I’m not aware of a source that collects such information, and I imagine it’d be difficult to do. There are lots of challenges. For example, a legal magazine limit will affect lots of decisions, some of them made long-prior to an actual gunfight, like which firearm the citizen chose to purchase. And if someone was injured / killed after expending 10 rounds in their own defense, we’re dealing with pure hypotheticals about if rounds #11-17 would have been enough for them to win / survive / avoid injury.
I think most people seriously underestimate how many shots it takes to stop an attacker. Most shots miss, and even hits don’t incapacitate an attacker. For example, according to Wikipedia, the police fired an estimated 380 rounds during the San Bernardino terrorist attack in order to stop a Chicago-born Cal State graduate food inspector and his fake wife.
Michael Slager required 8 rounds to stop an overweight, 50-year-old Walter Scott who was slowly jogging away from him.
You seem to be defining large by whether or not YOU need that many screws or straws. A large fries is only large relative to regular or small fries.
The use of the term large when describing standard size magazines is to make them sounds large in the relative sense, when they are in fact standard size. But if it makes you feel better, why do you think 30 round magazines are large?
You notice the law doesn’t prohibit possession right? There are hundreds of thousands of magazines that have a capacity greater than 10 rounds in CA. There may be some in close proximity to you right now! I definitely know where some are. I may or may not have dozens or more than dozens of them.
And of course, police are permitted to purchase any magazines even for personal use.
Compared to what? Large is a relative term and needs to be with respect to something else. It’s not me that’s shutting down discussion, it’s the English language. “Standard capacity” != “large capacity”. Blackwhite though - that could be a word.
I personally don’t see a difference, no. My point being “But the police are allowed to have it why can’t civilians?” is not an argument that works on me.
“Large” can be relative to an ideal. It need not be compared with the way things are right now. If the standard is what the person wants to change because they feel it is too large, how else would they convey that opinion?
Then they would make an argument on the merits rather than redefining words or using words in a nonsensical way. Simply saying “large” begs the question completely.
In casual conversation, that’s fine. When getting the term right means committing a felony or not, more precision is usually desired. Do you agree that large is a relative term?
Yes and no. I mean, yes, it is a relative term, but many times the standard for comparison is assumed or unknown. A 30 round magazine might be normal capacity for an AR-15, but it is large capacity when compared with guns in general.
I don’t think the term “large capacity magazine” is meaningless. Perhaps ill-defined.
I may be getting my wires crossed. I thought I was responding to a post about the semantic war that surrounds gun control (“assault weapon” “large capacity magazine” “military style (or military grade) assault weapons” etc.).
In what way do police need more than civilians? Are they facing criminals that civilians don’t face? They may face them more frequently but that’s just a matter of frequency not severity.
Here’s the thing. There has been an effort to confuse people about what things actually mean. In some circles, the parlance is FUD. It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This idea is meant to curtail otherwise legal behavior, or blur the lines between what is legal and what is not. Gun rights advocates are required to be incredibly circumspect so they don’t run afoul of any of the myriad number of laws, lest they become felons.
People on the gun control side however, they don’t have to. They flagrantly break the law with little to no consequences. Think of David Gregory flaunting his breaking the law with regard to magazine limits in DC. Gregory knew he would be breaking the law, NBC asked about the legality of their actions and were told it would break the law. Gregory did it anyways and the police requested a warrant to arrest Gregory. The DA did not file charges.
Think of Katie Couric who recently produced a hit piece on guns and unethically edited video footage. The video was pulled but in it, they sent a Colorado resident to purchase firearms in Arizona - a felony. Then, they turned the weapons into police - a potential felony (18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5).
Or Helen Ubinas who attempted to demonstrate the horror of how easy it is to purchase an AR-15 and apparently committed multiple felonies from a straw purchase to illegal firearms transportation.
The ease in which a person can commit a felony can be surprising so when new rules are proposed to create even more pitfalls, it’s important to get terms as precise as possible. We already have many laws that are aimed at a variety of unlawful conduct. There is no indication that new laws as proposed would be on balance, a net positive.
Anything that makes it more difficult to carry out a mass shooting deserves to be considered. I’ve no doubt that even if guns were all banned tomorrow, we’d still have some shootings from illegal guns, from guns stolen from law enforcement, etc. The point is that if it is more difficult to either get guns or to reload quickly, there will be a non-zero impact on the number of victims.
Note that your response is the fantasy of many gun advocates who think that as long as we have guns, we’ll have brave citizens going around stopping mass shootings left and right when it hasn’t really happened.
I’m a civilian and I can’t remember the last time I went into a hostage situation with the aim of taking down bad guys. I also can’t remember the last time I raided a drug den. In fact, I can’t remember having to face any criminal during the course of my daily duties at work.
So, yes, police face more criminals than I do. I would suspect they face more criminals than the average civilian. They should be able to potentially have better weapons, or larger magazines, or whatever than the people they will be facing.
I don’t think this to limit civilian gun rights. For instance, if a state law says “30 round magazines are the max a person can have” then I feel the police should be allowed to have 45 round magazines, or whatever (random numbers, and not a debate about my lack of knowledge of magazine sizes)
But I wouldn’t say “The police can have 45 round magazines, so all civilians should be able to have them too”
It HAS happened. Last October John Hendricks, a CCW holder, shot a young man who was shooting at people in Chicago. Joel Myrick during the Pearl High School shooting in Mississippi and Jeanne Assam during the New Life Church shooting in Colorado are two older examples that come to mind. There was also the Appalachian School of Law shooting. There is some dispute about whether the actions of Nick Meli influenced the outcome of the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon or not. Just a couple of weeks ago in Houston a CCW holder, Byron Wilson, engaged an active shooter, although he came out on the losing end of the gunfight. I’d consider all of the people that engaged the threat in these incidents to be “brave”. Saying “it hasn’t really happened” is just plain wrong.
BTW, the Washington Post has a story out that says the Orlando shooter used a Sig MCX. The video accompanying the story is just bizarre though. The only words spoken in the whole video are one sentence by Bill Clinton (“this is a lay-down, no-brainer and the Congress must not walk away from it” - presumably speaking about an AWB) and a rant by some jidahist: “America is absolutely awash with easily-obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card, so what are you waiting for?” The bit about picking up a fully-automatic weapon at a gun show is absolutely false, so it’s weird that WaPo would make it the center-piece of their video, unless they’re actively trying to promote factual ignorance.
After the first two paragraphs the article devolves into a disjointed explanation of the technical differences between an AR-15 and the MCX. This whole thing further deflates my opinion of journalists.
I don’t think the person you were replying to was doing that. And I don’t think you’d appreciate if someone said your posts were nonsensical because other people elsewhere do some sort of Gun Gish Gallop.
The only reason I bring it up is because some people like to mention how easily an Assault Weapon" can be converted into a machine gun. I personally don’t have a problem with the private ownership of machine guns but some people seem to get spooked by the notion that these assault weapons can be converted into machine guns.
