Posted on 02/07/2013 5:44:03 AM PST by marktwain
One of the most talked about components of gun control legislation is a magazine capacity limit. Proponents of gun control will often question why anyone needs more than X number of rounds (often 10) in their magazine. This is usually answered with a response about how it isn’t about what we “need” or with an analogy like “why does anyone need a car that goes faster than the speed limit.” Both of these answers are true but they leave a lot to be desired because there are practical reasons for why we actually do need magazines with larger capacities.
Many of the people who are proposing this legislation have an agenda beyond public safety so they are unlikely to listen to reason. However, there may be those who you come across in your everyday life that genuinely do want to know why someone might need magazine capacities of 10 or more. Much of their misunderstanding of why these higher capacities can be dispelled by addressing 3 main misconceptions/preconceived notions about the nature of terminal ballistics and what really happens in a gunfight:
People die immediately upon being shot.
It is easy to shoot a moving person.
You will face only a single attacker.
Many people, whether they realize it or not, are basing their perceptions of the “need” for larger capacity magazines based on these misconceptions/preconceived notions. These notions come from a number of sources but mostly from the various forms of media that we consume. Of course, it may also be true that they have never really given it much (if any) thought. Either way, this is a chance for the informed gun owner to politely engage someone in a conversation about the real world.
(Excerpt) Read more at jerkingthetrigger.com ...
For magazines I’d prefer to have the Saturday Evening Post or Colliers returned.
It’s fun to argue this with liberals on my musicians site (mostly liberals). Me, “Why do you need two strats?”
Whenever I hear someone ask this question I point out two things. First, the word “why” is the most powerful and also judgemental word in the english language. Second, outside a communist country, it is only the individual who has the right to determine what he/she needs or doesn’t need.
IOW, anyone who prefaces a question with the words “why do you need...” is asking an inapropriate question. And the answer should always be along the lines of “It’s none of your business. Don’t stick your nose where it doesn’t belong.”
“We DO Need Large Capacity Magazines”
Damn right! In NY Gov. @$$h&*e ranted that magazines should be limited to 7 bullets. Yet when did you ever hear of one perpetrater commiting a home invasion? In most cases a home invasion consists of at least three perps. Seven bullets are not enough to defend one’s family.
Plus you will need a lot more than 7 rounds to take down the drone that is launching missiles into your house.
Interesting point. So here's a new way to package our response. Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice. We choose to be in control of our own safety, rather than let ourselves be sitting duck for criminals, crazies, and tyrants. How dare you judge our lifestyle choice. (smirk - I'd love to see a lib try to navigate their way through the cognotive dissonance that would generate).
Like the article states, I have been saying for years that the majority of the anti-gun crowd get their education from Hollywood. Almost all have never fired a firearm in their lives. Their opinions are formed by the “facts” they get from the main stream media. Whether its cable news networks, printed matter such as the NY Times, Wash Post, or the Gannett newspaper chain, or elitist, hypocritical actors and musicians, they are all driven to think in lock step.
Funny. I had been thinking about posting my musings on this subject.
Been telling people his hard it Is to hit someone who is moving and attacking you.
Yes, fully 80% of all people shot survive and most are not incapacted sotthey cannot continue their attack.
Your danger goes up if they are drunk or on a mind altering drug. They can and will fight beyond the bodies normal ability to endure injuries.
I was recently asked how many rounds I need to shoot a person. They were side know it alls, who have no experience in firing a weapon. my reply was “I won’t know until it’s over. But, I will empty my magazine(clip to the k ow it alls), reload and if they move I will assume they still have fight in them and I will empty that magazine and reload.
Rinse, reapet until goal of ending their onslaught is achieved.
Then break open the scotch to calm my nerves.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com
High-Capacity-Magazine Bans
By Clayton E. Cramer
December 19, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Snips:
“How much actual “advantage” does a high-capacity magazine give to a monster who is shooting unarmed people? Practically none. The victims have no idea whether he is about to change magazines and are therefore in no position to flee or engage in a barehand attack (even if one of them has the remarkable coolness of mind to try something that courageously foolhardy). For practical purposes, a mass murderer with ten-round magazines is about as deadly as one with 20-round magazines. I suppose if you were to impose a really low limit, such as two or three rounds, you would start to make a real difference in these horrors, but that brings us to the other side of the equation.”
“On a shooting range, it’s really quite easy to keep every shot on the paper. Things are a bit different in a high-stress, poorly illuminated gunfight inside your home, where it is possible that for every three or four shots you fire, only one delivers an incapacitating blow to an attacker. Yes, you can change magazines rapidly with a modern pistol or rifle, but it is better not to have that distraction in the middle of a gunfight.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336006
Never give in to the premise that it's about need. Need has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
MILLER: The high-capacity magazine myth
Anti-gun crowd deliberately misleads the public
By Emily Miller
The Washington Times
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Snips:
“Even though Mrs. Feinstein used to carry a handgun in San Francisco for her own personal protection, she does not realize what other gun owners know: It can take about two seconds, or less, to drop an empty magazine and insert another.
Criminals are likely to carry as many magazines as they need, but individuals with their guns concealed for self-defense purposes often aren’t able to bring extra magazines. Especially in a stressful situation, it can take several rounds to stop a dangerous criminal.
The limitation on magazine capacity is a direct handicap on the right to self-defense. Mrs. Feinstein’s entire bill infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, but her randomly selected magazine restriction is one of the most offensive provisions.”
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/#ixzz2KDuJahpP
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Interesting point. So here’s a new way to package our response. Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice. We choose to be in control of our own safety, rather than let ourselves be sitting duck for criminals, crazies, and tyrants. How dare you judge our lifestyle choice. (smirk - I’d love to see a lib try to navigate their way through the cognotive dissonance that would generate).
I have no respect for the intellect of such people and consider them, ultimately, physically dangerous to me and my progeny. I respond to them accordingly.
Q: Why do police NEED larger capacity magazines?
A: To put them on even footing with criminals.
Q: Why does a private citizen NEED them?
A: Same reason, but more so. Police rarely prevent crimes. Usually they react to crimes that have already happened. You can be armed or you can be a victim. Your choice.
I really enjoyed a bit I saw on Fox News recently about illegal immigrants. That libtard Conyers was calling illegal immigrants “New Americans” and “Out of Status Americans.”
The commenter mused on using these terms with firearms.
From now on, I don’t own any illegal high capacity magazines. They are “Out of Status Magazines” and “Undocumented, New Magazines.”
Spot on!
If we can limit the number of rounds in a firearm magazine, we can limit the number of pages in a Playboy magazine.
I get where you’re coming from. The thing is, some percentage of these people have been subjected to years of lib brainwashing. They are prisoners to the lies they have believed. We need to be in the business of prying these people out of the grip of leftist programming. Especially as Christians. Your technique is an excellent means to that end. I would only suggest that to it be added the very subversive purpose of stealing from the enemy. This is a hearts and minds conflict. We cannot win if we only ever preach to the choir that came with us in the bus. We are liberators, the New Abolitionists. We must set the captive free.
BTW, pardon my typo in the earlier post. Cognitive, not CogNOtive. Blame it on the Droid.
You’ll need 10 plus round magazines when you need it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.