If people are going to write laws, or support the writing of laws, to restrict the rights of others, they should certainly understand the topic. I hate heroin so should I call for destruction and banning of all opium poppies? I hate plastic and what it does to our environment (and how grease sticks to it in the dishwasher); should I call for the banning of all plastics without regard to how it might be used medically? Most people writing gun laws, and most those who vote for them and encourage them, know nothing about what they're trying to ban. It's completely emotional. Understand what it is you're talking about and make intelligent arguments.
If the anti-gun side could not argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty, you;d never hear a thing from them.
When someone is a GCA, all firearms look evil and more deadly then the reality of what they actually are.
Even if you can switch magazines in under 2 seconds WHY would you want to OR to have a magazine over 10 shots. If you can't hit something in 10 shots you shouldn't be hunting, If you need over 10 shots at one time to protect yourself you are in a War Zone
If you're in my house I figure it's you or me, and I'm not giving you a chance to get me if I shout out anything you may just fire at the sound OTOH if I have a gun, I will simply sit quietly in the dark and hope you go away, but if you enter the room....
Untrue, there have been many home invasions and other assaults where way more than 10 rounds where fired before the bad guys where either killed or fled.
Why not? The world is a dangerous place, such magazines are freely and commonly available, there is no way of tracking who does and does not have them, and a lack of legal ownership does not mean they are not possessed by the criminal element who will use them to their advantage. Then ultimately what is the legitimate reason for law enforcement officers to have access to multiple magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition?
Or in America, here's a video of a guy trying to attack an LAPD officer with a machete, 16 shots later he finally was knocked down. 16 that's 6 more than 10, so much for your theory that 19 rounds is enough, and what might have happened if there are more than one attacker? Going forward maybe do some studying about defensive shooting before spouting off about a subject you seem to know little about.
Gee, I'm gonna have to get a drum magazine for my Glock, I pursue machete-wielding assailants so much nowadays Going backward, I'm not sure I like the idea of untrained people suddenly launching 16 bullets everywhere all the time. If even qualified policemen do this how much will Gary Goodguy turn the streets into a shooting gallery?
Glock? Known fact, law abiding armed citizens are in most cases much better trained than LEO's and have a much higher hit to miss ratio, none the less who are you to decide what a person can carry for self defense?.
Source? I'm a citizen who's very aware that hi-capacity magazines are very much equipment of choice for mass shooters.
So...do you have any actual EVIDENCE for your assertion that "if we enforced the 1968 gun law 70%of Americans couldn't legally own a gun."
FBI UCR's And that is a very good reason for law abiding armed citizens to be allowed to own and utilize magazines with more than a 10 round capacity.
Or being attacked by a guy on drugs. People on PCP or meth have absorbed 10+ rounds and not even NOTICED! Unless you have something in a serious caliber (think: hot .44 Magnum at a minimum, and preferably more steam than that), you might need 10+ shots for a guy on Angel Dust.
Many, just a few months back a guy's home was broken into by 2 criminals, in the ensuing gun fight he fired I believe 18 rounds killing one and severely injuring the other. Read back through the incidents posted here and you will discover there have been many interactions with armed criminals where a law abiding citizen fired over 10 rounds.
And who are the primary victims of mass shootings? Not law enforcement officers, but private citizens. Meaning the private citizens are the ones who need every advantage legally available to them.
And one advantage that people being killed by a mass shooter might appreciate is not having said mass shooter able to kill 30 people without reloading
Just as they might appreciate not being legally and forcibly disarmed in the name of it being for their own good, on the basis that their unarmed and helpless state makes them safer overall. Drop the hyperbole. No mass killing has involved thirty deaths in thirty rounds of ammunition discharged before reloading. Even Stephen Paddock did not get that many.
Why? How will having more than 10 rounds in my pistol better protect me from a mass shooter who has more than 10 rounds in theirs?
