What is the logic behind a magazine restriction?

Why is ten rounds acceptable but eleven rounds is too much?

 

One can do more damage with (5) ten round magazines than (1) standard "high capacity" magazine.
Remember the Virginia Tech shooting?

 

same reason why 10 nukes is better than 1,000 nukes

 

There's no logic or reason involved -- its an arbitrary and capricious limit that does nothing to reduce gun violence.
Those who push for this limit are fully aware of this, and do not care.

 

it reduces murder body count

 

Tell that to the victims of the VT shooter who only had ten round magazines. What evidence you have that a magazine restriction would work?

- - - Updated - - -

False equivalency. Why is one more round is bad?

 

That makes it "high" capacity.
Don't you know that "high" capacity magazines are the reason "assault weapons" jump out of their gun safes and go on killing sprees?

 

There are 2 bounds to the number the gun banners select. The first is that it has to be less than the number of rounds held by those "high capacity" magazines - it has to be less than 30. It has to be lower than 30, if its 30 or more than they lose their entire argument that those "high capacity" magazines are evil and cause crimes.

The lower limit is subjective, it has to be just large enough so to the general public it sounds like "enough", and low enough so the gun banners have some room to compromise while still getting a limit of <30.

10 is a nice, round, easily remembered number. The gun banners can say things such as "Why would anyone need more than 10 bullets? Is an army invading their house? The cowboys only needed 6 and they lived in the wild wild west!" and naïve people might be swayed.

And if the banners get stuck, they can always say something like "OK, we are practical people, we will compromise, we will go to a limit of 15."

As long as they get legislation that places a limit on magazine size, they win. Once the govt gains that power, the banners will incrementally lower the limit until its zero.

 

Only in the minds of the unintelligent.

 

Because Diane Feinstein said so. (She wrote the original AWB).

 

Then why not 9 nukes? or 3 nukes?

 

Prove it. As long as a perp can carry multiple mags then your argument is moot.

 

There is no proof for the claim, only fallacy and unsupportable rhetoric.

 

I call the Colorado law "15 dead kids are okay", as the magazine restriction was the state Congress's only attempt to do anything that might be effective against mass shootings. Oh, and they failed to eliminate concealed carry at universities, so I guess that counts.

 

The very fact you are even bringing up discussion of nuclear weapons, as if they had an actual relevancy to the discussion at hand, is evidence of an unwillingness to engage in an open, honest, and legitimate debate on this topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Demonstrate where such was conclusively proven.

 

In truth no reasoning for the ten round capacity for a detachable box magazine has never been presented, nor brought up for demonstrating that private individuals do not have a legitimate need or use for carrying eleven or more rounds of ammunition in a single magazine. Rather the only thing to be presented is justification for the prohibition long after the fact. But justification after the fact is not the same thing as reasoning or methodology prior to the fact. The number was chosen randomly, arbitrarily, and is nothing more than the opinion of those that drafted the legislation, and wish for the public to abide by their opinions, or face the consequences for not doing such.

 

I believe that if the initial proposer had been barefoot the limit would be 20, and if naked that number would have been 21 or 22.

 

its a gradual whittling away at your right to own a firearm. Its based on the idiocy that people who already are banned from owning any firearm will be deterred in a mass shooting, from having normal capacity magazines

the real answer-to harass lawful gun owners and to set a precedent

lets think things through

Why does Joe citizen go from being trustworthy to own a ten round firearm to mass killer if he has 11 rounds?

why doe the second amendment cease operating based on the capacity of your firearm?

the slow witted low information voter who supports this thinks criminals will actually obey gun laws

the politicians who push these laws know better. to them its a desire to screw over gun owners.

 

do you realize how silly that is

someone intent on committing MURDER isn't going to obey a magazine law if they aren't going to obey a law against murder

what Ron is saying is that its OK to shoot ten people but damn you if you shoot 11

Using Ron's "Logic" he wants to ban all guns because if he thinks banning 11 round magazines will stop 11 people being murdered than banning one shot firearms will stop one person being murdered

the banners NEVER say when they will stop

Look at NY where Scumbag Cuomo used Sandy hook as an excuse to limit HONEST citizens to 7 round magazines. If the had got away with that-next year it would be 4 rounds

 

That statement is proof positive that you know very little about firearms, handguns to be precise, when I first used a 1911, standard GI magazines held 7 rounds + 1 in the chamber, and you carried several extra loaded magazines, and as soon as a magazine was empty, dropped, another inserted and hit the slide release and resume shooting.

I did not see higher capacity magazines till later when I came across a Browning Hi Power, and I liked the extra capacity, there of course were arguments of bigger bullet vs smaller bullet + hi cap = pray & spray ™©® etc.....

 

When I joined a local, big gun club, I was interviewed by one of the members and we had a nice talk about guns, and I was accepted into the club. It wasn't until Holmes shot up that theater in Aurora, Colorado that I realized that that interview was to see if I was nuts.

It came out about Holmes that he had tried to join a similar gun club, but when one of the members called him back, Holmes' phone answering message turned out to be something that Batman's Joker would use. The caller rejected his application because of it.

The bottom line here is that Holmes had not had the opportunity to test the 100 round, double drum magazine that he used in the shooting and it jammed. If he had had the chance to work out the kinks, he would have killed more. Also, if he had used lower capacity, standard mags, he could have killed more. Yes, use of lower capacity mags is a good idea; they are more reliable.

 

I played with the 75 round drum for the AK-47, it was fun and reliable, however, it made the gun unwieldy and hard to handle.

 

And it takes less than 2 seconds to change mags.

 

As we saw in Orlando and VT, having to change magazines does not hamper a mass shooter.

 

these valid arguments might make sense if the gun banners were really motivated about stopping crime and only pushing laws that would impact criminals. I think its fairly obvious that most gun banners are not about crime control but more about harassing honest gun owners So telling members of the BM that magazine restrictions don't limit criminals is falling on deaf ears-its all about harassing US that matters to them