Why does anybody need more than 7 bullets at a time?

[Hugabear]

There shouldn't be any rational need to have more than 7 bullets loaded in your gun at any one time.

What if you're facing multiple bad guys? You can't expect people to defend against 3-4 bad guys with just 7 bullets! - this seems to be the primary argument from gun nuts.

What if, indeed.

What if you're facing an onslaught of meth addicts trying to break into your house? What if you have to face an entire street gang? What if civilization collapses, and you have to take on a roving band of marauders? What if the zombie apocalypse happens, and you're faced with a yard full of walkers?

What if?

The problem is that you can always come up with a reason to rationalize whatever you want. But how often are people going to be faced with situations that require more than 7 bullets?

[Frazzul]

1. Because if a 30 round mag

"Saves even one life it's worth it." Isn't that usually your mantra?

[Hugabear]

6. Oh lookee here

I got myself a brand new gun nut! Don't worry, you have plenty of company here on DU. Enjoy your stay.

[uponit7771]

12. ...only if the police have them

[azalia]

32. New here, but yes, only trained law enforcement should have guns.

[shadowrider]

54. Right. They can be completely trusted

[EOTE]

38. 30 round mags don't save lives, they take them.

At least they'll take far, far more lives than they could ever hope to save. Clear enough for ya?

[samsingh]

51. not at the cost of more lives

[davidn3600]

2. Can we include the police in this discussion?

Why do they need high capacity magazines?

Does it take more than 7 bullets a clip to subdue a suspect?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. It does if the suspect has a 30-round clip (nt)

[uponit7771]

13. to shoot nutters? Really, I'd like the nutters to be way LESS armed than the police

[Mojorabbit]

24. I don't think police are great shots even with practice

There have been some threads about it here. I like ten. If one person broke in I want lots of chances to hit them while my hands prob would be shaking like a leaf.

[frylock]

61. that's why a 12-gauge is better for home defense

[flyingfysh]

3. Hunters need them

What if a hunter is attacked by a herd of a couple of dozen deer, all at once?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. One reason: Target Shooting

But that's not a good enough reason, given the massive down-side of how these things can be abused.

[Hugabear]

9. Target shooting? Really?

That seems like the WORST possible excuse. People aren't capable of reloading during target practice?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. I'm just saying...

It's convenient to not have to be constantly reloading. Like I said, it's the best bad reason I can think of.

[socialindependocrat]

26. You forget shooting competitions

Some competitions shoot at multiple targets and move from spot to spot down a course. The less you have to reload, the better your time to complete the course.

It's easy for non-shooters to say - There is no practicle reason...
until a competitive provides a simple explanation.

I say, allow shooters to be exempt from certain regulations
because they have completed certain safety courses and/or have
a need for certain types of competitive shooting that they do.
The thugs won't go thru all the classes and competitions in order to gain access to higher capacity mags and competitive shooting gear.

[jeff47]

28. There's a much easier solution

The extended magazine must permanently reside at a licensed shooting range. Either the range has to own them, or the shooter has to store them there. Newly purchased ones must be delivered to a licensed range.

Shooters get their extended magazines, but they're not easily available for criminal use.

[Travis_0004]

85. I think you are overestimating the size of most ranges

At the range I go to, I pull up, sometimes unlock the gate, and start shooting. A few times a year me any my only friends are the only ones there. So where does the range store these mags. We can get a lock box, but I don't want to store my mags in a lock box that a ton of other people have a key to.

Even at a large range, how does one track the mags going in and out? It would still be very easy for one to just take one from the range.

Even if there was a complete ban, one could buy hi capacity magazines for 100 or less. That amount of money will keep honest people from using them, but its not going to stop a suicidal mass killer.

[jeff47]

91. I'm still waiting for a difficult to solve problem....

We can get a lock box, but I don't want to store my mags in a lock box that a ton of other people have a key to.

Something that resembles the mailboxes at an apartment complex is cheap, easy to install securely and would allow your own key.

Even at a large range, how does one track the mags going in and out?

There's this thing called "paper". You can write on it. You're talking about a problem libraries solved a very long time ago.

Even if there was a complete ban, one could buy hi capacity magazines for 100 or less.

From who? Drug dealers are gonna make way more money dealing drugs. There's far more valuable things to smuggle when you're talking about something that's fundamentally a convenience item. So your suicidal mass killer is not going to find any sort of existing smuggling infrastructure from which he can partake. Doesn't mean a none of them won't go through the effort to smuggle some themselves, but they won't be able to walk down to the corner and say "hey buddy, got a big mag?".

Because if what you propose was true, then we'd have tons of fully-automatic weapons getting smuggled into the country for suicidal mass killers to be even more effective. Yet that doesn't happen.

[longship]

36. But if everybody has to reload it's a level playing field, isn't it?

So, the competition shooting argument is... ahem... shot down, so to speak.

[socialindependocrat]

43. Again, you're not a competition shooter

If you would shoot one of these courses you would understand that there laid out to comportable handle 10 round mags.

If you lay out the course to handle 7 round mags you get a lot of mag changes and you owuld have a lot of counting to do to keep track of what you shot and how many left and when to drop your mag. Believe me, if you would go thru these courses there is enough confusion when you have to change your mag 3 times in the course.
Again, either you appreciate the situation or you don't.

[longship]

46. Fine, I accept that.

But it would still be a level playing field if every competitor has a seven round clip, which was my only point.

Frankly, I really don't care if competition shooting uses ten round, or 100 round clips. I just don't want the big clips on the streets.

Where the line is drawn is subject to discussion. But, I don't think competition shooting is a good argument for high capacity clips. You may disagree, and I am fine with that.

If DU has to have all these gun threads in GD, I would rather have a friendly, respectful discussions on the issues.

[socialindependocrat]

49. I get your point

Somewhere along the line someone will make a judgement
for clip capacity. It will probably be a little more than you think is necessary and a little less than competition shooters would like but I'll bet you and I are closer than congress and the NRA.

I do like to respectfully discuss, also.

From what I've seen of the Presidents list I agree totally with the bacground checks and closing the loop for the gun shows and mental health. I also agree with heavy penalties for using a gun during a crime. The rest will be hammered out and life will go on.

One thing is that we have a two year additional sentence for using a gun during the commission of a crime and it usually the first thing to get plea bargained away. They need to make laws that will be used.

Thanks for a nice discussion...

[longship]

50. Thank you, friend.

No need for anger in these discussions. I cannot stand all the vitriol in these threads. There's no need.

I can be passionate about my position without being impolite or, dare I say, impolitic.

We all learn from each other here at DU.

Thanks again.

[socialindependocrat]

57. I was going to add - Thanks for not calling me names...

Not that you would.

I think there is a big devide between people who grew up with a father who taught them how to shoot and people who didn't.

My father was raised a Quaker and he taught me. I have pictures of my grandfather, out west, with a Winchester leaver action rifle and a six shooter with a pile of rabbits for dinner. Shooting was part of what my father taught me, along with fishing, carpentry, how to plant a garden. He was very kind and never swore (until I was 16)

I can see where people who were never taught to handle guns would see it as something only people who are crude and uneducated would be involved with. My father never watched sports on TV so although I played sports with friends, I never got into the sports statistics and the baseball cards - but I can shoot.

I am getting used to the teeny-peenie joks and the rest but it feels like when we argue against the Teabaggers in favor of pro-choice.
Then, there are those DUers who can't believe that there are a group of Democrats who shoot guns. I get accused of being a troll and it is disheartening because, as you say, I try to talk in a very logical manner and I try to be respectful of the other's position but some DUers are so pissed off that they just want to say a lot of hurtful things and disagree with every point I try to make. I can tell they are not listening and they just want to make their point.

I worked for 35 years in research. I never argue to be "right" I always discuss in order to gather more data and to get closer to the truth. I can only discuss using the information I have "at hand". And I will always try to learn from others.

Thenks for your time...friend

[pkdu]

53. Counting is a pisser!

Clearly I don't appreciate the situation....or snookie for that matter.

[socialindependocrat]

60. No, really - here's the thing....

Yuo are standing in front of a group of people (most you don't know).

You're going against the clock.

You wait for the timer to beep.

You draw, click off the safety and run to the starting box.

You have so many targets and so many rounds
and if you miss a shot you have to figure
When I move to the next position, I'll change mags

You fo to the next position and you shoot but you lose count and you fire until your slide locks open. Then you have to pop in a new mag and continue until the targets are all done.

NOW, as you change position for the last time you really don't know how many rounds you have left so you say, screw it and just change mags - just in case.

Then you go to the last position and finish off your run.

It's exciting and embarassing and kind of cool and
its a challenge.

Nobody is in danger. You shoot paper and sometimes metal targets.
And sometimes targets pop up and others fall down and sometimes we get to shoot bowling pins!.

So, now you're a little closer to understanding than you were a few minutes ago. Is your heart beating a little faster? Maybe not but that's what goes on during a competition - you lose count a lot...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

97. So, if the magazines were limited to 10 or 7 or 5 rounds

then the shooter who keeps a good count in his head while shooting and moving and ignoring the razzing of his friends has an advantage over the shooter who loses count. It just becomes part of the game, part of the practice.

Good description of the game, by the way!

[Bucky]

66. Don't be naive! Why would I drop my guard when surrounded by those Target scum!

They must be destroyed. Destroyed NOW!

[NCTraveler]

7. I think that would be a reasonable limitation.

And should be agreed upon by the majority.

"There shouldn't be any rational need to have more than 7 bullets loaded in your gun at any one time."


That sentence is what should make it easy. They could have an extra 7 round back up clip.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Why 7?

Seems a bit arbitrary...

[shadowrider]

55. Better than 5 which is what Vermont is going to propose

Just think, they said a limit of 10, we said what's next, 7? 5? 3?

We were told that'd never happen, 10 is cool.

Guess what, we were right.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/2013/01/17/vermont-lawmakers-consider-assault-rifle-ban/HrrBStwucF4lfF6uyqzZNM/story.html

Edited to add link

[NightWatcher]

10. Most decent shooters can drop the empty and pop in a new one

in just a second or so. My 1911's only hold 7, but at the range I have 8 mags...

There's no reason to allow more than 7 or 10 in a mag at a time. If you need more or can't swap out fresh mags, you suck as a marksman.

[uponit7771]

14. Yeap, and a fast runner can do almost 30 feet in 1.5 seconds from start so that seems about right..

[bluedigger]

15. Extended shoot outs are pretty rare, especially in self defense situations.

So the chances of needing more than seven rounds is vanishingly small. But I have a real problem with arbitrary magazine limits that are unrealistically low. In handguns especially, many magazines take more than seven rounds. Mine is a .380, considered at the low end for self defense, and it takes eight rounds. It's a question of ergonomics mostly, as a smaller capacity magazine would lead to a shorter grip. I can barely close my hand on it now, and I would rather not use just three fingers to grasp it. This is a common design problem for semi-auto handguns in respect to small magazine capacity. (There are also handgun magazines that double-stack rounds, with higher capacities.) I guess we could attempt to retrofit pistol magazines with plugs to limit their capacity, but it seems highly unrealistic and ultimately ineffective. I think we should focus less on design characteristics, and more on control of the supply and distribution of weapons.

[jeff47]

30. Not that hard to fix

It's a question of ergonomics mostly, as a smaller capacity magazine would lead to a shorter grip.

There's no reason you can't make the clip (and thus the grip) longer than it's capacity. Just put the bottom plate with the spring where 5-7 rounds would end up, and then have the sides of the clip extend further for ergonomic reasons.

[bluedigger]

35. "we could attempt to retrofit pistol magazines with plugs"

We could mandate it in new manufacture/sales, but mandatory retrofitting of the used handgun market would be an ineffective, impractical, logistical, and enforcement nightmare.

[jeff47]

37. Depends on how you roll it out

Fund a buy-back or trade-in program or provide other financial incentives. That would get a good chunk of them.

But you also have to remember a gun used by a criminal has a short lifetime - they get caught and the gun is destroyed. Thus the guns we're actually worried about flow out fairly quickly, to be replaced with new guns that have smaller clips.

The "responsible, law-abiding gun owner" who keeps a couple of big clips stashed away isn't as much of a concern. Especially since said stashing makes them harder to steal or otherwise use without permission.

[bluedigger]

42. You make some good points.

First, I do support buy back programs as part of the answer. I'm not sure what you consider a "good chunk", but 10% might be an attainable goal - I haven't seen any $ numbers, but it is a substantial amount I guess.

You have a good point about guns and their lifespan in criminal hands. But it doesn't restrict the existing "legal" supply waiting to be criminalized. I could still support lower mag capacities on new sales and manufacture, but not on existing handguns.

I still think we should focus legislation on possession and transfer of firearms, rather than technical capabilities in most respects, as a way to solve our problems with gun violence here. Part of that should involve registration and reclassification of firearms into more types, with appropriate sales and transfer fees. If we want to get guns off the street we need to make the black market gun culture unprofitable.

[jeff47]

44. That existing supply would still flow out

Initially, there would be no change in criminally-used weapons.

Over time, newly-purchased criminal weapons would comply, but older weapons sold to or stolen by criminals would not comply. But those would flow out too.

Eventually, the extended magazines would become about as rare as fully-automatic weapons. Which are virtually never used today in crimes.

I still think we should focus legislation on possession and transfer of firearms, rather than technical capabilities in most respects

That has far greater compliance problems. How, exactly, do you prevent a gun from being sold in some random parking lot? How could you make it unprofitable when there's no one there to collect the tax or update the registration?

The point of going after technical capabilities is that there is a place to enforce the rules - manufacturers and wholesalers. They have buildings with known addresses. They can be found. They can be punished if they produce banned weapons. What they can supply will, after a time, limit what criminals can get. There will occasionally be the odd situation where a criminal is able to get ahold of a banned weapon or component, but those cases will be rare. The vast majority will use what is readily available - weapons that comply.

[bluedigger]

47. I think we are talking around each other somewhat.

I can accept technical changes limiting capacities in future sales and manufacture, but I don't think that we will see a significant improvement from that alone for a long time. There are what, 300 million firearms in the US now? I don't know how many owners there are, but the guns are going to take a long time, decades or more, to "flow out" and then by mostly criminal means. I'm not that patient.

Your arguments about black market sales are equally appropriate to universal background checks - they are useless without registration, and stiff penalties for noncompliance.

[jeff47]

96. We don't need all of them to flow out.

A second amendment absolutist who keeps extended magazines locked in a safe is unlikely to cause a problem - he's not likely to use them, and they're unlikely to be stolen. In fact, the very fact that they are illegal will cause the remaining ones to be hidden away by otherwise law-abiding owners, making them much harder to fall into criminal hands.

To again use the fully-automatic parallel, those guns still exist in private hands. But those hands are attached to people who won't use them for criminal acts, and the value of the weapons mean those weapons are very well protected by their owners.

Your arguments about black market sales are equally appropriate to universal background checks - they are useless without registration, and stiff penalties for noncompliance.

Well, really I'm concerned about the "gun show" loophole. Closing that should be our #1 priority. After that, yes I think there should be universal registration and the registered owner should be liable for the gun until it's reported stolen. But registration triggers the paranoia of second amendment absolutists, so it's going to be an uphill battle. Whereas universal background checks currently polls more favorably than orgasms.

[hughee99]

17. Hunting with Cheney? n/t

[melm00se]

18. i can think of one right off the top of my head

if you shoot in IDPA event, SSP/ESP has a standard of 10 in the magazine, CDP has a standard of 8 in the magazine.

[Hugabear]

19. Well then, they would just have to adjust.

If 7-round clips become the law of the land, then these organizations will just have to figure out a way to adjust.

[melm00se]

21. only in NYS is that a requirement

and that requirement effectively eliminates untold number of shooters in NYS from participating in their chosen sport which, BTW, provides a great arena for gunowners to learn, practice and improve their skills.

IDPA events are amongst the safest firearm events out there.

[jeff47]

31. So let licensed ranges own and keep extended magazines

They'd be available for competition, but they'd have to stay at the range.

[sylvi]

20. How about a hypothetical?

You're sitting in a back room or wherever, reading or surfing the web at night. Your family is asleep upstairs. Suddenly you hear the door kicked in and angry voices. Strangers (not the cops) are breaking into your home. Or, let's throw out the plural "voices" all together. All you know is a person or persons unknown are coming in forcefully.

Beside you leaning against the wall is a rifle with seven round mag and an identical one with thirty.

Which one would you pick up? Why?

[onenote]

22. The correct question is whether an individual's interest in having more than 7 bullets is outweighed

by the government's interest in limiting the number of bullets at one time.

Think of it this way: I don't have an absolute need for books to have more than 500 pages; if someone wanted to write a book with more than 500 pages, they could publish it, and I could buy it, in multiple volumes. It would be less convenient and more costly, but it could be done. But the question isn't just whether I have a need for a single volume with more than 500 pages, its whether the government has a legitimate justification for restricting the size of books and what level of scrutiny applies in balancing the competing interests. I can't imagine that the government could ever establish a legitimate government interest in limiting the size of books that would outweigh an individual's First Amendment interest in choosing how speech is presented. But you get the idea, its a matter of competing interests.

In the case of firearm capacity, the issue of whether the individual's interest in having more than seven bullets available at one time mostly is a matter of convenience and cost, although some probably could argue that there are instances where having larger capacity weapons could make a difference to one's self defense. On the other side of the equation is the government's interest in preventing mass shootings -- I would argue that the latter outweighs the former and thus a capacity limit should pass constitutional scrutiny. Whether a particular court would see the evidence and the balancing of interests the same way is, of course, an open question.

[dogknob]

23. What will you do if 8 people attack you with bananas?

[sofa king]

25. I don't like this idea and here is why.

I simply cannot see how to take away these weapons. We just don't know where many of them are--like millions and millions of them.

The President and Congress could make all weapons capable of holding seven or more rounds illegal by the end of next week, and demand their return, but all that would do is create millions of new criminals, and lower their inhibitions against using such weapons, because now they're already criminals.

The President's executive actions this week, of which I applaud, will go a long way toward making such a move possible in the far distant future, when a majority of these weapons change hands and are recorded in a better record keeping system than the disparate and unconnected ones we use today.

Until then I continue to see the situation as one in which guns of any type cannot be practically controlled.

But we can easily and dramatically change our society for the worse with a stroke of a pen by decreeing that such weapons are illegal, or cannot be sold. That will merely create new criminals out of whole cloth, instantly create an enormous black market and a huge demand, and effectively shuffle the gun pool under the table so that future efforts to track the weapons are rendered impossible, because hidden, illegal weapons will emerge every day for decades or centuries to come.

I would love for someone to show me a proposed mechanism by which the actual, current situation is addressed (aside from what the President has just done, which I think is a very good start). Maybe someone can provide examples of partial disarmament in other countries with representative government. I am not claiming to be an expert of any sort, but I do not think that I am underestimating the magnitude of the problem and the effort which will be required to exert any positive control over it.

[jeff47]

34. Just have a trade-in program

Have a program to trade the large clips for smaller ones. Or otherwise provide financial incentive for people to do it.

As for your short-term vs. long-term concerns, there is no practical way to fix this problem in, say, a year. But as we've demonstrated with restrictions on fully automatic weapons, restrictions can be extremely effective. When that happened, it did take a while for the gangsters to lose all their "tommy guns", but it did work fairly quickly. The fact that it took a while doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do it.

The thing you have to remember about an illegal gun being used in a crime is that it's getting used. That means it will be found and seized, regardless of whether or not you can convict the shooter of the crime. If the illegal gun is squirreled away in some collector's vault, it's not much of a concern - it won't be used for a crime.

[Bake]

64. Why would I want to trade in my 15-round magazine for one with half the capacity?

For a $10 or $20 trade-in allowance?

Hardly.

Bake

[jeff47]

92. Well, if you're dumb enough to not take part in such a program

there's two solutions

1) We'll happily break out the criminal justice system.
2) We'll realize that it doesn't matter that much - weapons used by criminals are seized and destroyed quickly. The fact that new extended clips are not available would result in such clips falling out of criminal hands somewhat quickly. Sure, you'll be helping to slaughter schoolchildren in the next Newtown, but hey, that's a small price to pay for you to not be slightly inconvenienced.

[Bake]

101. Helping to slaughter schoolchildren!

That kind of rhetoric is bullshit and you ought to be ashamed.

Are you going to send the cops around to EVERY GUN OWNER'S HOME to check their magazines?

Good luck with that.

Bake

[jberryhill]

82. You don't have to take them away

I never understand this objection.

Did anyone "take away" automobiles that get ten miles to the gallon? Where are they all?

Did anyone "take away" all the storm doors that didn't have safety glass in them?

Did anyone "take away" lead paint?

Did anyone "take away" cribs with slats that were too far apart?

None of these things are sold anymore.

[Crepuscular]

27. Why?

There have been semi-automatic pistols with a magazine capacity of at least 10 bullets available to the public for just about the last 100 years, what is the compelling need today to limit capacity to the magic number of 7?

[bongbong]

29. Fear

The mind-numbing fear & paranoia that rule the lives of the Delicate Flowers.

[Bonhomme Richard]

33. I have a military issue Browning 1900 semi-automatic that

was built around 1914 and it holds seven rounds. That is plenty for anyone that doesn't happen to be in Afghanistan.

[k2qb3]

40. So do I...

I've also shot a handgun course with both 7 rnd mags and 19 rnd mags and scored essentially the same either way.

The second or so it takes to change magazines doesn't have any appreciable impact on effectiveness unless somebody is shooting back, in which case it may become important if it occurs at a bad time. Magazine capacity has more defensive utility than offensive.

[SayWut]

39. Why, you ask?

Why does anyone need an amp that goes to 11?

[slackmaster]

41. Che Guevara's M1 Carbine had 15-round magazines

But I guess you would write that off as "It was necessary" or some other lame rationalization.

[hack89]

45. He was shooting people for a good cause. nt

[slackmaster]

88. I'm sure that the people he murdered all died thinking of him as a hero

[tama]

105. So?

This EZLN member has more rounds in his rifle:




Of course, many if not most of them had only wooden make-believe rifles. And during the initial armed uprising they didn't shoot first but in self defense - but with arms they got attention and wave of global solidarity. And the rumor is, nowadays EZLN militants aren't packing any more.

A small Ecuadorian tribe just hoarded all the weapons they could got from bows and arrows to rifles, stating that they will defend their way of life and pacha mama by what ever means they have against oil company and gov't of Ecuador. They made global news and for time being, the oil company backed down.

[slackmaster]

106. So Hugabear's opposition to people having firearms that hold more than 7 rounds is hypocritical

That's what.

ETA I think I understand your confusion. Hugabear changed his avatar in the last 24 hours. For a long time it was a high-contrast version of the famous Che photo on a red background.

ETA2 And he has changed it back to Che, who was a mass murderer.

HTH

[GreenStormCloud]

48. I don't "need" a pistol magazine that holds 7+ rounds.

I just happen to want one that holds 12 .45 caliber rounds, flush with the handle.

You have to provide a reason why there should be a limit. Mags are easily and quickly changed so your limit will not be effective in limiting someone intent on mass slaughter. The Luby's killer and the VT killer reloaded quickly. I think the Ft. Hood killer did too. All you would accomplish is to be a pain-in-the-ass to legal gun owners.

[shadowrider]

56. Nothing, at all, notta, in those 23 EO's dealt with

disarming gangs (many police will refuse to go into "no go" zones in major cities) and stopping dangerously mentally ill people from obtaining weapons. We've heard it's a violation of doctor/patient privilege, people won't go for diagnosis because they're afraid of the results, etc.

The only way to reduce gun crime is for gangs and dangerously mentally ill to be dealt with. Failure to do either only punishes law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong or illegal.

My opinion, your mileage may differ.

[Robb]

62. Gang-related homicides represent 6% of all homicides.

http://www.ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2011/BJS_PR-111611.pdf

The number of homicides known to involve adult or juvenile gang violence has quadrupled since 1980, increasing from about 220 homicides in 1980 to 960 homicides in 2008. From 1980 to 2008, gang
violence increased from one percent to six percent of all homicides.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. But most homicides are still done by those with criminal records.

Murder, as a first violent offense, is almost unknown. It happens, but rarely.

[Robb]

70. 74%. A tiny fraction of whom are in gangs.

Gangs are a problem, but not the fount of most gun homicides.

[Deep13]

52. Because the supplied magazines hold 10...

...and because they were made that way thinking it would always be blue-state compliant.

And because it's .22 rimfire, something that is not designed to be shot at humans.

Hey, why do we need 7? Or even 6?

I have an antique Beretta .22 pistol with 8 round magazines made in the 1960s. If I lived in NY I would have to get rid of it because there are no seven rounders for it.

Is that really an assault weapon? Is my 10-shot .22 sporting rifle really what we should be targeting?

Or did NY just make the NRA's case for them by going after sporting guns and insisting on confiscation?

[jmg257]

59. FWIW - you could keep the Beretta, just can't load more then 7 unless at a

sanctioned range.

THough you couldn't get 'new' mags for it.

[Deep13]

74. My understanding is residents have a year to get rid of noncomplying items. nt

[jmg257]

75. True, butl exisitng 10rounders are legal, they just can't contain more then 7.

[Deep13]

81. Well, they're legal for a year. nt

[jmg257]

83. They are not a large capacity feeding device if 10 rounds purchased

Before tuesday, as long as they do not contain more then 7 rounds ( ok to do so at ranges though). They are legal...period.

[jmg257]

58. Because 8 makes en-bloc loading an M1 Garand much easier.

Also makes it easier to keep the loaded clips in bandoliers etc. without rounds falling out.

Same with the SKS - taking 3 rounds out of every 10round stripper clip is a goofy pain in the ass.
Of course once the rounds are in the gun, you can top off to 10 anyway, so...

[ecstatic]

63. My dad told me this (regarding home defense)

When you have a traditional revolver (?), intruders can keep track of how many times you've fired and can resume their attack once they know you're out of bullets. Whereas, pistol magazines can hold 13 or so rounds, and the intruder would be more likely to flee due to the uncertainty?

[Robb]

72. The Harry Callahan paradigm.

[Crepuscular]

65. So

So if I'm using one of my semi-auto pistols I'd be limited to 7 rounds but if I'm using a nine shot revolver, I'm ok? Or do I have to leave two of the chambers in the cylinder empty?

[NewJeffCT]

67. What if 8 zombies were coming after you?

you'd be in deep shit then!

[Incitatus]

84. Then carry two guns with 7 bullets each.

And hope there's no more than 14 zombies coming for you.

[tama]

107. When I was active on Peak Oil forums

I talked with many survivalists hoarding weapons against hungry "zombie hordes" leaving cities and roaming countryside when the system collapses and food does not grow in supermarkets anymore. I used to tell them that such "survivalism" is rather pointless if you are not building sustainable communities.

And that instead of shooting contest it would be easier and safer to welcome zombie visitors, feed them well with food with special "spices" that any gardener knows, and then recycle the zombies in the compost...

The problem with guns is that they make you focus very narrowly on distant target, so you lose sight and awareness of the whole of the situation and many other available possibilities that creative imagination can offer.

[Glassunion]

68. What do I do if my revolver holds more than 7?

[jmg257]

77. Nothing. Nt

[L0oniX]

71. You might want to ask a cop why his Glock has more than 7 bullets in it at all times. n/t

[JoePhilly]

93. Because he's a cop?

Or is the argument that civilians should have the same or better weapons than the police.

[L0oniX]

98. No. It's because I like to have people here try to reframe everything. n/t

[JoePhilly]

100. New idea ... let's ask law enforcement which weapons they think civilians

should be allowed to have.

That framing any better?

[L0oniX]

102. pffft

[JoePhilly]

103. such deep analysis.

[Heimer]

73. Simple math.

Bigger is better.

The point is moot, it won't stop any crime -either way. So why make it illegal?

None of my pistols carry more than 7. When I leave the house I always have 3 mags on me. Would I prefer to only need to carry 2? Sure, but then I'd need to carry a larger weapon.

[baldguy]

76. Barney Fife never needed more than one.

And Mayberry was never safer.

[indepat]

78. As often as they want to kill/maim more than

seven people?

[snooper2]

79. I guess you've never tried to take one of these down...

[Separation]

80. Frank Drebin would have been lost

http://m.

[krispos42]

86. And this is exactly why arbitrary limits are undesirable.

Twenty years ago, it was decided that you only legitimately needed 10 cartridges in a magazine. Why? Because we have 10 fingers, apparently.

And now, hey, you only need seven.

Maybe in 2020 I'll only need 5. Or two.


But how often are people going to be faced with situations that require more than 7 bullets?

No clue. But I know this....

The odds of me ever staring down an intruder or an assailant over my gunsights is pretty damn small. Not "winning the Powerball" small, but maybe "winning a $5 scratch-off" small.


Okay... assuming I'm ever actually staring down an intruder or assailant over my gunsights, the odds of me having to actually shoot are still pretty damn small. Maybe the same odds as winning a $1 scratch-off.


Okay, assuming I've actually had to shoot at the intruder or assailant, the odds of me shooting my gun empty? Not that small any more. Maybe 1 in 100? One if 50?

Depends on how many cartridges I have in my gun. If I have, say, 5 shots, then the odds might be really high, like 1 in 4. But if I have, say, 15, it might be 1 in 100 or even more.



I do know that, in preparing for a crisis, I don't want to have to reload.

I do also know that, in preparing for a crisis, there are other things to consider besides ammunition capacity.

[AndyTiedye]

87. They Miss a Lot

and where do all those extra bullets go?

[The Second Stone]

89. Because you might want to shoot more than 7 times before reloading

This might be an opportunity to do something about the deteriorating mental health of the US population. Ever since Gov. Reagan closed down first the California mental hospitals that spread nationwide, and then the insurance companies stopped covering and paying for extensive treatment, we have all been risking our lives by going to theaters, schools and kindergartens, fast food places and post offices. And let's face it. One nut, John Hinckley, gunned down President Reagan while everyone around him was trying to protect him and had guns. None of them were fired. If you can't protect the President from one guy with a revolver, arming teachers is just beyond stupid.

[backwoodsbob]

90. I believe 7 was my number :)

never needed that many so good to go in my opinion

[JoePhilly]

94. I'm a bad shot and so its easier if I can just spray bullets in all directions

without aiming.

[Odin2005]

95. It all comes down to their "Fighting off The Gubmit" fantasies.

[Puha Ekapi]

99. We *need*

to establish a Bureau of Needs ASAP.

[immoderate]

104. A 7 round limit will have no effect on the number of murders.

Most murders are done with 3 or less.

It will inhibit defense though.

--imm

[ZombieHorde]

108. The main reason people need a magazine that can hold more than 7 bullets

is because kidnappers are constantly demanding 30-round magazines as ransom.

When you notice your loved one missing, and you get that note demanding a 30-round magazine within 48 hours, you will damn any law restricting magazines to 7 rounds.

How often does this actually happen, you ask? The answer is every hour of every day.

[font size=1]this is a joke[/font]

[bobclark86]

109. It isn't a question of "need more than 7 bullets at a time"

The problem is you just made hundreds of guns illegal for no reason other than you think the already small magazine size is "too big."

Point One: Try loading an M1 Garand — which normally takes 8 rounds — with 7 rounds in the en bloc. Guess what? They fall out. There are no 7 round magazines for Glocks, for Browning High Powers, for Ruger 10/22s (that's a squirrel gun, by the way)... there is a very long list. The Ruger Single Ten, a .22 squirrel/target revolver which fires single action (have to cock it for each shot) and you have to reload by pushing a round out with a glorified stick, rotate cylinder and repeat 9 more times, is now banned.

Point Two: Most companies won't bother to make the smaller mags for just one state.

Ergo, a de facto gun ban on hundreds of models. This could easily be challenged. Who knows with this SCOTUS what will happen...

BTW, Do you know how many millions of 10-round magazines there are in New York right now? If the state is estimating 1 million assault weapons, saying there are 50 million magazines (as not just assault weapons hold them) isn't out of the ballpark for a guess. 10 is a good number more people can get behind, because everybody already makes 10-round magazines for everything.