Why "High capacity magazine" bans are pointless

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.

Then regulate the guns so each bullet has to be hand loaded to slow the shooter down. Then he has to carry a bag of bullets to do any real damage.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Well, you can kill a lot more people with 30 bullets as opposed to 10. That's just basic math. That's as far as I'm going to go into the premise of the thread though.

The math checks out.

In any case, these mass killings will keep happening with greater frequency until underlying issues are addressed. No matter what laws are implemented. The problem has little to do with weapons.

Arguments aside, let’s say they are banned. How do you go about collecting all these larger than 10 round magazines. Or prevent the limiter ( a wood, plastic or metal block) from being removed that adapts the current larger capacity magazines? Do you just hand these out and hope that people fix their magazines? Do you make factory mags that can’t be modified and hope people exchange their old for new compliant mags?

For $100 you can walk into most any stocked gun store and buy 9-12 30 round AR mags. They have boxes of them piled here and there. Really depends what kind of deal they want to extend for bulk purchase. Pro Mag wholesales for about $5 each when ordering 1000.

Seriously, compliance is the biggest hurdle that these proposals are unprepared to address.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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.

Then regulate the guns so each bullet has to be hand loaded to slow the shooter down. Then he has to carry a bag of bullets to do any real damage.

Out of 326 million people, not even close to 1% per year die from guns, and most of that is suicide.... So yeah seems legit to punish the rest of the 99.99% of the people by continuously introducing regulations and bans. The agenda is crystal clear.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: face23785

The law does sound a bit pointless in regards to the Florida shooting if he used 10 magazines but I'm willing to bet if he didn't have to take that extra time to reload his gun then more people may have been killed. Stopping to reload 10 times probably put a dent in his killing efficiency I would think.

But yeah, I do agree that banning high capacity magazines is a bit pointless seeing as 30 bullets is 30 bullets regardless of the number of magazines.

Not really with a little practice you can change a mag in a second or less. Not to mention having fewer rounds per mag, maybe you aim a little better less spray and pray, does that increase or decrease the dead/wounded? I don't know. What I do know is it takes no time to change a mag, and a mag is a BOX with a spring in it...usually plastic, not so hard to make even easier now with 3d printing.

Illegal drugs are hard to find right? And those require chemicals that are hard to get to make, some of them anyway, a plastic box with a spring. Oh what about pump shotguns? You don't need to change mags...and for what it's worth having shot a ton of stuff with my AR-15 and my shotgun...I think I'd rather be hit with the AR...shotgun with slugs...or holy hell 00buck in a crowded spot with no choke.

Need to solve the underlying problem not the tools. It's like you're trying to fix the dam by putting band-aids on the leaks.

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."

So it's cool to just give up some rights that won't have any effect, as long as it makes some of the people happier, even though they are happy because they really don't understand this?

If we are going to give up rights, and loose things, don't you think they should be for a good reason, other than just "feelz"?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Well, you can kill a lot more people with 30 bullets as opposed to 10. That's just basic math. That's as far as I'm going to go into the premise of the thread though.

You would have a great point if there was a law limiting mass shooters to only bringing one magazine to their event.

Oh, if only we could pass a law making murder illegal, that would cause all of this to stop....

Oh wait.....

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
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.

We were talking about whether one of these civilian shooters with no tactical training can become proficient at magazine changes. You can indeed practice that in your living room and get really good at it. In practice while you're actually firing the gun, everything works the same the environment is just a little different. You can argue it doesn't prepare you for combat but that's not what these people are doing, they're shooting fish in a barrel.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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.

Then regulate the guns so each bullet has to be hand loaded to slow the shooter down. Then he has to carry a bag of bullets to do any real damage.

Great. Then any self-defense shooting where it took more than 1 bullet to stop the guy, the person who was just trying to defend themselves is screwed. This is why nobody takes you guys seriously. You forget that guns aren't exclusively used for murder. You're not interested in realistic solutions.

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 agree, if it makes no difference the solution is to ban the guns themselves.... I'm going to back away now and go hide in the closet and pretend I never posted on this thread.

You can release a magazine and have a loaded one back in the well before the empty one even hits the ground if you are good enough .
But people think more bullets in a magazine equals more deaths.
What about all the bullets that didn't hit anyone ?

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, picking a target, any target takes time - particularly if you intend to actually hit the target.

Building architecture is beyond the scope of this conversation.

I beg to differ in these school shootings that architecture does indeed enter the scope of this conversation. When you have a group of people cowering in a fixed space with no exit, there is no need for target re-acquisition, you change mags and fire at the first thing you see. There is really no skill involved in this type of attack.

Your targets are unarmed.
Your targets are trapped in a fixed location.
Your targets are so terrified they will freeze in place.

Not much skill in killing there. Even a 30 second mag change will not make a difference when the targets will not move at all, because they have been trained to be completely terrified of guns and will simply freeze and not move. These are not soldiers on the field of battle.

a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.

Nope.I can aim and fire 15 rounds per minute with a bolt action rifle with a much more powerful round than the pipsqueak 5.56 round out of an AR 15.Plus If I worked at it I can improve on that.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

50 round drum magazines

they come in all sizes. Why aren't these more widely used? Could it be there just aren't that many around?

the 30 round magazine is the most widely available, and it's cost is pennies more than the 10 rd, if not the same. Mentality is more=better. You have your answer.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lab4Us
10 round magazines are small and can fit many in pockets or on belt in holders.

This is actually something I forgot to address in my OP where I was talking about the mechanics of the shooting. The 30-round mags are bigger, so you can't fit as many of them in easily-accessible places like ammo pockets. You end up having to store some in a cargo pocket or a backpack, someplace where it takes longer to get them out. So overall, that extra time to get out the larger-capacity mags after the first few might actually make it take longer for you to complete the overall shooting. The larger size and weight also makes them more cumbersome to handle, slowing down your mag changes. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm gonna add it to the OP.

Those terrorists that used AK47's, had two or more magazine clips taped together, so they could just be pulled out, flipped around and reinserted. They also worked in pairs so while one was reloading, the other was firing.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

50 round drum magazines

they come in all sizes. Why aren't these more widely used? Could it be there just aren't that many around?

the 30 round magazine is the most widely available, and it's cost is pennies more than the 10 rd, if not the same. Mentality is more=better. You have your answer.

It seems to be down to the hassle factor of putting all the ammo into the magazine and the physical strength of the magazine case. Each round has to be manually pushed in against an internal spring that pushes the rounds into the firing chamber. That leads to tension where the rounds actually end up pushing against the side of the case:

www.thefirearmblog.com...
www.ammoland.com...

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: face23785

So, what's the advantage of a 30 round magazine, over a 10 round magazine then?

Their must be some kind of advantage right? Other wise, why would people even use them in the first place?

When farming people are hunting feral hogs, they want to kill as many as possible before the group run out of sight. Feral hogs aren't native to the area and will dig tunnels under fences, kill lambs and calves, destroy crops and breed like hogs. So there are actually bounties on how many are killed.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

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

No, that's what you're assuming. I in no way made that implication in what I said.

In fact, something that you chose not to cite when you quoted me is that I made an appeal to statistics, not an appeal to my own training and skills, to point out that the assumptions and claims that you're making are incorrect. I made it a point to note that my experience has nothing to do with me being an authority on the topic, whereas you cited your time in the Marines as a reason why you know what you're talking about.

But again, you made the assumption that I think that the average person has the training and skills that I do with a firearm, and I made no such claim, so please don't make things up, especially when what I said is right here for everyone, including you, to re-read.

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.

Thank you--I read your initial comment and the exchanges after with Edumakated, and Edumakated is absolutely correct because you're not putting your claim into context. In the vast majority of mass shootings, the shooter is someone who is relatively obsessed with guns and trained on a very regular basis. With people like this (and even your average shooter who shoots a firearm more than once per year), changing magazines is not a problem at all. There are plenty of videos and data out there that demonstrate that even relatively new shooters can quickly learn to swap magazines very quickly and efficiently.

The claim that magazine changes cause effective delays during mass shootings is flawed on many levels.

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

I'm not sure what you're asking here, as these are two vastly different scenarios using vastly different amounts of weapons and rounds, from different posts and at different angles with different environments and different sizes of crowds.

What is your question/point?

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

Again, I never, ever claimed that the number of dead would be higher or lower because of magazine capacity--why do you keep pretending that I said things that I never did?

You, on the other hand, have stated or implied more than once that lower-round magazines will equate to fewer rounds downrange, implying that there would be a lower number of dead and injured. Don't project your own soothsaying onto me, because as has been repeatedly shown time and again, loaded-magazine replacement decreases the overall rate of fire by less-than-marginal amounts.

And given that the timeline shows that the shooter in Florida was shooting for six minutes before abandoning his weapons and sneaking out with other students, and the police didn't arrive until four minutes AFTER he abandoned his weapons, again, the time added from changing magazines is negligible. He did his damage well before police arrived.

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

Well, to be fair, I didn't accuse you of being emotional--yet another false claim about me. The illogical part is that you're staring evidence directly in the face that shows you that the time used to change out Cruz's 10-round magazines while he fired off 150 rounds did nothing to allow anyone in the building nor the police the time to subdue him or neutralize him.

So either he was highly trained, as you claim one must be in order to be efficient and quick at changing magazines (which I would argue that he probably spent a lot of time practicing, like most mass shooters do) or the claim that added time during a mass shooting to swap magazines is negligible and doesn't matter overall.

Both of those points argue against what you have been claiming, so your claims are lacking the use of logic in the face of empirical and statistical data.

As for shooting faster--six minutes to fire off 150 rounds is not exactly fast, and when the police are still lagging four minutes behind your decisions to quit shooting, rate of fire, just like time to change magazines, doesn't matter.

So a counter question for you: Why do you believe that which you are claiming is logical and rational in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary?

Here's an item I would like to point out:

I have a Browning MK III pistol. I have several mags, a 10 round, 13 round, 14 round, and a 22 round. That's a little besides the point, but I'll continue.

The Magazines pop right out when I hit the mag release, due to the springs. I can slide in another mag, rack the next round and be on target in roughly 3 seconds, especially with a magazine pouch on my belt, or a holster with pouches.

My point is, I can be loaded up like Rambo to the point where that extra 3 second reload isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.