One of the biggest issues with mag capacity bans and self-defense is that the person defending themselves doesnt determine when, where or how the attack occurs. They can only respond. So if criminal gets to not only chose all the important factors in an attack, why would somebody what to also give criminals the advantage in the amount of fire (criminals having more rounds in a magazine) than the law-abiding citizen who was the victim of the attack. Since the victim is already at the disadvantage in terms of timing and location of an attack, shouldn't a person have to right to counter an attack as best they can?
So basically since a victim of an attack does not chose the timing, location, or even the duration of an attack (the attack isnt over until the criminal decides to stop), a victim should and does have to right to counter the attack with what they believe is the best method. Some people like to have a handgun with 17+ rounds, other like an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. Standard and even high capacity magazines give a victim the ability to counter an attack while eliminating other things that impair their ability to defend themselves such as reloading. If there are multiple criminals, then they this is even more important.
