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?