Part 4: The Faulty Logic of Magazine Capacity Limits

0

“High capacity” magazines are another in their arsenal of false arguments. First, let me clarify, they are not “high capacity”, they are standard capacity. Any gun that accepts a detachable magazine was designed in a manner to accept a magazine capable of article-gregory-1226holding a certain number of rounds. Just because that number is higher than the number of digits one has on their hands does not make it “high capacity”. Secondly, the capacity of the magazine has absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of a firearm. Where does this magic number of 10 bullets come from? What makes the gun control crowd think that limiting magazine capacity to 10 bullets will have any effect of mass shootings? What is the logical basis for that argument? If a network reporter can so easily break a magazine ban law on national television, what makes anyone even dream that it will stop someone with evil intentions?

For a well-trained shooter, it takes only 1 second to perform a magazine change and get back on target. For sake of argument, if I were someone intent of committing a mass shooting, and let’s say I limit myself to only the “magically less lethal 10 round magazines”, I am still going to bring as many magazines as I can carry so that I can continue my rampage as long as possible. During those 1-2 second intervals when an assailant is changing magazines, are the victims of the assault supposed to rush the attacker? Flee the scene? That short time frame is not sufficient for even a professional athlete to make a difference, let alone an average citizen.

Will 10 round magazines stem the tide? No, and there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest it would. But what that limit will do is render a lawful, concealed carry (CCW) holder less able to defend themselves or others from an armed assault. See, while the person intent on perpetrating an attack has all the time in the world to prepare and gear up, because they know when they are going to strike, the CCW holder likely only has their sidearm because they are prepared for the what if, not prepared for battle like the armed attacker is. Why would you limit the good guy to 10 rounds to try and stop the bad guy who is going to be armed to the teeth?

That 10 round limit is completely ridiculous, and was clearly determined by someone who has never been in a gunfight. Unlike in Hollywood, when people are moving and shooting at you, and killing people all around you, you tend not to be the most accurate shooter and might possibly miss a round or two. Additionally, unlike Hollywood, when a bad guy gets shot, they do not fly back 20 feet and become instantly incapacitated. Real bad guys have been known to soak up over a dozen rounds and live, and in some cases, continue to fight even though they are mortally wounded.

A recent incident in Georgia is the perfect example of the stupidity of artificial magazine capacity limits. A mother saw an intruder breaking into her home, called 9-1-1, grabbed her gun and her 2 sons and retreated to a hiding area, and waited for the cops to arrive. The intruder broke into her home and began searching it. When he found the woman and her two sons hiding, she shot him 5 times from a few feet away, emptying her revolver. That intruder, who was shot 5 times in the face, neck and torso, got up, went back to his car and managed to drive away. Thankfully, considering her gun was now empty, once the intruder was shot, he decided to retreat. Thankfully there was not a second intruder.

Send this to friend