Guns: 10 Rounds

[texshelters]

Guns: 10 Rounds

A TextraNormal Presentation based on actual discussions of gun regulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6LLRYLMnI

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Glassunion]

1. Straw Man....

It has been rendered in the 3D... so that must make it valid?

[texshelters]

3. You missed the point

again.

Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Glassunion]

4. Still makes it no less of a straw man.

[texshelters]

6. The point is not about guns

it is about the magazine.

How is that a straw man.

Thanks for avoiding the issue and reinforcing my point for me.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[one-eyed fat man]

9. The Fifth Amendment

The fly in the ointment is the Constitutional guarantee.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That pretty much means that not only is there a due process requirement, there is a requirement the government pay market prices to those whose formerly legal magazines are confiscated by a government ban. Most ban proponents are all about the ban and ignore or dismiss the requirement or cost of compensation.

However, that is precisely why the last time around they went through the magazine ban they did not go after existing magazines. That avoided the whole takings, due process and compensation issue. They banned the production of NEW magazines except for "Law Enforcement or Government Use" and required they be so marked if manufactured after September 13, 1994. The marking requirement was absolutely necessary as there would be no way to tell otherwise when a particular magazine was made and therefore subject to the ban.

[Glassunion]

11. I went to school in Smyrna GA...

I was run over(litterally) by our bus driver.

Other than that it was pretty cool.

[Hoyt]

59. Sorry to hear that. Residents of Smyrna, Ga still fly confederate flags on main roads.

Did not realize high capacity magazine were manufactured there. Will have to stop by and dump my trash.

[Glassunion]

78. Yes, and that applies to how many families in Smyrna?

I'm sure the 47,000 residents would appreciate you dumping your trash there because a few asses decide to fly the confederate battle flag.

It is a wide brush you paint the entire town of Smyrna.

[Glassunion]

10. It is a straw man because of the following...

1. The video is a misrepresentation of an opposing position. It was invented position that the little dude in the black suit holds.
2. It "quotes" an opposing viewpoint out of context. Basically there are opposing viewpoints that were omitted from the video not giving the entire opposing view, just a small part of it.
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments. Basically the little dude in the black suit is intentionally depicted by the creator as having a weak opposing viewpoint.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona(dude in the black suit) with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. This falls back to #2 where the opposing viewpoint was not presented in its entirety.

The video fits all of the above.

The video also has a spattering of Ad lapidem as well.

[texshelters]

15. It is NOT a straw man because I make no claim

to represent the opposition. I am only quoting and paraphrasing things that were said to me in defense of large magazines, or more to the point, in avoidance of the issue.

It is not a straw man because I am not trying to ban guns and using the magazine as a straw man, I am demonstrating how silly the defense is of large magazines.

I am not MAKING UP the position, I am presenting the defense of large magazines as the defense (as close to direct quotes as possible) it was done on other posts. Therefore, it is NOT a straw man, it is the actually argument.

I have yet to hear anything more rational in defense of large clips, so have at it. I am only presenting what happened.

I am NOT over simplifying the argument; I am presenting the simplistic arguments as they were presented to me.

The guy in the suit was quoting people and what they said to me about large magazines.

So, I didn't make up the lines for the guy in the black suit, people here and on other site made up the lines and I guoted them as closely as I could And the quote about god and guns, that was taken directly from Rep. Franks.

Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Glassunion]

30. Um...

"It is NOT a straw man because I make no claim to represent the opposition." Ok, then who was the little dude in the black suit in the video? Was that character not a "representation" of the opposing viewpoints that you state that you have received in reply to your query of who "needs" more than 10 rounds?

"I am only quoting and paraphrasing things that were said to me in defense of large magazines, or more to the point, in avoidance of the issue." Yes, you may have been quoting and paraphrasing, however out of the context of the entirety of opposing viewpoints. You are ignoring posts that did offer insight to you question of why people "need" to have more than 10 rounds, and you cherry picked replies that suited your needs for the creation of this "demonstration".

"It is not a straw man because I am not trying to ban guns and using the magazine as a straw man, I am demonstrating how silly the defense is of large magazines." Your "demonstration" on how silly the defense is of large magazines is the Straw Man that I refer to. Your intent on not trying to ban guns is immaterial. It is the "demonstration" that is the straw man.

"I am not MAKING UP the position, I am presenting the defense of large magazines as the defense (as close to direct quotes as possible) it was done on other posts. Therefore, it is NOT a straw man, it is the actually argument." I never stated that you "made up" anything. I am stating that through omission, you misrepresent the defense of these magazines and present it as if it is the "entire" argument of the opposing viewpoints.

"I have yet to hear anything more rational in defense of large clips, so have at it. I am only presenting what happened." Again, you are not representing it in its entirety. Therefore trying to "demonstrate" that the opposing viewpoint is silly. There were several defenses given(see below) that I did not see represented in the video. Why is that?

"I am NOT over simplifying the argument; I am presenting the simplistic arguments as they were presented to me." Again, you cherry picked replies, or parts of them that were not a representation of the whole opposition, thus falsely trying to depict the defense of larger magazines as simply silly.

"The guy in the suit was quoting people and what they said to me about large magazines.
So, I didn't make up the lines for the guy in the black suit, people here and on other site made up the lines and I guoted them as closely as I could And the quote about god and guns, that was taken directly from Rep. Franks." Again, you cherry picked replies, or parts of them that were not a representation of the whole opposition, thus falsely trying to depict the defense of larger magazines as silly.

Here are some statements that I did not see represented in your "demonstration" as to why some feel the "need" for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds... All of these statements were in a direct reply to you, in a thread you started.

"Cops routinely land less than 1 in 8 shots.This is why cops have standard capacity (15 to 20) round magazines, plus extra magazines, plus backup.So cops need that (despite having backup) but a homeowner should be limited to only 10 rounds when facing multiple intruders so you can "feel" safe."

"Using a firearm under duress can be difficult. While a good shot at the firing range (95%+ on a human target in a competitive environment) my combat accuracy may only be 40% depending on lighting, moving targets, and evasive maneuvers. Also, a good practice is to fire two shots into the target in rapid succession (double tap) and assess the situation. Because 9mm is a fairly diminutive round a determined attacker or home intruder, especially one under the effects of narcotics, may need engaged up to twice with a "double tap" to quickly end the threat. It's also not unreasonable to expect that there may be a second or third accomplice engaged in the home invasion or robbery. Four attackers may be on the fringe of imagination, but three is more within the realm of possibility. Added up, that's 12 successful shots/hits requiring 30 total expended rounds (at a 40% hit rate)."

"Also, keep in mind that common shooting competitions may allow allow extended magazines. I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting "9 major" in the open class had up wards of 29 rounds in a magazine. In a competition, not having to swap a mag is a HUGE advantage."

"What if I have more than one intruder?"

"What if I'm a Korean grocer sitting on top of my store in LA in 1992 w/ a Mini 14 watching a mob of well over 100 rioters approach my store?"

"What if I'm stuck in my home after Katrina and the looters (including police) are getting closer?"

"What if we already tried banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and in 10 years could show absolutely no discernible affect on crime?"

"Besides, Ive never had to shoot at anyone with my 17 round magazine, 18 with one chambered. My last carry gun only held ten but that was by choice. I can tell you I prefer 17 to 10 when I hit the range. I go there to shoot, not reload. Reloading is rough on the fingers and less fun."

"As for the "one ten-round magazine" limitation, it's virtually unenforceable and would only lead to criminals being better armed than their victims. Do you really think that a spree killer or gang banger would pay the slightest heed to any such limitation? Those are the people you need to fear, not the sport shooter, hunter, collector, or other armed citizen."

"I don't think anyone wanting to protect their family should be limited by the number of rounds a magazine has."

"No one really knows("how many you need when you carry in public"), which is why a ban on so-called extended mags would override those who wish to have more rounds. And frankly, that is more important than your personal definition of "need," a definition without substance or meaning."

"Where was such a magazine used before Tucson? If there isn't any real social problem, then enacting bans and regulations is meaningless for social policy."

"Millions and millions of magazines with a capacity over 10 are used legally everyday by people who either want them or think they may need them."

"At the commencement of hostilities, you don't know how much ammo you'll need. However, I'm pretty certain that you want the attack to stop before the ammunition runs out. So, carry as much as you reasonably can."

"And yet, despite a hundred million weapons that can take 11+ magazines, and despite hundreds of millions of magazines for those guns, and a billion rounds of ammo to feed those magazines, situations where criminals murdered lots of people are very rare."

"We know that cops tend to carry 15+1 rounds in their sidearm (assuming they're carrying a Glock 22, which is the most popular police handgun in the U.S.), plus two spare mags, plus whatever they've got in the cruiser (assault weapon--excuse me "patrol rifle", shotgun, or both) if things get ugly, plus the rest of the department (and neighboring agencies) on call, and they're wearing at least level II body armor. So if you produce some finding that, no really, all you need is one mag with a maximum capacity of ten rounds, you're going to meet with a lot of entirely justified skepticism."

"I have yet to see you present any evidence that magazines with a capacity over ten rounds aren't needed--or at least legitimately useful--for self-defense or target practice, and I certainly haven't seen you present any empirical evidence that they make us less safe (let alone that defending them "makes us less safe")."

"I don't believe you asked the question for the purpose of understanding my position. Rather, I think you posed the question to imply that, if one does not support banning magazines with a capacity over ten rounds, one is callously unconcerned about incidents like the Giffords shooting (i.e. JAQing off)."

"My problem with having a law that would prohibit the use of a magazine that holds more rounds than 10 is simply because the police carry anywhere from 15 to 19 rounds on average. And, since you are looking at this from a "need" perspective. Name me one thing that a police officer would have to encounter, that a citizen would not, where you could justify the police "needing" more rounds in their magazines than the citizenry?"

The above quotes came from posters in the following thread... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=359248&mesg_id=359248 Thank you for your quotes that I used.

Straw Man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

[X_Digger]

36. That's the textbook definition.. you presented what you claimed were both sides (not really)..

The tore down you opponent's incomplete position.

Fucking duh.

The Arum report was right. There is a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

[HankyDubs]

39. if these arguments sound stupid to you

it's because they are stupid arguments.

[X_Digger]

41. Can I quote you on that? I agree, this was a terrible straw man argument. thx n/t

[HankyDubs]

55. sure can

but of course these arguments, while stupid...are your arguments. These are the arguments pushed at me on the gun forum on a regular basis.

[X_Digger]

57. I refer you to post 30.

That is critical thinking, not the blathering shite in the video.

[texshelters]

65. And, those are quotes

from people defending large magazines. I did NOT make up that dialogue, I was quoting the large magazine supporters and their circular logic and failure to address the topic and that threat in the end ws made here on DU.

I even quoted Republican Rep Franks from his encounter with L. O'Donnell.

So yes, as Hanky pointed out and I agree, the arguments are stupid.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[texshelters]

66. Actually, a straw man would put one issue

in place of another. I never do that. The issue is clearly the large magazine. You are misreading your textbook.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[X_Digger]

71. You selected a portion of your opponent's argument..

Had you actually copied a thread verbatim to video, or a subthread conversation with one person, that would not be a straw man. (Assuming it was in context.)

But picking and choosing? Absolutely. Pasting together bits from different people as though they were one converstion? Completely.

But feel free to post more, I'm sure we could all use another laugh.

[DrLax]

83. It only took one round

It was the first shot that took a chunk out of Ms. Gifford's brain. No magazine was required.

[PavePusher]

29. If you can tell me how many rounds I'll need in self defense,

then you can limit me. If your prognostication fails, you owe me $100 million. Sound fair?

[texshelters]

67. 10 or less

give me you account with the money in it and I will take the withdrawal.

Are you so inept that you couldn't stop someone with 10 or less shots. If not, perhaps you shouldn't have a gun.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[PavePusher]

79. Again, you are sure that I will only need that many rounds?

Cite to evidence, please? Or proof of your precognitive bonafides...

[RSillsbee]

2. What right to "be safe" in public?

You do know that this has been tried before and afound to have zero effect on crime right?

[texshelters]

5. What has been tried?

Are are you with Representative Franks and unable to admit that with only 10 round fewer people would have died on Tucson?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[shadowrider]

7. Ignorance is bliss. You must be extremely comfortable n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. He simply would've changed mags...

He had the wherewithal to bring spare 30 round mags so it's perfectly logical to assume he would've just brought spare 10 round mags. To the detriment of his victims, he may have even chosen a firearm that fires a larger caliber like .45ACP for the purpose of maximizing damage given a round limit. It certainly stands to reason that, if you can't carry more rounds then carry bigger rounds.

Even when only considering the variable of a 10 round limit, it's difficult to say if more or less people would have been killed because the reloading sequence would have been different thus presenting different offensive opportunities for the victims to retaliate. Even his choices of firearm come into question if he is faced with a 10 round limit. Basically, the butterfly effect dictates that it's impossible to say with full confidence what would have been when key variables are changed. Especially considering evidence like the VT shootings (or many others) where mags of smaller capacity were used to effect a greater number of kills.

The error here is not his "failure to admit"... it is your willingness to accept illogical truths.

[texshelters]

16. You forget that the shootings in the Long Island RR

and in Tucson were tackled after emtying their gun, so fewer round would have been shot.

AND, perhaps only allow on magazine per gun? Just a thought.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[SteveM]

20. Oh, wow...

"AND, perhaps only allow on magazine per gun? Just a thought."

I presume you mean "allow one magazine per gun." How on God's green earth would you regulate and administer THAT? Magazines in this type of weapon are not integral to the pistol's construction; in fact, they are made to be ejected and re-loaded repeatedly and often. There are some auto-loading rifles (old designs) which have integral magazines (in tubes under the barrel, or in a tube in the butt-stock), but auto-loading pistols ain't like that. I know some don't like using analogies, but it's like selling a record-player or other modern app and saying you can only have one program source. That will be roundly ignored and completely unenforceable.

[Hoyt]

60. Lot's of things that are difficult to regulate are outlawed. That's not a reason to shoot it down.

Although a common one around here.

[texshelters]

68. Production

factories can only produce one magazine per gun.

If we limit ourselves to what we feel is possible instead of what is right, why try to have a civil rights movement, go to the moon, cure polio, harness electricity, have health care in Germany (go Bismark!), create the internet, etc.

It is possible if we had the will. We don't, thus it is impossible. But there are strategies we haven't tried.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[shadowrider]

22. ROFL and when you're through with that one magazine, you throw the gun away?

Sheesh
:banghead:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. You make the assumption that he tackled while he is changing mags.

Perhaps nobody would have been in arms reach at the moment he'd expended 11 rounds? Perhaps someone waiting to tackle him wouldn't have had time time to react to him having to reload so quickly. Timing is everything. He may have killed more... he may have killed less. Shit, with a hicap magazine ban to consider he may have just decided to bring a sawed-off 12ga and administered some real firepower. It's an unpredictable assumption - if you change a variable like mag capacity and you change the dynamic of the shooter's tactics the outcome cannot be assumed to follow the same sequence or timeline of events.

"One magazine per gun" ??? And how in hell is that supposed to be enforced? There is no list anywhere stating how many of which guns anybody has. Not to mention limiting the number of magazines (magazines are "arms") one can purchase is a direct infringement of RKBA - it would not stand up to Due Process or scrutiny.

Quit beating around the bush and show some honesty... your position requires repeal of the 2A or portions of the 5A. Other strategies are just disingenuous. Passing unconstitutional legislation like your throwing shit at the wall (just to see what sticks) is simply undemocratic. :thumbsdown:

[beevul]

45. Uh, no.

"You forget that the shootings in the Long Island RR and in Tucson were tackled after emtying their gun, so fewer round would have been shot."

The long island RR shooter used standard capacity mags, IIRC.

The tuscon shooters gun jammed. Broken Mag spring, which would have been much less likely with factory mags. Search the news if you don't believe it.

"AND, perhaps only allow on magazine per gun?"

No.

The party responsible for such a thing, would be out of power for decades.

[aikoaiko]

47. a perfect example of going down the slippery slope from your stated position.

For some, there is never enough gun control.

[HankyDubs]

56. slippery slope BS

The last refuge of the gun crowd. Sensible restrictions are EEEVIL...because, y'know...slippery slope.

[X_Digger]

58. Perhaps you didn't actually read the reply he was responding to?

texashelters said: "AND, perhaps only allow on magazine per gun? Just a thought. "

In a thread discussing limiting magazines to 10 rounds, he throws in another restriction.. it's not a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy when you can actually quote someone doing just that.

[aikoaiko]

62. The OP started off with 10 rounds mags ok, and now 'slipping' to only one 10 round mag.

Do you understand that concept of slippery slope?

[Hoyt]

61. Slope runs both ways. Right now we are on a slippery slope toward too many guns/bullets in public.

[aikoaiko]

63. There are no fed mag limits now -- where can the pro-liberty side slip and slide from that?

:shrug:

[SteveM]

19. Crap question. No "admission," here...

I will not admit that "with only 10 round fewer people would have died on Tucson" because it is assumed that some blowhole would only show up with "10 round." The murderer showed up with more, in fact. And Cho showed up with "short" magazines -- several -- with even more rounds.

The question is contrived and flies in the face of good sense, and doesn't even describe what happened in Tucson!

[YllwFvr]

35. will you admit that

10 round magazines would have made the VT shooter kill less people?

;)

[RSillsbee]

43. from 1994 to 2004

It was illegal to manufacture new magazines that held more than 10 rounds (except for military or police use)after 10 years the non ban was found to have no appreciable effect on crime. Which is why it was allowed to lapse.

But you knew that

[Euromutt]

48. And the lapsing of the ban was not followed...

...by a significant and lasting increase in violent crime. We've hardly heard anyone (except the usual suspects at the Brady Campaign and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy) squawking about magazines with a capacity over ten rounds until the Tucson shooting, and there's a reason for that.

[beevul]

44. Just like fewer people died at VT?

No thanks, not having any.

[Jenoch]

64. It is likely that if Laughner used the standard magazines

which hold 15 rounds, it is likely that he could have gotten off many more rounds than he did using the 33 round mags. The huge magazines are notorious for jamming which is what happened to Laughner as he was attempting to switch magazines. If he had used several of the standard magazines, the type that came with the weapon, he could have switched them out without any jams and shot many more rounds than he did.

[texshelters]

69. He shot 30

according to the police, FYI.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Hoopla Phil]

74. And retreated, being tackled, only after the spring in the magazine malfunctioned jamming the gun.

Had this guy used more conventional mags he may have done a lot more harm. Of course playing "what if" games is nothing but speculation.

[Jenoch]

84. You're right

but this whole thread is based on speculation. You understood my point, I wonder why the OP did not?

[Travis_0004]

8. I'll bite

I don't need a magazine with more than 10 rounds, but I WANT a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Its a simple as that. I hate when people always bring up the idea of hunting or self defense. Most guns are not used for that, they are used for recreation.

10 round magazines were used in columbine, and there were still many lives lost that day, so its not like 10 rounds is a magical safe number.

[one-eyed fat man]

12. Virginia Tech

Cho did even more damage and he only had assault weapons ban legal 10 round magazines. The campus police responded by establishing a perimeter around the building and calling for the city police. If you listened to the cell phone camera footage students made outside Norris hall you could hear slow, sporadic and methodical gunfire. It took the SWAT team about a half hour to show up and another 10 minutes to break through the doors.

Cho did not kill himself until after the first armed officers actually got into the building and were headed his way. He did not want to risk surviving capture.

At Columbine it was hours before the police actually entered the building. People bled to death because medical crews had to wait while the police methodically cleared the entire building.

[Travis_0004]

13. Great post

I'll also add that police tactics have changed. Years ago, it was very common for police to wait for the swat team to arrive, but most (hopefully all) police departments now have protocals to deal with an active shooter. Its more common for police to have an AR-15 in their trunk, and to go into a situation without waiting for swat.

Swat has better equipment and training, but are slow to mobilize, so they arrive way too late in some situations.

[texshelters]

18. Would it have been better

if he had larger magazines.

The point is being lost here.

Why do people need more than 10 round magazines?

No one can really defend that, and that's okay.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. Your explanation of why I need only 10 shots is as much conjecture as my argument that I need 30...

Using a firearm under duress can be difficult. While a good shot at the firing range (95%+ on a human target in a competitive environment) my combat accuracy may only be 40% depending on lighting, moving targets, and evasive maneuvers. Also, a good practice is to fire two shots into the target in rapid succession (double tap) and assess the situation. Because 9mm is a fairly diminutive round a determined attacker or home intruder, especially one under the effects of narcotics, may need engaged up to twice with a "double tap" to quickly end the threat. It's also not unreasonable to expect that there may be a second or third accomplice engaged in the home invasion or robbery. Four attackers may be on the fringe of imagination, but three is more within the realm of possibility.
Added up, that's 12 successful shots/hits requiring 30 total expended rounds (at a 40% hit rate).

Personally, I don't carry my 30 round mags because they stick out of the gun awkwardly but I have carried a 30 round as a spare mag in my pocket (or keep it in my glovebox of the car). More typically, I carry 15+1 rounds in my Glock and a spare 15 round magazine for a total of 31 rounds.

Also, keep in mind that common shooting competitions may allow allow extended magazines. I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting "9 major" in the open class had upwards of 29 rounds in a magazine.

[texshelters]

70. ACtually no

the main point is more bullet, more killing potential.

Deny reality if you want.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. More bullet, more defensive potential

Deny reality if you want.

Explain to me why I only need TEN rounds. I don't want to hear why you think I don't need THIRTY.
I want to know why, specifically & qualtitatively, you think I need TEN (or fewer) rounds.

[Travis_0004]

28. As I've already stated

We don't NEED 30 round magazine.

People want 30 round magazines. They are useful for competition, or just shooting at the range.

People don't need cars with 500 horsepower, or 5,000 square foot homes, but they want them, and this is a free country, and they are allowed to buy them. My question to you, is why is 10 a magical number? I know its a round even number, but are you saying 10 bullets is perfectly safe. My contention is people will always do dumb things. Should we ban sports cars if people get in an accident and kill somebody? Should we ban alcohol because people get DUI's.

Also, keep in mind, the reason that the Arizona shooting stopped, is because the gun jammed, not because he ran out of bullets. People who shoot guns know that 33 round glock maags are not as reliable as standard mags, and the cheap knockoffs even less so. Is it possible that with a 10 round magazine, he would have not had the gun jam, and could have reloaded and killed more people. Maybe unlikely, but certainly possible.

I will support the continued legalization of alcohol even if it means deaths from DUI, and I will continue to support high capacity magazines even if there will be shootings in the past and future. First off, there were still mass shootings during the assault weapon ban, and if a new ban was passed, there would still be mass shootings. Also, existing magazines would not be banned, just the sale new magazines. During the assault weapon ban, you could buy a high capacity magazine for around 100.00. Do you think 100.00 (or even 1,000) would stop somebody who is going to commit suicide (or at least spend the rest of his life in jail)

[YllwFvr]

37. police interactions

ive read has shown 10 rounds to be insufficient. Even when criminals are not on mind altering drugs they can take as many as 22 hits and still be active. Thats right, a single criminal, not on drugs, took 22 hits and continued to fight.

[Euromutt]

38. The point isn't being lost; you're just not getting the responses you want.

"Why do people need more than 10 round magazines?" Because in any situation in which one might legitimately use a firearm--be it warfare, law enforcement or self-defense--having as much ammunition as you can fit in the gun without negatively affecting the magazine's reliability or (in the case of handguns) the ability to fit one's hand around the grip is a useful attribute.

Does anyone know for certain prior to needing to use the firearm that they're going to need more than ten (or eleven) rounds? Admittedly no, because we can't tell the future. But evidently, enough people have needed that amount of ammunition in the past that gun makes have responded by designing ever more guns that take magazines that hold more than ten rounds, from the "Wonder nines" of the 1970s and early 1980s (such as the Smith & Wesson 59, the CZ75, the Beretta 92 and the Glock 17) onward.

I am in principle open to being persuaded that I don't need more than 10+1 rounds (and indeed, my preferred carry gun, a S&W M&P40c, holds no more than that) but I'd like to see some evidence--not "it stands to reason"-type conjecture--that I will never need more than that. And thus far, you haven't actually provided any arguments or evidence why people don't need magazines that hold over ten rounds.

[one-eyed fat man]

40. You WANT to miss the point.

You have been trying to say, in your obtuse way, that since no one can articulate a "need" you find acceptable that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are only suitable for mass murderers and thus only the police should have them.(sic)

The fact is that Cho was working in a government designated gun free zone, with university certified defenseless victims, while the campus police enforced a perimeter around the building that ensured no one would interfere with him until the SWAT team showed up.

Under those conditions magazine size was immaterial. He brought a second gun so he could shoot anyone who attempted to interfere with his reloading.

You take it as an article of faith that smaller magazines translate to less carnage. Shooters at Luby's Cafeteria and Virginia Tech disprove that.

Get right down to it, Julio Gonzalez, used a bucks worth of Amoco regular and two matches to kill 87 people in a matter of minutes. No shooter, with any kind of magazine has come within half that number.

[beevul]

46. Why do people need more than 10 round magazines?

"Why do people need more than 10 round magazines?"

Because people like you would advocate lowering it to less than ten after it fails to stop someone that disobeys the law.

Guaranteed. People on your side have stated their intent, some being government officials and legislators.

No stepping stones. No beachheads.

Nothing new to build from.

Just no.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. The U.S. does not have a Dept of Needs and you are not the Needs Czar.

I am not required to offer any explanations for the exercise of any of my rights.

[texshelters]

17. But, the LL RR case and in

Tucson they were tackled after clearing their guns and 10 rounds would have killed fewer people. Don't you agree that would be good? And we can limit one magazine per gun when manufactured. We can do it, we just don't care to.

I want a tank, but the damn guvment won't let me. Sheeet@

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[shadowrider]

24. Ok, I'll bite. I want to hear this. Exactly HOW would you limit a weapon to ONE 10 Rd. Mag?

This outta be good.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. You can own tanks....

learn the laws before you bitch about them. You sound like a fool.

[shadowrider]

27. Better to keep the mouth closed and let people think

and whatnot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. While you're at it, how are you going to ban New York reloads?

i.e., a spree killer carrying more than one gun (as Cho did at VT)?

[spin]

21. If magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are banned, next will be magazines ...

that hold more than five.

Banning high capacity magazines is a "feel good" solution that will enable pompous politicians to strut around like emperor penguins bragging about how they accomplished something really important. In reality they will have done nothing at all.

Magazines can be swapped in one to two seconds. A mass murderer can carry more than one firearm.

How about we work on detecting people with serious mental health issues and getting them good treatment before they decide to run amok. How about we get the states to input the names of people they have be determined to be a serious treat because of metal illness to the NICS data base. This might actually stop another massacre and needs no new laws to be passed.

How is your state doing on inputting names? Check here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf

For example Arizona has an estimated 121,700 records of people whose names need to be input into the NICS system because of disqualifying mental illness and has only input 4465 in the last two years and eight months.

Tomorrow another shooter in Arizona could decide to go to his local gun store and buy firearms and ammo in preparation for a copy cat shooting. He might be able to, simply because Arizona hasn't bothered to input his record.

[Remmah2]

52. 10 round magazines.

Magazines are not round, they're rectangular.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. The U.S does not have a Dep. of Needs, and you are not the Needs Czar.

I do not have to justify why I need any of my rights.

[benEzra]

32. Here's what a competent magazine change looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXNPo5krvw

FWIW, you are welcome to limit all your guns to 19th-century capacities, but 15-round rifles predate the Civil War, and we had 30+ rounders by the early 1870's.



Your guns, your choice. But I'll keep mine, thanks.

[Remmah2]

49. Next to ban.

They'll be banning tapered mag wells next.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. I like this video a bit better.

It shows shooting along with the reload. Of course this guy would appear to be G.M. level IPSC. I've only got a B card.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzAeobt3ceU&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[aikoaiko]

34. Why should 11 round magazines be banned?

And because you claim to not get any responses to the question of why one might need more than 10 rounds, I'll answer. Maybe you'll make a little movie about it someday.

I wish to have more than 10 rounds in some of my pistols because I may need them to help defend myself or others (such as my family).

I offer the admission from anti-gun zealous that police should be exempt from any magazine capacities as proof that reasonable people may need more than 10 rounds to defend themselves.

Of course police are more likely to need higher capacity magazines, but police are encountering the same criminals that victimize regular non-leo folks. If the police need them when they confront a burglar, home invader, domestic violence aggressor, rapist, etc., certainly regular folks should not be denied the same opportunities to defend themselves.

The claim that if one cannot defend him or herself with only 10 rounds, then he or she shouldn't have a gun is one of the stupidest things anti-gun zealots say. Are you ready to make that claim of police? What if there are 3, 4, or 5 home invaders? Is your criteria 10 rounds for one bad guy? Isn't that just an arbitrary number that your parroting from known anti-gun zealots?

How about you answer some questions.

[Remmah2]

50. When the police finally show up.

When the police finally show up there are usually multiple officers. Hence multiple firearms firing from different points of aim. Two officers w/two standard 9mm Glocks = 34 rounds loaded in firearms w/two spare mags = another 68 rounds. If three officers show up that's 153 rounds available at a minimum.

If I'm home alone and a perp breaks in and bodily threatens me it seems that 17 rounds in a "standard" factory Glock magazine is a reasonable capacity. That's only 11% capacity of what law enforcement would show up with. A ten round mag would be only 6.5%.

Oh, I forgot. Many police officers also carry back up firearms as well.

[aikoaiko]

53. 16 hours later, still no answer?

[Francis Marion]

42. Ten rounds is the 'reasonable' start

down the slipery slope.

Until later nine becomes 'resonable.'
Then, eight, seven , three... approaching zero.

The point is, there is no Constitutional permission for a legislature to infringe this right. An arbitrary numerical limit is an infringement. How about a ten page book limit? Ten word free speech limit? Vote ten times only?

Only a fool would establish precedent to impose 'reasonable'* limit on a right which 'shall not be infringed in the first place.

'Shall not be infringed' means 'hands off it.'

I 'need' more than ten rounds because that is how I know that the government trusts The People respects our Freedom Charter.

(*reasonable = the whole number closest to zero which may be imposed in a given political climate)

[Atypical Liberal]

51. Let's take a look at the actual text of the video.

Shirt Guy: Why are people allowed to carry guns in public and have magazines with more than 10 bullets in them?

A firearm is a tool. However, it is generally useless without ammunition. Ammunition is what allows the firearm to work as intended. Logically, the more ammunition it carries, the better a tool it is, as it is able to function for a longer period of time.

Suit Guy: The second amendment allows us to have guns.

This is true.

Shirt Guy: And the second amendment also talks about a well regulated militia. But you avoided my question: Are you safer with 33 bullets than you are with 10. Do you need more than 10 bullets to protect yourself?

Actually, Suit Guy did not avoid the question, because that question was not asked in the first question. But let's answer it anyway. As I noted before, all else being equal, a firearm that contains more bullets is generally more useful than one that contains fewer. If you are relying on that firearm for your safety, this means that the more ammunition it carries the longer it will be able to function, and thus the longer it will be able to keep you safe in the event that you need to use it. So yes, you probably are safer with 33 bullets than you are with 10. Whether you will actually need more than 10 bullets to defend yourself, no one can say. But there is a reason why police and military use high-capacity magazines - because they feel it keeps them safer!

Suit Guy: It's not about me, it's about my constitutional rights. Why do you want to take away my rights?

Shirt Guy: I don't want to take away anyone's rights or guns. I want to know why more than 10 bullets is needed to protect yourself.

You see, pro-firearm guy are wise to the anti-firearm guys. We've heard it said before, "Oh, noooooo...nobody wants to take away your rights or your guns!!!! Heaven forbid!" No. Of course not. They just try and make it as onerous as possible to own one, or make them so ineffective until people give up trying to own them. I've asked people on this very forum, "How many rounds should a magazines hold, then?" And the answer was "Zero". Nobody is buying the "We just want to restrict magazines to 10 rounds! That's all! Double-pinky-promise!"

Shirt Guy is being dishonest. Most of the people calling for bans on "high capacity" magazines most certainly do want to take away right and guns. Nobody is fooled here.

Suit Guy: It's my right to carry a gun. And what if I miss? I might need more than 10 bullets if I miss.

Shirt Guy: If you can't shoot someone invading your home, or attacking you with a knife on the street with 10 bullets or less, perhaps you shouldn't have a gun. Can you give me an actual answer to the question: Are you safer with more than 10 bullets in your gun, or are you making the public less safe?

Why is it, then, that police and military forces carry more than 10 rounds in their handguns? I'll tell you why: In a fight, your body dumps adrenaline, and you are maneuvering to both attack while simultaneously limiting your own exposure. This makes it very difficult to hit your target, even with good training. According to one study I was able to find, The police miss 40% of the time! ( http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Files/Oregon/92-Oregonian_Study.htm ).

The bottom line is this: If I'm going to drop $550 or more on a handgun, since ammunition capacity does not affect cost, I'm going to buy the pistol that affords me the most ammunition capacity possible. The only reason I would not do this is if the loaded weight or size of the firearm was a concern, as with a concealed carry firearm. But for home defense? Give me the most bullets I can hold.

The real question here is not, "Why do you need more than 10 bullets?" The real question is, "Why would you limit yourself?"

Suit Guy: Guns don't kill people. People do. I wish that people had the capacity to have a more (unintelligible) towards fellow human beings and a commitment to protect them as children of god. that's the real issue here.

Nice stereotype on the religious angle here.

Shirt Guy: The killing wouldn't happen without the gun. The gun is the tool that kills. And having a gun in public with a large magazine makes killing possible.

So Shirt Guy acknowledges, albeit obliquely, that the large magazine does make the toolmore effective at killing.

So why does Shirt Guy keep asking me if, then, I'm safer with one? Obviously if a larger magazine capacity makes it a more effective tool, I'm going to be safer!

Yes, bad people can abuse this tool. But I'm not willing to give up my advantage for the sake of criminals.

Suit Guy: Why is the anti-gun crowd so focused on the size of the magazine in a gun?

Shirt Guy: Because with more bullets, you can kill more people. Do you need more than 10 bullets to protect yourself?

LOL, outright contradiction! Shirt guy says straight up that with more bullets, I can kill more people. Obviously, this means that if I am assaulted by an attacker, I can protect myself better!

Suit Guy: Why do anti-gun people want to take away my rights? It's not about me it's about my Constitutional rights.

Shirt Guy: What about the right to be safe in public? Some regulation could make us safer from gun violence. And you still haven't tole me why you need a gun that holds more than 10 rounds.

It's quite simple: My right to bear arms trumps your right to feel safe.

There's no doubt that regulation could make us safer from gun violence. We could have some regulation that completely bans firearms, and authorized door-to-door searches to confiscate them. Perhaps we would then be safer from gun violence. But at what cost? The weak would no longer be able to resist assault from the strong. The People would no longer have the means to resist oppression as the founders intended. I'm not willing to pay that price.

Suit Guy: You really piss me off. I will tell you why I need a gun with lots of bullets. I need a gun with more than 10 rounds to protect against people like you who want to take away my gun. That is why I need more than 10 rounds.

This is true.

[texshelters]

72. Thanks for verifying and reinforcing the paranoia that

I put into the video based on the comments I have received in my gun regulation posts.

Again, you are not able to see the difference between regulation and banning. Why is that?

And your repetition of the last line in my video, the quote from the person unable to defend large magazines and thus resorting to violent rhetoric, makes my point the best for me.

People who see violence as a solution, you and many others, should not so easily obtain semi-autos with great killing potential. In fact, no one outside of the military should carry such a weapon.

Thanks for the assist affirming the paranoia of the guns first crowd! Yeah team!

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[benEzra]

73. You're getting a strongly negative reaction because a 10-round limit is ridiculously low.

Standard magazine capacities for full-size 9mm pistols (ordinary civilian guns, ordinary flush-fitting magazines) is 15 to 20 rounds, depending on model, and has been for decades. The standard magazine capacity of the most popular civilian rifles in the United States is 30 rounds.

15-round magazines have been on the civilian market since the 1860's and 30-round since the early 1870's and Americans own hundreds of millions of them, yet you speak of banning them as if it is just a minor, trivial restriction on something that not many people own anyway.

If you were talking about 17- or 20-round limits for pistol magazines and 30 for rifles/carbines, I'd see that as a serious attempt to address reality. As is, it's ridiculous.

[texshelters]

76. 10 is low if you can't shoot, and the death threat and overreaction?

Give me a break. I guess you supported Palin and her target map too then, and all the Republicans calling for Second Amendment solutions. Do you really support that?

No one needs more than 10 bullets to protect themselves. And there is no need to threaten. So you think you need more than 10 bullets. Just say it and give me a reason. Big deal. But to say you need it because you need to shoot me?

And I know about the guns' capacities. So? Does that make it okay?

People want more than 10 bullets because of the fear and paranoia expressed by too many gun first supporters. And you are going to blame their overreaction on me?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Glassunion]

80. Are you a firearms expert?

Do you have any imperical data that can back up your statement that "10 is low if you can't shoot"?

Do you have any imperical data that can back up your statement that "No one needs more than 10 bullets to protect themselves."

[benEzra]

82. I shoot competitively, with 20's and 30's. 10 is ridiculously low

for anything other than a high-powered rifle, big-bore handgun, or tiny backup gun.

Police departments also consider 10 too low for a defensive 9mm, which is why most departments still issuing 9mm issue guns holding 16 to 18 rounds, with another 15 to 30 on the belt. If over-10-round guns were only useful for mass murder, your local LEO wouldn't be carrying one on her hip, and she wouldn't have a 30-round .223 carbine in the trunk or roof rack.

BTW, do you know how far you have to go back to find a time where rifles over 10 rounds weren't freely available to civilian shooters? Here's an evil 15-round civilian rifle...from 1861.




34 rounds, 1873:

[lawodevolution]

77. This is good, I like this, keep focusing on the magazines

please keep all your anti-gun attention on the magazines for a while.