Why do gun control advocates constantly prattle about "high capacity magazines"

You hear it every time there is a large scale shooting and the trot out gun control arguments. "Ban high capacity magazines!!"

Why? I don't own any semi automatic rifles (though I've fired more than a few) and I'm no gun nut of any kind, yet even I know it takes only a few seconds to eject a semi auto magazine and insert another one. In short in a mass shooting situation it would certainly make no difference at all.

So why bother banning them?
I think it has to do with the "image" people have of guns and high capacity magazines which they've largely gleaned from movies and video games. That is where a shooter can simply pull down on the trigger and "spray" bullets seemingly indefinitely.

It has no connection to reality though.

 

they're just chipping away little by little. anyone who has used a semi auto knows you can switch mags easily, this is just another attempt to strip our rights.

 

It just never occurs to liberals, who are generally poorly informed, and frankly quite lazy for them to grapple with the idea that you'd bring more than one magazine... And when someone does, or brings spare weapons, that seems to freak them out even more.

What doesn't seem to freak out democrats is the incompetence of their bureaucrats in identifying and monitoring folks who have publicly declared their willingness to use violence against the good folks of our nation. And it turns out that democrats aren't really interested in the vast majority of mass shootings because, well, it is endemic in their communities, they just refer to it as "gang violence" instead of the mass shootings they so often cry about. My little neck of the woods had a rash of mass shootings recently where between 4-6 folks got shot, but you haven't seen either of these incidents nationally. Why? Wrong narrative. black on black gun crimes don't merit the air time evidently.

 

A few seconds could be enough time for bystanders to intervene and stop the shooter. That happened to Jared Lee Loughner when he was trying to reload his Glock.

 

so, the likelihood of that scenario is almost infinitesimal, but that makes it ok to tell a law abiding person what he can or cannot own? that has so many holes in it I can't imagine how that made it to the internet.
here's one; 2 glocks.

 

Well if everyone was armed than we might be able to stop these maggots even before the reload.

if anyone here thinks it takes more than two seconds to eject than insert a mag. To a practiced shooter raise your hand. best defense against these nuts is a whole lot of others carrying.
I made a vow to start carrying two pistols on me.

 

I don't think the idea of limiting magazine capacity is aimed at gun enthusiasts. It's aimed at the drive-by shooters and gang-bangers.

So, we know that a gun enthusiast can change magazines in a couple of seconds. So limiting magazine capacity
doesn't really impact you. Wouldn't you like to step back for a second, and say to yourself, "Limiting magazine capacity
really has no impact on my life, but for some young child in Chicago, or L.A., it might mean that a drive by gang shooting
might have half the lead flying during that drive by to hit innocent by-standers."

If you look at it from that perspective, is it really such a far fetched idea?

 

The more bullets come out at a certain time, the more victims may be doomed to die.
Rifles for personal use should have no mag at all.

 

More so. I think instead of worrying about the magazine they should worry about getting gangs under control. that would stop the crime and shootings. punishing the rest of us for what those clowns do doesn't make any sense to me.

 

why exactly should the gov decide what I own again?

 

Well that's a theory. The reality is more along the lines as they seem like the lowest hanging fruit in the incremental legal march toward outlawing guns without actually addressing violence or the causes thereof.

 

Given how the idea of self defense has gotten so politically incorrect, an armed citizen has to call his lawyer for an opinion before deciding to shoot someone like this guy. In "gun free zones" you become the criminal.

The magazine angle is about wanting to force shooters back to single shot for now, with outright banishment asap.

 

Sure it effects me, you're telling me I cannot own the standard capacity magazine for my firearm. You're infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Full stop.

Not to mention, you're not going to stop drive bys: 1) criminals don't follow the law so they won't be turning anything in and magazines are easy to make 2) Every hear of more than one gun? drive bys have. Normally everyone in the car is armed, and everyone takes a shot.

You're only targeting the law abiding.

 

Hmm.. why again? They can't carry extra mags or have multiple guns? How does mag capacity limitations change that or the crime that happens today? And are you, liberal that you are ( forget the "eisenhower line, this you are not) telling us that it's out of compassion for the children? Really? When do you suppose that you're stand up for the unborn then? That isn't an attempt to derail, just the observation that these here are some ultra convenient crocodilian tears you're shedding...

 

They got the taste when the discovered they can mandate that you have to but certain products and services. This is just the hill sliding further....

 

If democrats were forced to look at the actual results of their policy to unwind the fabric of the nuclear family and society perhaps they'd understand the resistance they are facing now. If you outlaw guns by making it so expensive to pay the insurance that doesn't exist yet, but you force millions of folks to start having to carry it, whom do we think will be the least likely to have weapons? If you said the poor and mostly minority communities, I bet you'd understand their real intent here. Fear. The narrative is insidious. Democrats claim to own minority voters, and are doing everything in their power to remove their rights to protect themselves from the violence that democratic policy forces their way. When will these communities walk up? After their rights are stripped from them?

And who said racist and democratic party aren't still a thing.

 

Simple:
They know they can prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

Pulse nightclub shooting, Orlando FL.
300 people. 1 shooter. Several mag reloads.
No. One. Did. Anything.
And so, what you say -might- happen, the near-theoretical possibility of such does not in any way demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.

 

The OBVIOUS irony here...
A magazine ban will only affect the gun enthusiasts, and will not affect the gang bangers.
As intended.

 

Take note, not a peep about like, uh, doing something concrete about gangs and their penchant for drive by shootings, just theoretically limit their firepower and it's all good.

 

So you'd deny bystanders the opportunity to stop a shooter because in another shooting bystanders were unable to do so.

 

Are unwilling to sacrifice a little convenience in order to save lives?

 

Since it didn't sink in the first time:
What you say -might- happen; the near-theoretical possibility of such does not in any way demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.

 

Think how many lives would be saved by banning booze, meth, and blow!

 

OP basically has the right idea. But don’t do it just once. Do it multiple times. 10-5 round magazines will take more time to reload and eject than 5-10 round magazines. Every second counts.