On the other hand....
Lots o' nonsense, we keep making these goofy arguments that persuede no one.
Larger mags do make the guns more deadly - that's why they exist and why armies use them.
I'm not in favor of a mag limit either, it's a red herring, but there's no consitiutional right to a 500 rd. magazine. It's not an infringement on the RKBA, only on how often a reload is required.
So I can't get too worked up about it IF it is 10 rds. The only argument so far that makes any sense is that as a precedent, the limit becomes arbitrary and could be set to 1.
I saw one post where the guy seriously claimed a constitutional right based on convenience at the range.
Some others that don't help much, IMO...
kingpin008... I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Guns are designed to propel small hunks of metal at high speeds. Period.
Wrong. They were designed to kill, and to do it at long range. Propelling small hunks of metal at high speeds is just the overall best way to go about it for individuals.
Blackbeard.....They completely ignore self-defense as a legitimate reason and the added utility that 15 or 20 rounds can bring. They also erroneously believe that limited magazines will result in fewer people killed in a mass shooting scenario.
Wrong. It brings no added utility. It is extremely rare for any civilian to fire, or wish they could have fired, more than 10 rounds in any SD event. It just doesn't happen. Besides, does anyone want to actually carry a pistol that looks like it's taking a big steel dump?
The easy counter to this argument is that Cho (VA Tech shooter) killed five times as many people as Loughner did, and he used standard sized magazines. The only thing that limited the body count in that case was the time that it took for police to arrive.
Cho had a very different environment, the comparison is questionable. He also seems to have been far better trained and competent, which matters more than mag size.
If the shooter in arizona had had to reload after every few rounds, he probably would have killed less people, because he would have been subdued by bystanders before he got off as many shots.
Eh, maybe, maybe not. Read post 13. We shouldn't make blanket statements like this.
It isn't a blanket statement, he said 'probably', and he's probably right - the shooter evidently wasn't too capable, thank goodness.
less people would have been hurt before he was taken down during his reload
Maybe, maybe not. His reload may have been a lot faster and more positive (no fumbles) with a standard size magazine so he may have been able to kill or disable more of the folks who eventually fought him down.
This is reaching beyond credibility - the first opinion makes sense. Much better odds the guy was just clumsy, or nervous, or untrained, and would have bobbled
any mag change, and smaller mags really may have made a difference.
In what scenario does the average citizen really need to carry more then 10 rounds in a magazine?
The same scenarios in which ANYONE ELSE would want more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
No. The needs of a citizen and a cop or soldier are very different. Citizens may retreat; they should not look for trouble, and they only defend. Cops and soldiers are obligated to go towards trouble and to intervene.