroy crops and breed like hogs. So there are actually bounties on how many are killed.

But yeah, obviously being able to achieve a higher kill rate well firing on scattering "hogs", has no relevance to the kill rate an active shooter could achieve while firing on scattering school kids... Its apples and oranges, right?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Well, you can kill a lot more people with 30 bullets as opposed to 10. That's just basic math. That's as far as I'm going to go into the premise of the thread though.

same amount, just 4 or 5 seconds faster when not swapping magazines

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: face23785

My point has nothing to do with that though, it has to do with the basic fact that 30 is a larger number than 10, multiple magazines or not.

that's like saying a mustang can kill more people than a honda because the speedometer goes up to 160, not just 90.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

This has pretty much been covered by other posters. These guns have other uses besides school shootings, and for some of those uses the extra magazine capacity is an advantage. It just doesn't translate to a school shooting environment, for the reasons already discussed. As I suggested to another poster, if you want to debate whether law-abiding gun owners need 30-round magazines, start another thread.

I never said anything about banning anything... I simply politely asked a question about what the point of 30 round mags were, since your whole argument seems to be based on claiming their is no advantage compared to using a 10 round mag.

tbh, I don't feel my totally relevant question warranted outrages accusations of ulterior motives, or a snarky emotionally charged reply...

Though, at least their was one logical & honest answer to my question, which wasn't based on pure emotions.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

When farming people are hunting feral hogs, they want to kill as many as possible before the group run out of sight. Feral hogs aren't native to the area and will dig tunnels under fences, kill lambs and calves, destroy crops and breed like hogs. So there are actually bounties on how many are killed.

But yeah, obviously being able to achieve a higher kill rate well firing on scattering "hogs", has no relevance to the kill rate an active shoot could achieve while firing on scattering school kids... Its apples and oranges, right?

Scattering school kids? Aren't they trained to hide and stay in place? They are not scattering, but gathering together, making an easier unmoving target for the shooter.

Yeah, that is a terrible plan in these cases. Why aren't there breakout emergency windows (like in buses ans trains) in all external walled classrooms to allow easy escape from danger? Oh, that's right, it costs too much money.

It's not worth the price of a child's life to spend money on something that would actually save lives and not infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights. This is a clear indicator that the children's lives are not the main goal here.

Want to guess what is though?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

This has pretty much been covered by other posters. These guns have other uses besides school shootings, and for some of those uses the extra magazine capacity is an advantage. It just doesn't translate to a school shooting environment, for the reasons already discussed. As I suggested to another poster, if you want to debate whether law-abiding gun owners need 30-round magazines, start another thread.

I never said anything about banning anything... I simply politely asked a question about what the point of 30 round mags were, since your whole argument seems to be based on claiming their is no advantage compared to using a 10 round mag.

tbh, I don't feel my totally relevant question warranted outrages accusations of ulterior motives, or a snarky emotionally charged reply...

Though, at least their was one logical & honest answer to my question, which wasn't based on pure emotions.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

When farming people are hunting feral hogs, they want to kill as many as possible before the group run out of sight. Feral hogs aren't native to the area and will dig tunnels under fences, kill lambs and calves, destroy crops and breed like hogs. So there are actually bounties on how many are killed.

But yeah, obviously being able to achieve a higher kill rate well firing on scattering "hogs", has no relevance to the kill rate an active shooter could achieve while firing on scattering school kids... Its apples and oranges, right?

So me referring you to the posters who already answered your question, one of which you just quoted as an acceptable answer, was a snarky, emotionally involved reply?

I think you read way more into that than what it said. I just said this has already been answered because I didn't want it to seem like I was ignoring your question, and I suggested if you wanted a more in-depth explanation about why 30-round mags are needed at all to start a thread because it would be off-topic here. This thread is specifically about whether they give a shooter in mass shooting a tactical advantage. They don't.

And yes actually, the hog example is apples and oranges. You're talking about small, fast wild animals in an open environment versus larger targets in a confined space with nowhere to run, many of whom are trying to hide rather than run. The actual scenario in which we're discussing the guns and mags being used is what makes the difference in mags largely irrelevant. In other scenarios outside of mass murder, there are legit uses for the larger mags. Again, if you want more details and examples, I suggest starting a thread rather than derailing mine.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

This has pretty much been covered by other posters. These guns have other uses besides school shootings, and for some of those uses the extra magazine capacity is an advantage. It just doesn't translate to a school shooting environment, for the reasons already discussed. As I suggested to another poster, if you want to debate whether law-abiding gun owners need 30-round magazines, start another thread.

I never said anything about banning anything... I simply politely asked a question about what the point of 30 round mags were, since your whole argument seems to be based on claiming their is no advantage compared to using a 10 round mag.

tbh, I don't feel my totally relevant question warranted outrages accusations of ulterior motives, or a snarky emotionally charged reply...

Though, at least their was one logical & honest answer to my question, which wasn't based on pure emotions.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

When farming people are hunting feral hogs, they want to kill as many as possible before the group run out of sight. Feral hogs aren't native to the area and will dig tunnels under fences, kill lambs and calves, destroy crops and breed like hogs. So there are actually bounties on how many are killed.

But yeah, obviously being able to achieve a higher kill rate well firing on scattering "hogs", has no relevance to the kill rate an active shoot could achieve while firing on scattering school kids... Its apples and oranges, right?

Why aren't there breakout emergency windows (like in buses ans trains) in all external walled classrooms to allow easy escape from danger? Oh, that's right, it costs too much money.

It's not worth the price of a child's life to spend money on something that would actually save lives and not infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights.

That is a damn shame considering we already spend more on education than just about every other nation on earth on a per-child basis, and our kids aren't even getting that good of an education. The least we could do is give them a safe one.

a reply to: face23785

The whole premise of your own thread was based on the theory that a "higher capacity magazine" had no influence on the kill rate a person could achieve under real life conditions.

It was a ridiculously naive claim from the start... But, accusing me of "derailing your thread", simply for pointing out how ridiculous your claim is, goes far beyond innocent nativity... Your actually now entering the realm of blatant ignorance.

Word to the wise...

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

The whole premise of your own thread was based on the theory that a "higher capacity magazine" had no influence on the kill rate a person could achieve under real life conditions.

It was a ridiculously naive claim from the start... But, accusing me of "derailing your thread", simply for pointing out how ridiculous your claim is, goes far beyond innocent nativity... Your actually now entering the realm of blatant ignorance.

Word to the wise...

You are derailing the thread, and misrepresenting what I said. That's not the premise of the thread. It's ironic you're calling me ignorant when you're the one not getting it. It's a subtle difference, I'll give you that, but you've completely missed the point and that's where the derailing the thread comment comes from. I encourage you to go back to the OP and read with an open mind. Obviously there are real-life scenarios where having more rounds per magazine is an advantage. Obviously on paper you should be able to get off more rounds quicker with a 30-round mag versus a 10-round mag. Everyone here has acknowledged that. But we're not talking about every conceivable scenario in which you could possibly shoot a gun, we're not talking about generally, or mathematically. We're talking very specifically about active shooter situations, given all the variables, if it would make a difference. I've contended that it wouldn't and gave very detailed explanations of why I think it wouldn't. If you've got some specific counter-argument to make against something I actually said, make it. "well people like having 30-round magazines so it must be an advantage" and "you're naive" aren't exactly iron-clad logic, and I wouldn't call it wisdom either.