you can easily need several 30 rd mags if your silencer/cover/armor are not enough when you go up against big brother's thugs. You wont survive it, but the more of them you can kill, the fewer other patriots will have to kill.
They don't want to be unable to shoot the bad guys in case the first ten rounds are wasted on innocent bystanders.
I'm sure you accept many other kinds of limits without asking such questions (speed limits, blood alcohol limits when driving, age limits for enlisting in the military, etc.).
Irrelevant and inflammatory nonsense. You cannot demonstrate examples innocent bystanders being shot by private individuals who are legally carrying firearms. Beyond such, there have been documented accounts of violent aggressors being shot numerous times, sometimes far in excess of ten times, and still ceasing to demonstrate aggressive behavior towards their intended victims.
None of which, however, are limits that are applied to constitutional rights. There is a significant difference between the two standards. Beyond such, speed limits, and blood alcohol levels when operating a motor vehicle, are in relation to the safe use of a motor vehicle. It can actually be demonstrate that such are legitimate in nature to restrict reckless behavior that puts others at risk. However there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that demonstrates the legal use of a firearm is reckless and puts others at risk when the number of rounds in a magazine is greater than ten. There is quite literally no correlation between magazine capacity, and whether the operation of a firearm is safe or unsafe, that conclusively proves that limitations on magazine capacity are of a legitimate nature.
Good to see you have no intention whatsoever of even trying to have a meaningful conversation on the topic. As usual.
When has that ever happened? - - - Updated - - - BTW. Can anyone tell me what does "TNP" stands for. I've watched a few of his videos but never got an answer.
That's because there's a method to how they came to that limit. What scientific method did the gun controllers used to come up with ten? And is it just me or are you shaming someone for even asking the question?
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/gwi...aders-during-gwinnett-home-invasion/448984282 More than ten rounds expended; three armed suspects and all that only blocks away from me.
you must be thinking about cops-they are far more likely to shoot innocent bystanders and I don't hear you calling for either cops or criminals to be limited to ten rounds
There's a famous photo of a lynching. Dead man hung by the neck and a bunch of people grinning. There are about 30 people in that mob. That's why.
I "personally" don't see the need for more than 20, but I fully understand why 2A advocates don't find that acceptable as a legal max and wish to fight against a reduction to 10 or 20, etc.... But for me 20 with multiple mags is adequate for my particular needs, whatever they may be. Granted the one time I might wish I had 30 might be the last time I wish that but i'm ok with that. Not a really good shot to be honest so 10 isn't enough I just might put a lot of holes in surrounding buildings/landscape than a bad guy but that's on me.
Excellent article. Hollywood has people wrongly believing if someone is shot they instantly fall dead.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/5/26/the-ar-for-home-defense-one-experts-opinion This guy, who was a SOF operator, says "When it comes to capacity, I have been in situations where not only did I want an AR, I wanted 30 rounds loaded in my magazines. Not 28, but 30. I know that violates an unwritten code of tactical efficacy, but I can attest to the fact that most U.S. Army elite counter-terrorist commandos load 30 rounds per magazine. Disregard the naysayers and their minimalist-capacity mindset. Live in the real world. Some who employ the AR for home defense have told me they like to store the carbine with a 20-round magazine in place. I agree this does make the carbine a little easier to store, but make sure you have quick access to a 30-rounder when the shooting starts."
The article linked to also stresses that the smaller the caliber, the more hits have to be made. Add to this that 99% of people are (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor shots, particularly in a panic. Having 10 rounds does not equate to 10 hits. A retired career police sgt of from a major urban city told me of an incident after he had retired when he was approached by a young guy with a .357 magnum demanding his money while he was out feeding stray cats at an abandoned building. Instead, he drew his Glock 9mm and both emptied their handguns at each other - starting at a range of approximately 15 feet. While firing the attacker was running backwards and he was running to the side. Total rounds fired by both? 21. 15 9mm and 6 .357. He was hit in arm with 1 round and the attacker hit once in the upper leg. 2 non-lethal and non-stopping hits. In a panic, most people couldn't hit a running cow at 10 feet unless slinging out a lot of bullets. This also is why I personally recommend a crimson trace laser grip and practice with it. Unless a VERY, VERY experienced shooter, in a panic it WILL BE POINT-AND-SHOOT, no aiming involved. A laser sight is on target and THAT is what the person will be looking at - the attacker - and not the sights in the pistol. The author also is correct that all self-defense shooting should be WHILE MOVING, not standing still aiming at targets. A major difference how in reality a private citizen will shoot versus police in an attack situation is that police will rapidly fire MANY rounds, while a private citizen usually will only fire 1 or 2. This may be why statistically police will kill who utlimately proves to be "innocent," but a legitimate reason to believe a threat 6 times more often than a private citizen. Police tend to fire enough rounds to stop the attacker - also lethal. Private citizens even if shooting someone often do not lethally hit the threat, who most often flees only wounded and ends up at a hospital. Finally, there is the line from The Good, Bad and Ugly. "When you are going to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
not going to argue. Actually after the last time we had a capacity discussion I went ahead and ordered two 30 round clips strictly for a SHTF scenario but they are just sitting in the ammo bag unused at this time. I'd willing to admit i'm overstocked but terribly under-trained, the few times i've been to the range I shoot mostly the 22 rifle and the 9mm pistol for cost reasons and virtually all of my range time is controlled breathing stationary paper target at relatively short distances, just out having fun with my buddy more than anything else. Its dam expensive to go through a full clip of 223 ammo, especially compared to the 22. One of these days I actually need to do some proper preparation for SHTF or I might regret it. (maybe its a good idea for a thread on how you go about that). I'm much better armed than the average fella but very much untrained. If a dude ran full speed laterally across the range while I empty a clip there's a good chance he makes it all the way across without a scratch.
Since I literally just admitted my shortcomings on that subject in my most recent post and was considering starting a thread on the subject but was wondering if it fits into the forum guidelines since its not an actual legal discussion. I'm down in the SWFL area, can you make generic/specific recommendations on just exactly how someone goes about getting "up to snuff" for lack of a better way to put it, anything past my current status which would be "armed but not that dangerous"? I would describe myself as nothing more than a casual plinker that goes to the outdoor range much less often than I should so to be honest I've never really looked into what an average joe like myself can do to get myself better prepared, or to be honest, even a little prepared. I've never done the CW class even, for example, (I guess that would be a good place to start, eh?) A couple friends have permits but we've never really discussed any kind of training or what opportunities there are out there.
Personally I think an AR is a terrible choice for home defense unless possibly you live on a farm, ranch or with a lot of land. Even then I do not think it is appropriate for in-house defense. A 22 caliber but extremely high velocity bullet makes no sense in a house.
