Why does anybody need a magazine with that large of a capacity?
How many should someone ‘need’? I don’t have a dog in the magazine size fight, but ‘need’ is pretty nebulous. Does someone really ‘need’ a car that can go 100 MPH? Or 200? Or even 80? Does anyone really ‘need’ a quadruple cheese burger with gravy fries and a trough sized diet coke? I’d say the stock answer for why one would ‘need’ such a large capacity is so you don’t need (there is that word again ;)) to reload as often, and when we are talking about magazines it’s kind of moot anyway. If you limited them to 7 rounds or some other arbitrary number what have you actually gained? Even someone only passingly competent with a magazine fed gun can reload clips in less than a second or two, and it’s not like they cost that much to buy additional magazines. True, that cuts both ways, but I don’t see any compelling reason to set some arbitrary limit on the things.
Now, excuse me…I ‘need’ this fine tequila and Cuban cigar…
It’s got nothing at all to do with what anybody needs. It’s just a matter of definitions. Let me give a car examples, to see if this helps illustrate the point:
A Toyota Camry comes with a 16-gallon fuel tank. If asked to define the terms, I’d call that the “standard capacity”. If someone pulled that fuel tank out and put in a 7-gallon fuel tank, I’d call that a “low capacity” fuel tank. Likewise, if someone pulled the tank out and replaced it with a 25-gallon tank, I’d call that a “high-capacity” tank.
For a Glock 17, 17-round magazine are standard, unless the manufacturer, pursuant to some legal requirement, takes steps to artificially limit it to a smaller number. An aftermarket 32-round magazine that hangs out the bottom of the frame by 5 inches or so is a high-capacity magazine.
Been meaning to address the OP directly here, finally have some time:
It’s not that having all your citizens armed is in and of itself bad, it’s about arming with too little discipline, arming without adequate context for the devices in question. The Swiss have evidently got us beat on that one. The pro-gun movement here has gotten so powerful that it’s created an air of permissiveness and license around these devices in the U.S., what shows no signs of stopping. Out of that diseased territory, come the mass shooters, comes apartment dwellers who knock on their neighbor’s door with an AR-15 strapped to their back telling them to keep the noise down, comes a dude (and almost always a dude) to terrify his wife, neighbors, with his behavior, which includes backing from a healthy gun collection, and so on, and so on.
Some see this as an addressable problem, with enough dialog, understanding, goodwill (the sizeable majority of gun owners being good people). And that perception, that this is addressable (and yes, it’s just a perception), creates a relatively high amount of frustration for people who have it (like me). Not only is there no one in a position of power, authority, within the gun crowd or outside it to encourage the healthy tissue, and curb the unhealthy, but any effort to do so gets swatted down at every turn. Restoring some balance involves a dialog that has far less to do with CCW reciprocity, bump stocks, and other fravostats, as it does with our culture, our attitudes. As things are running now, the course we’re on is just plain foolish. (Worth adding that our national divisiveness over guns is being actively targeted by Russian bots to sow and encourage discord–check it out.)
Also worth adding, re my earlier remarks, I honestly don’t consider any of the usual band on the pro side above to be moderates (though I may have overlooked someone). But when I find one, I’d be happy to have a discussion with them.
OK, can you describe a situation where it’s advantageous or beneficial to not have to reload as often?
I can. When I go to the range, I enjoy shooting. Loading magazines? Not so much.
Yep, you’re new.
Has the SDMB ever brainstormed anything? We yell at each other until someone gets banned. 
Shooting competitions, target shooting, some hunting, self-defense scenarios.
Thought I had done this, but at the range springs to mind. It’s not like it’s an onerous task to reload mags at the range, but it’s not all that fun either and it takes away from shooting/practice time. I don’t see a large benefit gained by limiting them to some other arbitrary number since the result would be for someone who is going to do the mass shooting thing (which I assume is what you are getting at) will simply have a pocket or pouch full of mags (unless they simply go out and get ‘illegal’ larger capacity ones…I mean, they are already planning to break the law).
Apologies if I missed your post addressing this earlier.
So, if someone in Congress, based on the misguided notion that limiting magazine sizes would slow down a mass shooter, introduces a bill making it illegal to posses a magazine with a capacity greater than some arbitrary number, you would oppose it based on inconvenience?
In competition shooting, are their any rules when it comes to mag sizes?
As I said, I don’t have a dog in the magazine size fight, so no…I wouldn’t personally oppose it. To me it would be like a lot of the feel-good cosmetic legislature that has been passed in the past…the AWB is a perfect example. It would cause a lot of bad blood and a lot of the pro-gun folks would be up and arms and also even more on guard for the government and anti-gun types to use this as a slippery slope for further bans.
And how is that different from their default demeanor?
They aren’t currently actively hostile. But you are right…we have gotten to the point where the sides are so polarized and there is so much bad blood between the respective sides that it seems unlikely real compromise is possible. Seems we have gotten to that same point on the wider political level as well.
I think if I was running for the emergency exit, a gunman having to change mags might be a welcome couple of seconds delay.
As a compromise, you could always allow an exception for licensed gun ranges. You can keep larger capacity mags (and perhaps silencers) at your local range but not at your home.
It’s more like a second. Someone who is really good can do a mag change in far less than a second. Even two seconds, however, is probably not going to make a big difference to you if you are trying to get away from a mad gunman though.
Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, so I’d be willing to compromise on this as it wouldn’t affect me. What would the other side be giving as a reciprocal concession? How about a blanket law saying that, once an agreed upon completely arbitrary magazine size limit is put in place that there will never be another attempt to lower it again and again, or get rid of magazines in the future?
Sure, if that arbitrary limit is 3.
I really don’t understand this compromise. We have one side that is looking to save lives, and the other side that is wanting to know what it gets in return.
That’s not negotiating in good faith with people with political differences, that’s hostage negotiation.
Or, conversely, you have one side who is pushing for a feel-good measure that will inconvenience a lot of people and have no real effect, and whose motives are suspect since they should know that their measure won’t do anything (so why do they want it?) and the other side being asked to give something up just because.
Yeah, I know your side likes to throw around the whole ‘looking to save lives’ bit, but that’s pretty much horseshit as most of this type of regulation has no basis in demonstrating that it achieves that goal.
Of course, and that’s really the goal, right? Make it 3 rounds to a clip, then maybe make it 1 then do away with the clips altogether because SAVING LIVES! I think most of the pro-gun guys get this by now when folks like you join such discussions.
Ironically, it looks this way from the other side as well.
If you have a constructive proposal to offer that you believe *will *save lives, by all means please provide it. All this denialism simply proves what we’re saying.
Maybe if they were “looking to save lives” in a way that gave the impression they knew what the hell the current laws are and came up with legislation that had more of a goal than punishing gun owners, that side would find a more receptive audience.
As has been noted. there are numerous other things that kill more people than guns, but I don’t see (collective) you crusading against any of those things with the fervor you bring to this issue. Maybe that’s why your “looking to save lives” and “anti-murder” goals seem rather facile. Clearly, if you were actually concerned about loss of human life you would go after the things that take a greater toll than guns.
I’d have vastly more respect for the anti-gun faction if they’d quit trying to bullshit everybody and just admit that they hate and fear guns.