On the plus side, I did buy a S&W M&P15A several months ago for this very reason and I’ve yet to fire it… Looks like it might become a nice little investment after all. I’m not sure if I should feel happy or mad. 
Someone who wants to shoot someone else will probably do so regardless of the magazine size. However, having more shots available to them does seem to increase the likelihood of someone getting hurt. Per the numbers in my post #130 they said that 3% of the times more than 10 shots were fired resulted in 5% of the injuries.
I do not know if what I am about to do is statistically valid so take it as a hypothetical if you want. Using that 3% and 5% number let’s say that injuries by gun increase 2% with larger magazines (more than 10 shots).
I found these numbers from the CDC. Old I know but I had a hard time finding data on gun injuries and not just gun deaths but this is illustrative while trying to stay close to real numbers.
Using my amazing powers of math I make that out to be 2,300 fewer gun injuries (704 fewer dead and 1,588 fewer injured).
It amazes me that people here are content to let 2,300 people get shot so they need not be inconvenienced at the firing range having to change an ammo clip. And seriously, how many times in home defense do you need to shoot at the intruder more than 10 times? Seems to me if you do you are being invaded, not robbed.
If we moved those clip sizes lower (below 10) I would expect the numbers to improve more.
If someone told me drinking 8 oz. beer would save lives rather than in 12 oz. cans I would not be bothered at a law mandating smaller containers. So I have to go to the fridge a little more often. Big deal.
As for criminals just making their own probably some will. A lot won’t. Further I would think being caught in possession of one would be an automatic addition to any criminal sentence they get. Make it a stiff penalty and most won’t find it worth the risk (of course there are always some who would but I think that would be a low number). Add to that the larger clips would get expensive by the mere fact they are illegal. Growing pot is cheap and easy. It is expensive on the street because of the criminal risk.
And yeah, it would take awhile for the clips to get more scarce but saying there are a lot today means we should never start is a bogus argument. You have to start somewhere. Sooner or later the supply would dwindle.
First of all, they’re magazines, not clips. And yes, there is a big difference between them.
Second of all, if a killer is really intent on shooting a lot of people, they’re just going to carry more magazines. All gun control laws are minor inconveniences that still don’t prevent violence or crime.
And if you really think a criminal is considering an extra charge for a larger magazine prior to doing a drive-by or murder or whatever gun crime he/she is about to commit, well I don’t think you’re thinking like a criminal at all. Jail terms really don’t affect most of them; after all, they’re just going to see the group of their friends that are currently incarcerated rather than free. I know a lot of career criminals consider jail their second home anyway…
And lastly, what if you do need more than 10 shots for a home invader? What if you miss? What if there’s several men invading your home? Do you really want your life to come down to the 10-round-limit?
Brandon, no offense, but I wouldn’t trust a World Net Daily article to actually report instead of invent facts.
It’s just a summary of this. The facts are still there. They still found no link between gun control laws and a reduction in violence.
I’ve already posed this same question twice - I think it’s a good one.
Are YOU willing to put YOUR ass on the line with a 10-round magazine when a 12 or 15 rounder is available to you?
Really think about it. Try to put yourself in the situation. Visualize that attacker coming into your home, or whatever the situation may be. Visualize having to pull out that pistol and confront him. Would you feel better knowing you have 10, 12 or 15 rounds in the magazine?
Sure, you can go to the fridge to get another beer. Can you ask the armed robber to wait a second so you can change magazines?
This is a Warning that you are out of line.
Do not call other posters assholes in great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
Fair enough and noted for future reference but pretty sure you knew what I was on about.
As I noted in my post someone intent on shooting someone will not care about carrying a larger or more magazines.
I doubt ALL gun violence is planned ahead. If you are Joe Crackdealer and carry a gun then you may think twice about that larger magazine. If the cops catch you dealing and find your gun adding another 5 years (made that up…just assuming that having one would add to a sentence and should do so in a significant way) for possessing a larger magazine is probably not worth toting around.
In the end there are tradeoffs. We could build planes that are a lot safer than today but then every ticket would cost $10,000.
If you want to show me stats on times where a person needed to unload more than 10 shots to protect themselves have at it and we can compare that to my 700+ fewer dead people by shooting less than 10 times. Then we can argue over which is more compelling.
I suspect it is a very rare occurrence outside of the movies where someone’s house has become the Alamo beating back hordes of robbers.
Certainly if I have the option I would opt for the larger magazine if someone was breaking in to my house. You never know and more can only be better to protect me.
That said I cannot think of any time when someone needed to make their house a war zone to repel an invader with some major shootout but if you have stats on it let them fly.
Seems to me if you need more than 10 shots you suck at shooting and your invader is highly motivated to press on in the face of that.
To be fair, I didn’t call him an asshole. He asked me why he should not be allowed to own a bomb, but not use “gun points” such as the Constitution or any other measures of common sense. As such I used hyperbole which, by definition, is not meant to be taken literally.
It was a rhetorical question at best, and an equally rhetorical answer. Warning dually noted regardless.
Interesting story about a cop who hit a bad guy 22 times. Not that it is proof of anything. Just an interesting story about when a few more rounds came in handy.
Anecdotal (but interesting).
Also, I have no issue with law enforcement carrying 100-round magazines if they want (not saying that is practical). Indeed it seems part of the point to try to have law enforcement better armed than the bad guys.
I think you missed the point. He hit the guy 22 times. The guy didn’t go down until #22 and he had no drugs in his system. Sometimes, regardless of whether you are a cop or not, it takes more than 10 rounds to eliminate a threat. I’d hate to have my Glock click after round 10 when I really needed it go bang on number 11. Do you agree?
Can you define “this” for me? “This has already happened.” What, exactly, has happened?
Sure I agree if someone was after me and I shot them ten times I’d hate to have to reload and would wish I had more shots still in the magazine.
But again anecdotal. There are always the weird cases of Rasputin-like seemingly impossible to put down people. It happens on occasion.
But I am willing to bet most people fall to the ground if they so much as get shot in their pinky-toe.
In the end it is a numbers game. We can throw “what-if” situations at each other all day. The answer lies in the greatest good. One way saves 700 people. The other way saves 5 people who come across mutants that don’t know when to die.
The option to choose seems clear to me.
Can’t speak for him of course but pretty sure he means taking a swipe at attempting to get guns banned (to some degree).
Your parenthetical is the crux of the matter.
Indeed it is.
What amazes me is the gun advocates position that any gun regulation is bad.
Early on in this thread gun advocates were bemoaning the stupidity of non-gun owners and their irrational fear of scary looking guns. That any gun is dangerous and cosmetic differences were meaningless. I asked that those with knowledge offer up some rational restrictions. Things that made sense. No one did and indeed oppose something that would seem to have merit…banning large capacity magazines.
There is always a loophole in their worldview when it comes to guns. Don’t start on any restriction because it is impossible to make any regulation 100% effective and also effective instantly. Because all criminals will have access to the good stuff while they are helpless and cowering in their homes.
What I was trying to say, was that in the past, before Obama actually became elected, I would post here about how I could see an “assault weapons” ban coming down the road, and virtually everyone told me that I was mistaken. Even the pro-gun side, like Airman Doors, INSISTED that the Obama administration would NEVER actually even TRY to do anything related to gun control…that their statement of wanting to re-implement the AWB in their party platform was nothing more than a token scrap that they were throwing to the most far-left part of their base, that the “Democrats learned the lesson of 1994” (I heard that particular one about nine hundred times) and that “they know that gun control is a loser issue” and that “you’re just being paranoid.”
And now, merely TWO MONTHS into the new administration, a proposed renewal of the AWB by the ATTORNEY GENERAL - not some obscure and powerless congress member or whatever, but by the ATTORNEY GENERAL - is in the headline news.
You could call it paranoia. I would call it foresight. Whatever the hell you want to call it, the point is, everyone who disagreed with me turned out to be dead wrong.
It’s not the position of the “gun advocates.” It’s the position of the Second Amendment.