Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Magazine Limits Could Endanger Victims Instead of Saving Them
Townhall.com ^ | January 16, 2013 | Jacob Sullen

Posted on 01/16/2013 2:09:06 PM PST by Kaslin

A limit on magazine capacity is emerging as a leading contender for the something that supposedly must be done in response to last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. A ban on "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" is one of the new gun restrictions approved by the New York legislature this week and one of the measures President Obama wants Congress to enact.

The rationale for such limits is that mass murderers need "large-capacity" magazines, while law-abiding citizens don't. Both premises are questionable, and so is the notion that politicians should be the arbiters of necessity under the Second Amendment.

The problem with letting legislators decide what gun owners need is immediately apparent when we ask what qualifies as a "large-capacity" magazine. Under current New York law and under the federal limit that expired in 2004 (which Obama wants Congress to reinstate), more than 10 rounds is "large." This week, the New York legislature redefined "large" as more than seven rounds.

Why? Because seven is less than 10. Duh. Or, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo put it last week, "Nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer."

That might count as an argument if the right to keep and bear arms were all about killing deer. But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment is also about defense against individual aggressors, foreign invaders and tyrannical government.

Toward those ends, the Court said, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own weapons "in common use for lawful purposes," which clearly include guns capable of firing more than 10 rounds (and certainly more than seven) without reloading. The Glock 17, one of the most popular handguns in America, comes with a 17-round magazine. One of the most popular rifles, the AR-15 (a style made by several manufacturers), comes with a 30-round magazine.

Measured by what people actually buy and use, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are hardly outliers. In fact, there are tens (if not hundreds) of millions already in circulation, which is one reason new limits cannot reasonably be expected to have much of an impact on people determined to commit mass murder.

Another reason is that changing magazines takes one to three seconds, which will rarely make a difference in assaults on unarmed people. The gunman in Connecticut, for example, reportedly fired about 150 rounds, so he must have switched his 30-round magazines at least four times; he stopped only because police were closing in, which prompted him to kill himself.

Magazine size is more likely to matter in confrontations with people who are armed, which is why it is dangerously presumptuous for the government to declare that no one needs to fire more than X number of rounds.

As self-defense experts such as firearms instructor Massad Ayoob point out, there are various scenarios, including riots, home invasions and public attacks by multiple aggressors, in which a so-called large-capacity magazine can make a crucial difference, especially when you recognize that people firing weapons under pressure do not always hit their targets and that assailants are not always stopped by a single round.

Living in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, I was glad that shopkeepers in Koreatown had "large-capacity" magazines to defend themselves and their property against rampaging mobs. I bet they were, too.

In fact, argues gun historian Clayton Cramer, those magazines may have saved rioters' lives as well, since they allowed business owners to fire warning shots instead of shooting to injure or kill.

If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense and defense of others, shouldn't the same limit be imposed on police officers and bodyguards (including the Secret Service agents who protect the president)? And if the additional rounds do provide more protection against armed assailants, it hardly makes sense to cite the threat of such attacks as a reason to deny law-abiding citizens that extra measure of safety.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: andrewcuomo; banglist; guncontrol; guns; secondamendment

1 posted on 01/16/2013 2:09:10 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One solution that comes to mind is to switch to a 45 1911 variant with a 7 round clip. Hits count as a double score when they are 45’s. ;)


2 posted on 01/16/2013 2:16:51 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So....let’s just assume we’re all back in 1776 and some nutball killed a bunch of children, and the British Loyalists started yelling, crying, handwringing and lying about ‘the ability to kill a lot of children, quickly’....

Would they have gotten around to the number of shot balls in their pouches? The amount of powder one could carry? Whether one would have a flexible tamping rod? A bag full of manufactured flints? Would they require the length of muskets to be at least a certain length?

Of course not. Talking about magazines and capacity is diversion and liberalist bullshit tripe that is intended to draw the unsuspecting into justifying hunting, out-of-the-norm needs for responding to overwhelming threat, etc. It’s just complete bullshit.

I can read....been able to do for quite a long time now. IT SAYS “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” That’s all I need for a reason.


3 posted on 01/16/2013 2:17:52 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The problem is that the argument is logical... to logical thinking people.


4 posted on 01/16/2013 2:19:34 PM PST by jag.drafting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Because, virtually every semi-auto pistol manufactured in the last hundred years has a magazine capacity greater than seven rounds. So that eliminates almost all of them.


5 posted on 01/16/2013 2:24:37 PM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

Don’t tell the Gubmint about “Pluging” a gun’s capacity to hold too many shells. Think about the 5 shot shotguns that have artificial plugs put in their magazine chambers to restrict the gun to only hold 3 shots. A favorite restriction imposed to reduce the killing of too many waterfoul. This has been a law for many, many years. they might decide to impose that restriction of the existing magazines already out there.


6 posted on 01/16/2013 2:24:48 PM PST by Progov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

To say I am angry about this dumb new NY law would be such understatement that it isn’t even worth saying.


7 posted on 01/16/2013 2:25:01 PM PST by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
Time for the Supreme Court to step in.

“Shall not be infringed” is NOT a suggestion.

Magazines are an integral part of certain types of guns. Without all the parts a gun will not function.

8 posted on 01/16/2013 2:30:31 PM PST by Progov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense and defense of others, shouldn't the same limit be imposed on police officers and bodyguards (including the Secret Service agents who protect the president)? And if the additional rounds do provide more protection against armed assailants, it hardly makes sense to cite the threat of such attacks as a reason to deny law-abiding citizens that extra measure of safety.

It sounds like the author, Jacob Sullen, has been reading my Free Republic and Facebook posts. His statements are almost identical, but differently worded than mine. Following is one I posted yesterday; and, I posted one closer to his wording in a comment on Facebook earlier this afternoon.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2978395/posts

9 posted on 01/16/2013 2:41:22 PM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

“One solution that comes to mind is to switch to a 45 1911 variant with a 7 round clip. Hits count as a double score when they are 45’s. ;)”

There is talk in New York of applying the 3-shot sporting shotgun shell limit to all magazines. So you would have a 3-shot .45 ACP handgun! LOL.


10 posted on 01/16/2013 2:42:31 PM PST by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Progov

>> Time for the Supreme Court to step in.

Hopefully SCOTUS will realize its practical existence completely depends on the sound structure and application of the Constitution.


11 posted on 01/16/2013 2:42:40 PM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If you run out of ammo before the fight is over and you get killed, they seize your weapon for investigation, there is one less gun owner to worry about, one less gun, and they are happy.


12 posted on 01/16/2013 2:51:49 PM PST by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Keep a magic marker in your pocket, and if you suddenly 'feel an urge' to scrawl FUBO & Molon Labe on something,
well...just consider it as 'getting the message out there'!
13 posted on 01/16/2013 3:07:34 PM PST by 45semi (A police state is always preceded by a nanny state...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I got rid of my magazines. Who needs that many? Besides, the subscriptions prices are ridiculous and I can get most of content online.

;-)


14 posted on 01/16/2013 3:14:38 PM PST by Fledermaus (The Republic is Dead: Collapse the system. Fire all politicians and start over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
Yeah, who does? Besides I hate all those ads in there

;-) back at ya

15 posted on 01/16/2013 3:36:03 PM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Probably better to have a12 gauge revolver with a speed loader. He he he. But I like the way you think.


16 posted on 01/16/2013 3:45:17 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Probably better to have a12 gauge revolver with a speed loader. He he he. But I like the way you think.


17 posted on 01/16/2013 3:45:27 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

Clinton Era Gun Ban resulted in the rebirth of the .45. As a result, we now have guns with formerly custom features being standard and far more potent ammo. In the end, gun owners benefitted.

As a side note, with the remainder of the world heavily armed with AK-47s, I see no sense in disarming Americans. The majority of AR owners are either retired or active law enforcement or military personnel. I have a strong preference for these individuals to retain their weapons, especially in light of world unrest. Just look to our southern border for an example of what can happen.


18 posted on 01/16/2013 4:42:57 PM PST by Boomer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson