Why "High capacity magazine" bans are pointless

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

BTW, 4-year Army vet who has also trained in the Israeli point-and-shoot method as a civilian. I can unholster, rack the slide, and put three rounds on center mass in less than one second with a pistol.

You're proposing that you're the rule and not the exception? You're proposing that the average person can do the same?

My brief time in the Corps only came up to respond to a poster who claimed that there was nothing special about reloading quickly, it most certainly is. I have relevant experience, my conclusion isn't based on a youtube video or a movie.

58 people and 150+ rounds fired - you telling me that guy in Vegas was just as good?

EDIT:

What logic and what statics? You cannot prove how many people didn't die because of magazine capacity. It's not possible.

You shoot faster when your magazine capacity is higher. What's illogical? Where's the emotion?

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: face23785

I cannot tell you how I would advance without cover because I have never been in the situation. I don't think anyone intends for anyone else to 'charge' the shooter.

Let's just agree to disagree - you think the time spent reloading is negligible. I disagree.

I didn't just say charge him though. I also asserted that it's not enough time to escape and that the limiting factor is not how much time the shooter has, so I don't think the extra 30 or 40 seconds added up over multiple mag changes would make a difference. Let's discuss what I actually said, since no one has done that yet. Why do you think that extra few seconds matters in a real world scenario? Everyone understand that in theory it adds to the time. If you're at the range just plinking targets, of course you can hit 100 targets faster with 30-round mags than you can with 10-round mags. If you have them all lined up in front of you and we're ignoring the storage problem that Lab4Us pointed out.

The issue, though, is whether that extra time changes the number of victims. If you're changing mags while you're walking from one classroom to the next, for example, it actually doesn't cost you any time in the overall length of the shooting. If you go into a classroom and there's 20 people and you only have 10-round magazines, the extra 5 seconds isn't going to stop you from shooting everyone. And the extra 5 seconds isn't going to allow people in the next room to escape. Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Let's apply "common sense" laws to something that isn't common sense, nore really common either. Common sense is the most over used and abused statement by people pushing an agenda and they usually use no judgement of discernment while pushing their agenda - which is always limiting people rights.

Let's apply "common sense" laws to something that isn't common sense, nore really common either. Common sense is the most over used and abused statement by people pushing an agenda and they usually use no judgement of discernment while pushing their agenda - which is always limiting people rights.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

BTW, 4-year Army vet who has also trained in the Israeli point-and-shoot method as a civilian. I can unholster, rack the slide, and put three rounds on center mass in less than one second with a pistol.

58 people and 150+ rounds fired - you telling me that guy in Vegas was just as good?

The Vegas shooting was a unique scenario in that very little skill was required. When you've got a mass of 22,000 people to aim at, you can just go for it. You're not worried about acquiring targets until you thin the crowd out some. He fired well over 1100 rounds, and hit fewer than 500 people. Some of them were hit multiple times, so without an actual wound count I can't do the math but his accuracy rate was around 50% at best. Accuracy simply wasn't required in that scenario, nor were quick mag changes. He had multiple guns loaded and ready to go, and he had a long time to work with.

ETA: This is one of the few scenarios where a bump stock actually probably helped the shooter be more deadly. In most of these shootings the reduced accuracy would actually lower the number of victims. In the Vegas shooting, he's shooting down on a crowd at an angle, if he misses high because of the recoil he just hits a different person.

a reply to: face23785

In a life or death scenario every second matters.

The pictures I saw from Vegas showed Sure Fire brand 60 round mags. The sad fact is it's not the number of rounds fired that count, it where you put each one.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: face23785

In a life or death scenario every second matters.

That might look good on a bumper sticker but unless the shooter is stopped between the time it would've taken him to do the shooting with 30 round mags and the time it would've taken with 10 round mags, the extra seconds literally meant nothing. In this case, when the guy was satisfied he just walked out of the school.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

No. Your average shooter is not going to change magazines and reacquire a target in 2 seconds.

Your average mass shooter isn't worried about reacquiring targets, they're generally pretty happy with indiscriminate firing.

It will reduce the number of rounds a shooter can get off.

By a very slight amount.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: face23785

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

So are you saying that one 30-round magazine kills more people than three 10-round magazines?

A tactical reload can be done in less than 2 seconds.
At that point, it doesn’t matter the size of the magazine so much, just how many you have.

So I guess I'm the only one that finds it odd that frail, untrained, mentally unstable, 120lb soaking wet teens somehow manage to become John Wick...

Seems legit. Bet they were hitting tactical reloads like a pro. So no, even by the TVs fake a** narrative, limiting ANYTHING on a firearm is not the answer because the shooter is apparently a professional operator with a lot of trigger time and skill sets.

The shooters also have an uncanny ability to have drills going on at the same time and have law enforcement stand down.

Very skilled and clever these untrained guys are.

originally posted by: Oaktree
A tactical reload can be done in less than 2 seconds.
At that point, it doesn’t matter the size of the magazine so much, just how many you have.

That's pretty much been my point, is it won't make a difference in the body count. The police always arrive too late. Whether it took the shooter 3 minutes with 3 mag changes or 3 minutes and 30 seconds with 10 mag changes, it isn't going to matter. He's gonna shoot everybody he can find, then he's gonna off himself or try to escape.

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
So I guess I'm the only one that finds it odd that frail, untrained, mentally unstable, 120lb soaking wet teens somehow manage to become John Wick...

Seems legit. Bet they were hitting tactical reloads like a pro. So no, even by the TVs fake a** narrative, limiting ANYTHING on a firearm is not the answer because the shooter is apparently a professional operator with a lot of trigger time and skill sets.

The shooters also have an uncanny ability to have drills going on at the same time and have law enforcement stand down.

Very skilled and clever these untrained guys are.

Believe it or not, the manual the gun comes with explains how to change the magazine. You don't need some super-secret tactical training. You just need to read the manual and practice. You can do it in your living room.

a reply to: face23785

I just want to point out you saying its pointless because you can get the same performance out of any size mag, means you can use any size mag..

It seems like a bad argument to make against mag banners.. "I can do the same thing with smaller mags." at which point they will say "good, here are your smaller mags."

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: face23785

I just want to point out you saying its pointless because you can get the same performance out of any size mag, means you can use any size mag..

It seems like a bad argument to make against mag banners.. "I can do the same thing with smaller mags." at which point they will say "good, here are your smaller mags."

I said it's pointless in the typical active shooter scenario. Let's stick to what I actually said please. If you want to start a thread on why gun owners need 30-round mags, that's a whole other topic. The point here is to address whether the proposed limit would have an effect on mass shootings.

a reply to: Reverbs

It seems like a bad argument to make against mag banners.

Seems like a reasonable argument to me, though.

"Don't take something away from me that isn't going to do much to stop somebody else from doing something."

a reply to: face23785

I do agree, but fact is..... any ban what so ever is pointless. It's like saying, before I do my illegal murdering, I'm going to make sure everything is legal.

a reply to: face23785

Guns capable of shooting 30 rounds per minute regardless if they are automatic, manual, or x-number of rounds in a magazine should be banned!

Shooting 30 rounds per minute is what needs to be regulated.

a reply to: face23785

Believe it or not it takes more than a manual and practicing in your living room to become skilled in using a firearm.