Is the Pro-Gun Side Talking out of Both Sides of Its Mouth on Magazine Restrictions?

A TTAG reader who prefers to remain anonymous writes:

New restrictions on magazine capacity are in the news again (see Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois and others). The anti-gun crowd somehow decided that rifle and pistol magazines should be limited to 10 or 15 rounds. No one seems to know why those two numbers are popular, but they’re the ones most often touted. The People of the Gun, naturally, are highly vocal in their opposition.

Gun grabbers claim that reduced capacity magazines mean people will have time to escape in a rampage shooting situation when the shooter stops to change magazines (which is demonstrably false).

Pro-gunners say that since no one can ever predict how many threats a defender may face, no restrictions on magazine capacity should be permitted. They also claim that changing mags doesn’t provide any realy opportunity for potential victims in an active shooter situation to get more than a few feet away.

Do you see the problem here?

Our side says one should be limited in the number of rounds they can carry as it could endanger the in a self defense situation. And then we say that capacity limits are useless because changing mags is so easy and fast.

Are the People of the Gun talking out of both sides of their mouths? Or are we simply having difficulty thinking through the real effects small capacity magazines actually have on self defense? Are we muddled in our messaging, muting our opposition to restrictions on the ability to respond to a deadly threat?

comments

  1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “..Are the People of the Gun talking out of both sides of their mouths?”

    I see where you are going with that, but in direct answer to your question… No.

    The nice people who designed the firearm decided what a ‘standard’ capacity would be for that particular firearm. For example, a handgun where the magazine fits in the grip is so wide by so tall and so deep and will hold so many bullets. That is the ‘standard’ capacity and anyone who thinks it should be something else should explain why. And you are going to have to work hard to explain why the number should be smaller than the designers of the firearm.

    Then to argue from the other side of the debate (see what I did there)…. If the capacity of a magazine ultimately doesn’t matter because they can be switched out so easily then why entertain the restriction at all. We shouldn’t allow the anti-gunners to ‘win’ this one even knowing it ultimately means nothing. You don’t install new laws because they sound good or feel good.

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      I agree with Chip.

      If a proposed regulation to limit magazine capacity would have no effect, then there is no justification for the regulation. If the only effect is to inconvenience the peaceable and law abiding, while providing little or no hindrance to the criminally inclined, why have the regulation at all? I see no conflict.

      The domain of the flipside is that all regulation is permissible unless there is a strong counterargument. That’s the same argument as everyone should be locked up unless they can be proven trustworthy.

      1. avatar Ostensor says:

        The only valid reason for restrictions is political. The premise that a magazine change allows time for people to rush the shooter is total shite. People will be asses over elbows running away, not toward the shooter. What really pisses me off is that politicians are effectively saying it’s okay to shoot 10-15 people but no more than that.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Well, Beretta, CZ, and SIG didn’t exactly know what they were doing when they designed their “standard capacity” mags, because you can fit 17 rounds in a CZ75 grip originally designed to hold 15, and 18 rounds in a Beretta 92 (SB and newer) and P226 originally designed to hold 15. Likewise AR15 mags were originally 20 rounders like every other NATO battle rifle out there, but in ’68 or ’69 they decided 30 would be better

      The real point we need to be driving home is that magazine capacity, like evil scary “assault features,” has no bearing on the body count in a mass shooting and thus the Gun-Grabbers need to BACK OFF, as Cho had the High Score for a long time, and he only used 10-round magazines in his handguns, and Adam Lanza and Nick Cruz used 10-round magazines.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        The M16 was adopted in 1964, with a 20 round magazine standard. Unfortunately, the magazine wouldn’t function reliably with a full load of 20 rounds. During training, a loadout of 18 rounds was used, and in combat areas, 16 rounds was often ordered, to ensure reliable functioning.
        Now, with 30 round mags the standard, those mags can be loaded to the full 30 rounds, and (most) function reliably.
        What changed? Technology, obviously. It wasn’t just that somebody decided “30 would be better”, but that the magazine spring and follower technology advanced (it kinda had to – troops were dying), allowing 30 round mags to be as reliable as a 20 round mag loaded with 16 rounds.
        So, now, a 30 round mag is “standard,” but 40 rounders are knocking on the door of what’s considered standard.
        The idea that a 10 round magazine is somehow safer for the intended victims is, as you point out, rather dumb. Personally, I don’t train for combat; I’m a recreational shooter. But I have been trained ( the Army does a pretty good job), and can change an AK47 mag in well under 4 seconds. My Glock or Ruger 9mm I can change in about 3 seconds, and I’m not particularly fast. Given normal intelligence, the occupants of a room in a shooting incident are goingto either cower or try to escape. Cowering people are static targets (just like a paper target), and exiting people are going towards a choke point (a door). Both (cowering or exiting) are very easy to hit, and magazine size (as has been demonstrated) doesn’t make much difference.

    3. avatar Lost Down South says:

      Another nasty item that I have seen is wording in bills that state guns that HAVE THE ABILITY TO *ACCEPT* magazines greater than 10 rounds should be banned.

      Well…the 1911 platform is generally 6, 7 or 8 rounds…right? ProMag makes a 15 round magazine for the1911. Kinda dumb, but it exists. NOW the 1911 has the ABILITY to accept more than 10 rounds.

      1911 ban? a 100+ year old gun?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        All part of the plan. Every clipazine firearm can “accept” extended magazines. That makes them all “assault weapons”.

        And you thought gun-grabbers were clueless, stupid maroons.

    1. avatar Overshoe says:

      It’s Senate Bill 17, not House Bill 17…

  2. avatar jwtaylor says:

    There is no contradiction at all.
    In a self-defense situation, I am highly liimited in the number of magazines that I can carry. I also do not know how many people will be attacking me and I do not know if I will have the ability to flee. I therefore would be wise to consider as many rounds in my gun as possible.
    Now, for the mass shooter, none of those things apply. As we saw in Parkland, a mass shooter can carry numerous magazines, they know how many targets they have, and they generally have the ability to flee.
    Magazine limits actually mean nothing to the mass shooter, and everything to the citizen needing armed self-defense.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      This^

    2. avatar Tony in MN says:

      Agreed, but I would also say in a defensive situation I would be under more stress and probably wouldn’t have the motor skills to do a magazine change as effectively as say a mass shooter who has no resistance.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      The original article was somewhat muddled in its own right, but I drew the same conclusions you did as to its meaning.

      I agree, magazine size limits have drastically different impacts depending on the scenario. Limits are potential death sentences in a legitimate defensive gun use. In a spree shooting, their impact would range from nothing to modest, at best.

      The Tucson, AZ shooter, as I recall, was tackled by bystanders when he stopped to change magazines. I’d consider that a one-off event not likely to be repeated.

      We know that spree shooters study prior shootings to spot areas of improvement. Not allowing yourself to get within tackle distance of victims, employing New York reloads, or arranging fresh mags on your person for maximum reloading efficiency are easy take-aways from that case.

      Those options, with the occasional exception of a BUG, aren’t really available to me as a good guy going about my daily business before being thrust into a defensive gun use. Really, I’m already limited in magazine size because I must conceal my self-defense side arm.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Actually, the Tucson case, like pretty much all the “tackled during reloading” stories, was a case of “tackled during trying to clear malfunction”. That’s the only thing that gives someone enough time to close and engage. Otherwise, the fresh mag is in and he’s good to go again in a couple seconds.

        1. avatar sian says:

          It’s interesting to see how many mass-shooters and wanna-be mass shooters are crossed up by cheap extra-cap magazines and poor weapon handling skills.

    4. avatar Richard says:

      Yes, that’s exactly the point! As paranoid as I am, I don’t sleep in a tactical vest. I’ve got one mag in my nightstand gun and another next to it in the drawer. That’s about all I’m going to be able to juggle in a “bump in the night” scenario. The motorcycle gang — sorry, motorcycle club — invading my home will undoubtedly have as many mags as they think they need. Assuming that home invaders would comply with magazine restrictions in the first place, such restrictions would favor the bad hombres and put me at a disadvantage.

    5. avatar doesky2 says:

      Police and SWAT universally use 30rd magazines.
      They’ve chosen that to be the best compromise of size, weight, and reliability to maximize their chance of survival.

      I should have the same right to maximize my chance of survival in a seld-defense situation.
      Is my life not as valuable as a cop?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Police and SWAT universally use 30rd magazines.”

        Given the hit rate for cops, high-capacity magazines make sense. (recently saw a video where three cops, from three different angles at a range of about ten feet, were shooting at a single perp who was essentially stationary; about 13 shots fired by the cops, and one of them caught a zinger across the cheek. the perp, gun displayed, never fired a shot.)

        As a private gun owner, you don’t suffer that problem.

  3. avatar Mad Max says:

    Not at all.

    Mass shooters carry bags full of magazines.

    Carrying around bags of magazines isn’t practical for citizens using firearms for self defense. They need to be able to carry the maximum number of rounds possible in the smallest package.

    1. avatar Higgs says:

      This is an excellent point.

      1. avatar konrad says:

        If a psycho is shooting “fish in a barrel” (innocents who cannot shoot back), then mag capacity is irrelevant. 5-rd capacity is just as deadly as 30. The criminal simply reloads. But in a self-defense situation, as a law-abiding citizen, your are on your own, with no back-up, possibly facing an adrenalized and/or intoxicated assailant, and his accomplices. Having 10+ in your defensive firearm is not extreme; it is prudent.

        As for the people who seem to fantasize about “rushing” the gunman as he “stops to RELOAD” (and they accuse us of fantasizing!), how often has this ever really happened? Now, rushing the criminal when his gun JAMS is a different matter—this HAS happened, but it demonstrates the opposite of what the antis claim; it’s usually the super-capacity (30+) mags that jam, at least in the two incidents I can think of.

  4. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Why play the Anti ‘s little Orwellian word games at all ? —– Standard Capacity , IS the standard. I decide what meets my standards, not prohibitionists.

    If you let enemy define terms , you’re LOSING ! ( can’t be repeated often enough )

    ” Your 5 shot 38 revolver makes me nervous …. we will now require TWO chambers to be plugged , or you must surrender the gun ” ………… You and I know that’s where it leads.

  5. avatar Swarf says:

    A standard capacity mag for an AR or SK holds 30 rounds.

    A standard capacity mag for a handgun is whatever the manufacturer say it is; generally between 7 and 18 (PMR-30 noted and excepted).

    If we want to throw the antis a bone (and I don’t), make 30 the cutoff. That way they get to have a mag burning party with some janky drum mags and Glock fun sticks, and we get to shake our collective heads at them while still maintaining our standard (not high) capacity mags.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      No thirty round limit. I like my magpul d60 and I want a belt fed gun just because.

      No infringement or silly design rules that can send me to jail. I shouldn’t have to have a barrel of a certain length or caliber, or a certain number of US made parts in this rifle but not this pistol, but I can add a vertical grip to this rifle but not this pistol, and this rifle looking thing is just a pistol and this one isn’t anything, it is a firearm not a shotgun. And this here supressor is a firearm that can’t fire. And this rubber band is a bump stock in Florida, which is defined as a machine gun in Federal law if it is a bump stock except it only is in Florida.

      How about you have the right to keep and bear arms. Ammo, mags, accessories, swords, guns, lasers, cannons, rail guns, etc.

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        Just to reiterate; I agree with you. Mag caps are stupid.

        But 30 makes more sense than 10.

        1. avatar davida says:

          Do not expect owners of 25 rnd 32 rnd , 35, rnd 50 rnd 60 rnd, 70 rnd , 90 rnd, 100 rnd 120 rnd mags or any number to give them up eigther. They invested in the tools to meet there needs when leagle already so why infringe on yourself if your needs change?

    2. avatar John in IN says:

      For ARs, there is already a standard. It’s all written down in Draft Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4179 . If it’s in there it’s ‘standard’. FYI, there is no round count limitation in the standard.

      Don’t offer to throw them any bones. They’ll just demand another bone, and another until they have them all.

      I want my cake back! https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        30 round AR mags; “in common use” since 1960.

    3. avatar Joel says:

      Limits on magazine capacity are limits on the 2nd.

      As far as I’m concerned, if Elon Musk wants to have a fully operational F-35 then it’s an infringement on his 2nd ammendment right to deny him. IF he uses said F-35 to hurt some little school children, THEN his life/rights should be forfeit.

      (Elon Musk is simply the first person that came to mind who could afford one….)

  6. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    I think we are saying shall not be infringed: why should we have to justify this?

    If we limit it to ten rounds, are they saying the first ten people shot an acceptable sacrifice? “Whew, at least he/she didn’t have a belt fed. A lot more people could have been hurt. Ten, meh.” Maybe we should ask why they are ok with ten kids getting shot? Instead of looking for an actual effective solution.

    Ten round mags have been used in a mass murder event, so what of it? Stop justifying altogether and just say no gun control, punish murderers. And teach people right from wrong.

    1. avatar Jay Williams says:

      Maybe we should ask why they are ok with ten kids getting shot?

      Outstanding!

  7. avatar oliver says:

    Yes. Its the same issue I have with stating that features that make something an “assault weapon” are merely cosmetic. Well if thats the case then so what if flash hiders and pistol grips are banned. Your right to bear arms in both cases, including mag capacity, hasn’t been infringed since the claim you are making is that such restrictions do not significantly affect the lethality/handling of the weapon in the first place.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Your rights are not based on simple utility.

    2. avatar AZD says:

      I think you are confused. Flash hiders and pistol grips are not merely cosmetic. They are functional. But their function doesn’t make them “more deadly” than a rifle without a flash hider or a pistol grip. Gun people know this. Really not any different than a V8 engine makes a car more deadly than a 4 cylinder; it doesn’t.

      So, when a hoplophobe wants to ban “assault weapons” because they have a pistol grip or a flash hider, it is THEY who are arguing the cosmetic side. What they aren’t doing is showing WHY a gun with a pistol grip or a flash hider is more deadly – or more of an “assault weapon” – than one that doesn’t have those.

      Thus, the grabbers are the ones talking out of both sides of their mouths in your scenario.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        I was talking to a reporter at SHOT show about this. He said that the pistol grip made it more deadly because you could hold the gun better and therefore be more likely to hit your target.
        I told him he was absolutely correct, at least in fastfire. But then asked him if he thought a gun that was less controllable was more safe? He walked away thinking pistol grips are a good idea.

        1. avatar Joel says:

          So you’re saying you met a reporter who can think, and not simply repeat what he/she is told?

      2. avatar Oliver Medvedik says:

        No, you’re incorrect. It is the gun-rights side that uses the term “cosmetic.” This is the NRA-ILA page. It uses the term “cosmetic” when describing these features 3 times. :https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180323/banning-guns-with-the-ballot-box-1

  8. avatar mort pokerman says:

    The capacity question is not with lawful owners because if a state imposes a capacity restriction the lawful gun owners will follow the law. It’s the criminals that don’t and that’s why we shouldn’t agree to any limitation. Criminals will always violate the law because they’re criminals. Why should we give up any ground when the criminals that will be breaking into our homes and robbing us don’t follow a capacity limitation?

    1. avatar Jay Williams says:

      if a state imposes a capacity restriction the lawful gun owners will follow the law

      Not all of us will.

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Since the Democrats/Liberals are great supporters of criminals/outlaws, if the Democrats take power, be an outlaw.

  9. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Shall not be infringed. Why is this so hard to understand. Do not give in to word games

  10. avatar Anon in Ct says:

    No.

    The guy on offense – the mass shooter – can show up with a satchel full of mags, plus a few spare guns ready for “NY reloads”. He’s got logistics and planning on his side – the natural advantages of the attacker.

    The guy on defense – say me – is woken up in the middle of the night by a crash and the sound of my dog barking (or whimpering and dying) – I grab my pistol or AR or whatever – if it’s not loaded I slam in the ready mag – and move out to either investigate or take up a blocking position to protect the rooms where my kids are sleeping (probably the latter – you can have the TV and the other crap downstairs). My PJs don’t have mag pouches in them – All I’ve got is the mag in the gun and maybe one spare. So yeah, I want the full-capacity one, thank you very much.

  11. avatar P-Dog says:

    Here’s the thing that I think is not made clearer.

    The reason magazine size doesn’t matter for mass shooters is because of the response time. Average police response time for a mass shooting hovers around 5-10 minutes. You could have a single-shot bolt action rifle and still be able to kill scores of people with that amount of time — so obviously requiring a few extra a mag change of 3 seconds won’t make much of a difference for a mass shooter.

    However, the opposite is true for a self defense situation. We don’t have 5-10 minutes to defend ourselves — we have merely seconds when we are put in a code red situation. If we’re also talking about multiple assailants, then heck yes, magazine size DOES matter for us.

    I think that is the key thing that people are forgetting about when arguing these two stances. It’s not just magazine capacity, it’s capacity + time. When you purposely find ways to stack the odds against legal gun owners, that’s not cool.

  12. avatar TFred says:

    If you want to continue to write for the “people of the gun,” you better get smarter on stuff like this. Multiple responses above outline the painfully obvious answer: people planning mass murder don’t worry about convenience, AND they have lots of time to practice swapping magazines in preparation for their crime. What would not be an obstacle to their plan very much becomes an obstacle for an average person in a tense self-defense situation.

    I can’t believe you didn’t know that.

  13. avatar AZD says:

    Mass shooter – people are running away and trying to escape the bad guy. Magazine capacity is much less of an issue, because bad guy essentially controls the situation. Rarely are unarmed victims rushing at a mass shooter, giving him/her much more ability to reload.

    Defensive gun use – bad guy is coming at you. You have little control of the situation, thus the more rounds at your disposal the better – for you, not for the bad guy. The inverse – the fewer rounds you have, the better it is for the bad guy.

    Of course we all know this so not sure why I even responded.

  14. avatar Mike B in WI says:

    Magazine capacity matters not one wit as long as we have gun free zones. For as long as it takes that good guy with a gun to respond, the mass murderer has all the time in the world to swap magazines. And as many have said, the swap cam happen very quickly.

    We see over and over that criminals don’t obey laws and will take any advantage of the law abiding.

  15. avatar 2aguy says:

    As to magazine capacity and mass shootings, the actual research on this by Dr. Gary Kleck…His findings from studying mass shootings and magazines?

    In all of these 23 incidents, the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2- to 4-seconds delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain such slow rates of fire that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

  16. avatar barnbwt says:

    It’s possible for two things to be accurate at once; only morons think the following is oxymoronic, since they are failing to take into account the armed/unarmed opponents part
    1) Frequent mag changes make a significantly shooter less effective against *armed* opponents
    2) Mag changes do not make a shooter significantly less effective against *unarmed* opponents

    Being able to play shooting games (even competitively) has nothing to do with it; those have rules specifically arranged so the mag-change disadvantage is mitigated for the purposes of sport. Combat does not care about fairness.

    The real messages gun owners need to be sending out are;
    1) Effective shooters are a *good* thing the vast majority of the time, or even *all* the time
    2) The only way for shooters to be most effective when in need is freedom to use the tools they prefer

    And that’s where the NRA screwed up with its anti machine-gun, anti bump-stock stance.

  17. avatar Shire-man says:

    Any regs only apply to the law abiding. Limiting capacity to 1 bullet in the chamber only means my gun and your gun will have 1 bullet. The attackers gun will have as many as physically possible because, to smash a dead horse into jelly, criminals don’t follow the law.

    For us to be talking out of both sides we’d either have to believe that criminals will follow the law or that every gun owner is in fact a killer who simply hasn’t killed yet.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Magazine capacity doesn’t matter that much to me. Hell, I usually carry a five-shot revolver, and I’m perfectly comfortable with it.

    I just don’t want a bunch of brainless jabroneys in Washington or the state capitol dictating to me when I’m perfectly capable of making a responsible decision for myself. When an nefarious grifter like Maxine Waters can determine anything to do with my day to day activities or anyone else’s, the whole country is totally forked.

  19. avatar strych9 says:

    One of the key aspects that’s being overlooked in this piece is the situation. In DGU you are, by definition, armed. Generally speaking a mass shooting takes place in a GFZ where the victims are not armed.

    Regardless of which side you’re on in a shooting situation whether or not both belligerents are armed with generally comparable weaponry matters a great deal (we’re not talking a folding knife vs a pistol AK at 15 yards here). Yes, against a group of crack-raptors, gang bangers or meth-asaurus rexes a reload might matter significantly, especially if they leave and come back before the boys in blue arrive on scene. Against unarmed opposition where you’re just mowing people down it doesn’t matter much at all. The people close enough to rush you are generally already dead so if a reload or two is fumbled it really doesn’t matter because you’ve already pushed back the distance to the point that no one is within range to effectively go hand to hand with you.

    That said, to some extent yes, we do speak out of both sides of our mouths in terms of what’s “needed”. Saying that you only “need” a revolver for most DGU’s because five or six shots is almost always enough and then arguing for larger mags does create an internal logic issue with the argument. However, I would point out two things here. 1) It’s the Bill of Rights not the bill of needs/wants and 2) there’s always the individual comfort factor. If someone is more comfortable with 15+1 because it gives them more ammo than a 7+1 gun then they should carry the 15+1 gun. The same is also true in reverse.

  20. avatar 2aguy says:

    The only people who “need” standard magazines are civilians in self defense situations…mass shooters, as the Dr. Kleck research show can murder just as many people with 10 round magazines, as we saw in Florida, Santa Barbara, and other shooting attacks, and criminals don’t need 15 rounds to rape, rob or murder unarmed victims…but they can still get whatever magazines they want because they will steal them. The armed civilian needs as much capacity as they can carry in a magazine because most of the time, they are on their own…they may face multiple, armed attackers that they will need bullets for…..and in the case they are injured at the outset of the attack, and just the adrenaline dump from the attack….their small motor function will make changing a 10 round magazine more difficult, so having 15-30 rounds may mean the difference between life and death. The Famous FBI shooting in Florida, the last agent standing had to change his magazine one handed after he had been shot. Also…do we tell fire fighters that they are only allowed 100 gallons of water to put out a house fire…or do they get as much water as they need…and your life, and the life of your family are more important than a home burning….where do the anti gunners get off telling us we only get 10 chances to save our family?

  21. avatar little horn says:

    “Our side says one should be limited in the number of rounds they can carry as it could endanger the in a self defense situation.”
    no one has ever said that. that is a false equivalency. a big one.
    “Pro-gunners say that since no one can ever predict how many threats a defender may face, no restrictions on magazine capacity should be permitted.” how is this a call to restrict the number of rounds carried as you say above?????
    this just makes no sense at all. why was this posted?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “this just makes no sense at all. why was this posted?”

      Good question. After I read through the posting a coupla times, my take is that on the surface (as in arguing with anti-gun people), saying lower capacity magazines do not disrupt a mass shooter, but somehow magazine changes disrupt the self-defender appears to be contradictory…without explaining the two situations (as several have done here).

      The contradiction appears when the context of both situations is not declared. Essentially, POTG speak in POTG shorthand to just about everyone. We seem too often to lean on/revert to slogans, mantras, tribal language (“shall not be infringed” is not comprehensible in a society that lacks few (if any) solid, immutable principals). This can result in allowing the anti-gun message to linger on the wind because we don’t fully deconstruct the propositions. We seem to presume everyone knows what we mean, that explanations (persuasion?) is unnecessary.

      The short of it? It matters not what we mean. It only matters what the listener “hears” and comprehends. Between speaker and listener, who has the burden of clarity and persuasion?

  22. avatar TommyJay says:

    Dodging the direct question (and others have covered it well) there is the ever present aspect of gun owner harassment. Suppose there are a bunch of folks in Vermont that own XD’s or Glock 17’s. A limitation of 15 rounds in a handgun mag doesn’t sound too bad. But now a large group of Vermonters must trash their collection of XD mags or G17 mags etc. and then try to find a 15 round mag. that works for them. Or they can give up and buy CA legal 10 round mags.

    The left ALWAYS has some plausible sounding argument at hand, because most of them were trained on this in law school. That doesn’t mean that we must accept that they sincerely believe their own argument.

  23. avatar Joe R. says:

    The problem is that there’s even a discussion, much less an argument.

    FU followed by beatings is all that’s required.

    Your governmental ahole neighbors “GAN” can’t protect anyone individually, much less the POTG. It’s wrong for them to say that they can. And, if they can’t, then what’s they purpose of taking your ability to protect yourself?

  24. avatar JD says:

    The answer needs no explanation other than shall not be Infringed. Period. End of discussion.

  25. avatar TroutsBane says:

    The difference is down to situation.
    In a self defense sinario the good guy is being attacked by a foe. We all know that accuracy will suffer in that situation and the attacker may continue an assault even if hit multiple times. In this situation a few extra rounds can be the difference between life and death.

    In a massacre ,however, the murderer is attacking defenseless victims. In this situation the murderer can kill with virtual impunity and a simple magazine change will not stay the slaughter for more than a moment.

    As an analogy, imagine you are being charged by a lion with a three round magazined rife; then compare that same rifle to slaughtering a corral full of lambs.

  26. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE “equalizers” and are used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need or want?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms. Let’s not forget the millions murdered under communism by their governments AFTER their firearms were confiscated.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      “When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to ‘weapons of that time period'”

      This was always a trouble spot for me in 2A debates. I could make the 1A comparison and that was strong. I could also argue that the whole point of the 2A was to maintain parity with the arms and effectiveness against the armies of the day, which implies and justifies modern weapons regardless of era.

      I backed that up with the Framers being educated men and well aware of the advances in technology over time. They even anticipated as much with the Constitution’s power to protect invention patents. However, it wasn’t until I found TTAG some six yeare ago that I learned that there existed some serious repeating, and high capacity firearms even at the time of the Constitution’s ratification.

      The idea for higher firepower in a weapon isn’t new. It was just very expensive to manufacture in those days with the manufacturing processes available. There was no lack of interest or imagination in higher firepower arms, only economic constraints on how to mass produce what they already had.

      I’ve whipped out my phone at impromptu 2A debates many times since then and showed antis webpages presenting Lorenzoni and Berselli magazine pistols, Kalthoff repeaters, among others. It’s fun when their jaws actually, literally, physically drop as they learn these guns existed at the time and the entire premise of their anti-2A bigotry just collapsed.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    It’s a lot easier to reload when you’re shooting kids than it is when there’s someone attacking YOU.

  28. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    All excellent reasons that I agree with by the other commenters.

    I suggest one more: cost

    Fine, let’s just say I accept your argument it doesn’t matter for the average citizen to have 10 round or 30 magazines. But to have a capacity of 30 rounds in a standard mag, you’re looking at $12 bucks. To have 30 rounds capacity in 10 round magazines, you are looking at closer to $45 because 10 round mags or more expensive and it requires 3.

    I would actually trade a few 30 pmags for some 10 round mags so I could easier shoot prone.

  29. avatar Rick Bunn says:

    Everyone here has said it, but in simple terms. Once you let the camel’s nose in the tent it can only get worse. From 30 to 20 to 5 to 1.

  30. avatar M10 says:

    Something that hasn’t been discussed yet is the fact that any pending legislation does nothing to remove the existing high cap mags from circulation. What difference does it make if they are banned but grandfathered in like the 90s AWB? All anyone has to do is shell out a little more cash for the high cap mag. They aren’t even covered by limitations so a bad guy from a low cap state can easily pick up high cap mags in a neighboring state. There needs to be some consideration of practicality when proposing legislation. There are millions of high cap mags already in circulation with no serial numbers or date codes. Any restriction other than confiscation will have no positive impact.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Don’t give the enemy any bright ideas.

  31. avatar M10 says:

    Even states that have a ban are able to skate by the compensation issue by giving residents time to sell or trade the mags out of state. When it comes to federal legislation it would cost way too much to compensate owners to make confiscation possible.

    1. avatar davida says:

      Any red tape reg is infringing on property rights to you and future owners.

  32. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Much like the arbitrary and ridiculous 55 MPH highway speed limit, magazine capacity limits are just another way for the state to control citizens. If you go past the set limits there are fines and imprisonment. Remember some jurisdictions had ticket quotas, and “good earners” were promoted and lauded by their respective agencies, law enforcement was a mere sideshow. The same could happen with magazine limits.

    1. avatar M10 says:

      I’ve heard it said before that the goal of govt is to create a nation of felons by implementing capricious and arbitrary laws in such a volume that one can hardly avoid breaking them. Once the “guilty” are so judged their “rights” are no longer an issue.

  33. avatar former water walker says:

    Why 10 or 15 round mags? Why not less…or more?!? It was reported the young deranged Floriduh shooter had 10 rounders. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows the end game is NO MAGS or guns. Don’t play the leftard’s game!!!

  34. avatar tdiinva says:

    I wouldn’t say we are talking out of both sides of our mouth. I think the problem is that too many gun owners fear that admitting that they are unlikely to need more than 7 rounds is implicit support for magazine restrictions. It’s not. The fact that small single stack pistols are so popular is that many concealed carriers don’t really believe that they will need more rounds than that.

    The “TRUTH” is that almost in any gunfight an armed citizen might be unfortunate enough to encounter will be short and violent, and not exceed capacity of a revolver before the outcome is resolved. That in no way justifies magazine limits. We make a better case for Second Amendment rights by being honest. If we really believe in the right to bear arms it doesn’t matter what any requirement is.

    The way I see it is that I might get through 7, that I might want to reload after an encounter with 10 rounds and the only reason I carry a spare magazine for a dozen or more is a hedge against a magazine failure.

  35. avatar Kenneth says:

    “Our side(WHICH side is that?) says one should be limited in the number of rounds they can carry(not the PRO gun side doesn’t. That’s the antis) as it could endanger the(??? the WHAT???) in a self defense situation. And then we(who is “we”?) say that capacity limits are useless because changing mags is so easy and fast.”
    This sentence is really too muddled to make any sense of, so the idea occurs that perhaps this is an anti posing as a POTG, which would explain the muddled thinking and non-clarity of the writing, and thus the thoughts behind said writing. It would also explain why the writer cannot keep his “sides” clearly in mind, as well as the lack of understanding behind the different situations under discussion here.
    A mass shooter is on the offense, while a defender against said shooter is on defense, thus the tactics, gear, and almost everything else, will be completely different.
    Someone who cannot understand this seems to me to NOT be a person of the gun, but a libtard poser. This would also explain the desire to remain anonymous. No poser wants to be questioned, or their status rapidly becomes clear to anyone paying attention.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Of all the possible situations you might encounter a mass shooting, whether it be by deranged individual or a terrorist, is far and away the least likely scenario in an already low probabilty event. Experience tells us that the deranged do not stand their ground and blaze away when encountering armed resistance. They either run, or more often, kill themselves. Only a terrorist will engage in a running gunfight. An encounter with methhead is more to require more capacity than one involving a spree shooter.

  36. avatar MilitantCentrist says:

    No. Someone with evil intent will prepare whatever he or she thinks will do the job, and in all likelihood will not be concerned with how it’s carried. Normal CCW folks face a different challenge: tool up without making everyone else you see throughout the day aware or nervous.

    Full bandolier of 10 round mags for a mass shooter? What does he care anyway. CCW holder or regular citizen sleeping in his bed, who likely fighting out of an ambush and may be in nothing but his skivvies? He needs as many pills in the dispenser as possible.

  37. avatar Moltar says:

    Mag capacity doesn’t matter for the attacker. Like was said above the attacker has logistics and a plan and 5-10 minutes firing at as close to cyclic as he can muster with reloads. So let’s peg him at CAPABLE of 100 rounds a minute so that’s 500-1000 rounds before the police get there. Given say even a 10% hit rate that’s 50-100 wounded.

    Now our home defender has to go up against unknown numbers. Unknown types of weapons, unknown number of weapons. His best chance of a successful outcome is carrying as much as he can in one shot with minimal prep, thus “high capacity” mags are the rule.

  38. avatar Specialist38 says:

    It really comes down to whether your target is armed.

    If someone is unarmed and 30 feet away, it makes little difference whether the shooter has 10 vs 30 round magazine.

    I’d the target is armed then it does change the dynamic. I don’t have to close ground to attack.

    I am not sure how it would play if someone was throwing river rocks.

  39. avatar David Thompson says:

    In a DGU situation, say a late night home invasion, the good guy is going to be scared, disoriented and not really in a great mental place to swap mags efficiently.

    The mass shooter? He’s not surprised at all. Ha practiced and ready and has pockets full of them.

    So no. No contradiction.

    1. Exactly! POTG are not talking out of both sides of their mouth.
      Magazine restrictions have no effect on bad guys intent on doing harm, because they’ll either ignore the law completely, or wear a tactical vest with dozens of 10-round magazines for quick reloads (as some of the mass shooters have done).
      On the other hand, law-abiding citizens will definitely be harmed, because when something goes “bump” in the night, we’ll be in our pajamas, and we’ll only have time to grab our gun (and maybe a flashlight), no time to strap on a tactical vest with dozens of spare magazines! Therefore, the gun that we grab should at least have a standard capacity magazine, because otherwise the bad guys (there could be several, and they definitely won’t be in their pajamas) will be packing superior firepower!

      Ask the gun-banners this question: if 10 rounds are all a good guy needs to defend himself or herself, then why don’t you apply the same law to cops? When they say, “Because cops shouldn’t be outgunned by the bad guys,” then ask them why they think it’s okay for homeowners (who don’t have fellow officers backing them up) to be outgunned by the bad guys!

  40. avatar MyName says:

    I have said it before and I will say it again: There is nothing a person can do with a gun that harms another person, aside from lawful self defense, that is not already illegal. No additional law can alter that particular truth. In other words, no law can make guns less lethal. It is already illegal to shoot someone once, twice, or thirty times unless they present an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Soooo, how many rounds a magazine holds is irrelevant. When someone comes up with a way to prove that the 11th or the 16th or the 31st round in a magazine has some substantive impact on the fact that shooting someone without justification is illegal, and carries the most extreme penalties of any laws on the books, then I might listen to their arguments but, given that this will likely never happen, I will just repeat: “Shooting someone without sufficient provocation is already illegal regardless of how many rounds you have available, you stupid twit!”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Shooting someone without sufficient provocation is already illegal regardless of how many rounds you have available, you stupid twit!”

      I think you are having a different conversation. The issue is not whether unjustified killing is wise, moral, permissible or legal. The proposition seems to be we superficially create an apparent conflict where we say small capacity magazines do not interfere with a mass shooter, but will interfere with a home-defender, or person in public using a firearm for defense.

      The anti-2A folks are frightened to death that a shooter with large capacity (whatever that means locally) will be able to kill more people faster if they do not need to reload after only a few shots. Those same people do not care about self-defense. POTG are caught in the anti-gun construct saying something that seems contradictory on its face.

      We need to be more alert to the shortcomings of oratory and debate, moving away from our “insider” shorthand, and to presenting our argument in a way that is more meaningful (as many have done here) than slogans our favorite slogans, which like the leftists, are designed not to persuade, but to shut down all discourse.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Fair comment I suppose. Yes, I was responding more to the notion that mag capacity is a meaningful issue vis-a-vis the danger guns pose as opposed to the relative utility or lack there of for self defense or, God forbid, mass shooting. I will say, however, that I still contend that since it is illegal to shoot anyone except in self defense that the capacity of the magazine the law breaker uses is irrelevant while the mag capacity the self defender uses is wholly acceptable.

  41. avatar TStew says:

    “Do you see the problem here?”

    No. For all the reasons above. If I’m already on the defensive, extra mags that I may not be able to carry do me no good, and every one I need to change in the midst of the fight introduces risk to me.

  42. avatar Krunkle Sam says:

    I’ve never said I need banana mags for self defense. Anyone tries to use utilitarian reasoning, or worse sincerely believes it, will lose and have no pity from me. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

    The reason nobody should interfere with my right to own mags is because that would be starting crap with me.

  43. avatar MattG says:

    A parallel analogy… The fewer times I need to unholster and reholster a weapon the less like I’m going to introduce a failure point that could lead to a ND.
    Same goes for mag changes. I can do quick mag changes but if I do them more often then i’m more likely to introduce a failure point that may leave me vulnerable.
    So it’s not so much about waiting for a shooter to reload as it is about waiting for a shooter to have a failure – and that’s just not predictable. The unpredictable nature means smaller magazines will have no appreciable benefit in a mass shooter situation yet does add a small level of unnecessary risk to those defending themselves.
    But who are we kidding anyway – a mass shooter is not going to obey magazine restrictions…

    1. avatar Sian says:

      They can, and have in multiple situations.

      The thing is, a magazine change doesn’t put you at risk if nobody is fighting back. And mass killers carefully choose targets where nobody will be in a position to fight back, and they will carry plenty of reloads.

      Meanwhile for the law-abiding gun owner, Being restricted to 10 rounds or less in a magazine, when faced with multiple murderous attackers, often only with our handgun and the rounds contained within it, is a cause of great concern.

  44. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    IMO, so what if larger magazines give a mass shooter an advantage or not? Trying to argue that they do not is playing defense. Playing offense is saying, “So what if they do? That doesn’t mean that you restrict the right.”

    Banning guns outright might severely hamper mass shootings. It is playing defense to argue that, “Criminals will just find other ways to kill…” yeah they can, but easy access to guns makes it easier to conduct a mass shooting. That doesn’t mean you ban the guns however.

    The government has no right to go about limiting magazine size and thus inhibiting the self-defense abilities of millions because it might slow down a shooter thus maybe giving someone an opportunity to try to take said shooter down. Plus the fact that given that the right to keep and bear arms is also about resistance to tyranny, the government has no right to limit magazine size anyway as then it is inhibiting the ability of the population to resist it should the need ever arise.

  45. avatar Christopehr Hammers says:

    Something people seem to forget when we get in these arguments, is that LOWER CAPACITY MAGAZINES are a risk to the user. Guns are GENERALLY designed around the magazine not the other way around. I own an M&P9 in Mass. We have 10 round limits, as this is a gun made after 1998. Well it jams, and has all other sorts of issues. When I visit friends in other states that have the default 15 rounder, I don’t have a single issue. This is making my gun less safe to use.

    To answer the question though, No. As someone pointed out, I only carry 2 magazines around and at home only have maybe a second around. Most of these Mass shooters have multiple magazines, and would just take more if it was limited to 7, 10, etc.

  46. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    capacity is meaningless when it takes the police 10-15 minutes to respond to an incident

    theres no “running away” when you can reload a modern firearm in under a second if youre halfway competent

    its a purely agenda and emotion driven item that does not stand up to reality or fact in any capacity (hue) and should be abandoned because its a stupid idea that leaves law abiding at odds with those that are not

  47. avatar Lowell says:

    Answer: to determine the the actual chance of escape you would need to do a study of reload speeds using an average of several people.

    But here’s the reality – no one cares.

    It’s not about getting results, it’s about chipping away at 2A. Period, end of discussion. These rodent-people trying to make us as weak as themselves are beneath any form of consideration beyond what it takes to shut them down. You will not educate them out of their position because it was not arrived at via education, it was arrived at emotionally, specifically irrational fear.

    Do whatever you have to to beat them at any cost legally, because if you don’t the end result is a insurgency based civil war where you have to to beat them at any cost PHYSICALLY.

  48. avatar Joe R. says:

    That made no sense.

    I don’t know if you left a word or two out somewhere, or if you did it on purpose.

  49. avatar Sian says:

    “Do you see the problem here?”

    No.

    Magazine restrictions do not impair the ability of a killer to murder defenseless victims.

    Magazine restrictions do impair the ability of law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from multiple attackers.

    These are completely unrelated scenarios. A smaller magazine reduces your ability to fight. It does not reduce your ability to kill.

    There is no contradiction here.

  50. avatar Parnell says:

    No. Here in NJ if anyone is talking out of both sides of their mouth it’s our Legislature! When they passed the 15 round restriction, they claimed it would make us “safer” and would “solve” the problem of “gun violence”. Now 10 is the magical number and I’m supposed to render my 15 rounders down to 10 or get rid of them. Fat f***in chance. I’ll hold them until I move to a saner state. In the meantime I’ll put a 10 rounder in my house gun and use the 15’s at my range.

  51. avatar ChrisL says:

    Stop buying into arguments that its legitimate to try and increase public safety by making guns less effective tools. Just don’t let the debate go there. It’s not about “how effective a tool should we allow people to have?” We’ve already allowed too much of that: No silencers, no flash hiders, no short barreled rifles, no bracing a pistol on your shoulder, no forward grip on a pistol, no large capacity magazines, no semi-automatic firing mechanisms–jezus, it’s all based on the argument that it somehow makes sense to solve the problem by making the bad guy less effective when they are in the process of intentionally committing murder. Good lord! How about banning highly accurate guns? “No sub-MOA!!!” What kills people? Accuracy! Ban Match Grade ammunition, it makes killers too likely to hit what they’re aiming at! Do you see how stupid it is to even engage in this argument? Guns are legitimate tools, (the Constitution specifically acknowledges our right to have them) and we should always steer the “debate” back to what’s really important:
    1. Why do people go murderous, and are there things we can do as a society to reduce the frequency of that happening that aren’t just focused on minimizing someone’s ability to be murderous? These would be debates about social issues, crime, inequality, civic upbringing and the like. Laws can obviously be a part of this, but that would primarily involve setting effective deterrents/penalties for actual bad behavior like murder, not criminalizing good behavior of citizens taking responsibility for their own safety by choosing to be armed.
    2. Given that some level of violence is always present in any society, how do we think we ought to set up our society to stop that violence when it is actually happening? There’s really only two choices:
    –Surveillance state powerful enough to see everything has it happens, with enough armed guards deployed everywhere to be able to respond in time. Basically putting the responsibility for each individual’s personal safety with the State.
    –Encouraging and training all citizens to be responsible for their own safety and the safety of their fellow citizens. This is the Minute Man, citizens prepared and able to “respond immediately.” We have this with volunteer first responder trainings, so that people on the freeway can render aid before Emergency Services gets there, volunteer fire departments. And allowing free citizens to be armed creates a similar ability to respond to criminal violence in our communities.

    I of course fiercely choose the latter: individuals being prepared and willing to take responsibility for their own safety and defend themselves and their community. I chose that based on my philosophical commitment to freedom and liberty. I also chose that as the only practically effective way to respond to violence as it is being committed. The Surveillance State that would be required to be able to effectively stop violence as it his happening and thus actually protect citizens in real time would be so cumbersome and expensive, I don’t believe we could afford it. AND, I believe fervently that the centralized power that would give the State, would inevitably be abused and would quickly result in a totalitarian society run for the benefit of the elites in control of the system.

  52. No, heres why.

    In a self defense situation the average home invasion is comprised of three or more attackers. And let’s just say they come in with handguns that have 15-round magazines.

    A homeowner who is restricted to a 10-round magazine is at a severe disadvantage because this will turn into a gun fight and the guy with more ammunition without needing to reload has a tremendous tactical advantage.

    In an active shooter situation we already know, based on FBI statistics, that over 98% of all mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. An attacker is not in a gunfight where he has to worry about someone shooting back, so him taking a second or two to change magazines is simply an inconvenience.

    It’s not effective or reasonable to restrict the law-abiding people who may need it for self defense in a gunfight when there is no measurable benefit in a active shooter situation.

    Not to mention, criminals intent on a mass shooting where they will murder many people are not going to bring a reduced capacity mag for fear of getting in trouble as they are already planning on murdering people.

  53. avatar Arizona Don says:

    In the United States of America two wars started when an outside force (a government) tried to take the guns from the citizens of this great country. The revolutionary war with England and in Texas a revolutionary war with Mexico. Both foreign powers lost the war and America was born free.

    Americans got a taste of freedom(s) when we were an English territory. Because we were over three thousand miles away from the controlling power that was water and not easily, or quickly, traversed. Consequently, they had a problem imposing their controls over the (then) colonies. Consequently, the king of England, in order to control the people more completely, decided to confiscate the citizens guns. Although that was not the direct cause of the revolutionary war it was what started it and caused the first shots to be fired. Coming after law abiding American citizens guns will do the same in the future. It is not acceptable to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. Confiscating guns here in America can not and will not be tolerated. That is why such an effort will be fought and brought to an acceptable conclusion in whatever way is necessary. Knowledgeable Americans will never give up their right to self protect with the great equalizer the gun! The second amendment was put in place to stave off a tyrannical government. Make no mistake, it can and will do just that if the threat presents itself in any manner of speaking.

    Anyone who has knowledge of what happened during the 20th century, the bloodiest century in mankind’s history I might add, should know that could happen here without the second amendment. The threat of armed resistance is the only thing that can or will keep Americans free and government in check. Those who do not know and learn from history are bound to repeat it. Could that be the underlying reason the socialists are changing history taught in our schools and universities as well as tearing down the statues of historic people? Why else?

    No one wants these mass murders to continue but taking the guns away from law abiding citizens will not stop them. There are examples of this fact all over the world. All anyone who seeks the correct answer to mass murders can find out very easily what does not work. Perhaps that information will allow them to make a more correct decision and not duplicate what does not! In any case it is both simple and obvious what does not solve the problem. Americans have, in the last 89 years, passed over ten thousand restrictive gun laws. None have changed a thing when it comes to these mass murderers. Creating gun free zones may have actually added to the problem.

    Those who seek confiscation of the guns as a solution to the mass murder problem for some reason can not be brought to understand murderers do not obey laws and therefore, passing laws to get them to stop is useless. But even beyond useless it is imbecilic at best. Those throughout Europe and Asia realized this to late. Realizing you should have kept you guns as you are being marched to an open pit to be shot is to late. Learn from the mistakes of others because it is impossible to live long enough to make them all ourselves. Seems that could easily be very good advice.

  54. avatar Vince Byrnes says:

    Why is it that I have never seen a perp identified as an NRA member? Or a CCL holder? Why not? If the NRA is such an evil organization as the hysterical, emotional, and ignorant anti-gunners and media are, why are tens of million of law-abiding and innocent firearm owners committing no evil deeds? The firearms do not commit the crimes; an extremely small and minute percentage of evil people do that misusing firearms. Let’s not punish the innocent. That does not reduce crime. Let’s find ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the bad guys, and take the bad guys out of circulation as well as those who knowingly provide them with the weapons.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Because “guns” you freedom loving, bible clinging, gun totin’, rabid constitutionalist. Where do you get off thinking that your individual rights supersede the right of society to feel safe wherever they are? How do you look yourself in the mirror and not be ashamed that you believe, and act on your belief, that those elected and appointed over you cannot provide better safety and security than any individual can? Why is it gun nuts are constantly railing about “muh rats”? People like you, people who take responsibility for themselves, people who are all about helping people pull themselves out of poverty rather than depend on what we, society, provide, people who would take us back in history to a time when there were pretty common and rigid standards of behavior, all you people are just crazy. You daily display the characteristics of someone who is hopelessly mentally unstable (being suspicious of government, and all). The very fact that you fill out a background check form (which is only done when you are buying machines of death and mass destruction) should mark you as unfit to own a gun.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email