# Why do firearm owners "need" high capacity magazines? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2016, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203 "2016-01-15T05:58:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/61 "2016-01-16T22:52:35Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Actually, after looking into the magazine controversy, to any kind of meaningful impact efforts are much better spent on universal registration, universal pre-checks, national database and all transactions going through an approved dealer or some other “official” form. No need to rat hole on magazine capacity. Aside from, you know, the whole purpose of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/62 "2016-01-17T00:07:35Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Aside from, you know, the whole purpose of this thread. Which, you know, was **China Guy** ’s OP. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/63 "2016-01-17T00:08:09Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Which, you know, was **China Guy** ’s OP. 🙂 Details. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/64 "2016-01-17T02:00:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You seriously believe that Congress could pass a law limiting books to 200 pages without offending the First Amendment? I do. It would analyzed as a time, place, manner restriction, surely. So the question would be merely whether it was properly tailored to whatever purpose it was passed for. In the hypothetical world in which 200+ page books lead to more deaths than multi-volume version of the same book, such a law would very likely survive First Amendment scrutiny. But this analogy is unfair to your side, isn’t it? The degree of impact of separating a book into volumes on the book’s communicative content is probably less than the impact of separating magazines on effective self-defense (or other Second Amendment protected interests, to the extent they exist). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/65 "2016-01-17T02:35:04Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I do. > > It would analyzed as a time, place, manner restriction, surely. So the question would be merely whether it was properly tailored to whatever purpose it was passed for. In the hypothetical world in which 200+ page books lead to more deaths than multi-volume version of the same book, such a law would very likely survive First Amendment scrutiny What world would that be? Seriously, is there an actual scenario you can paint for us where a causal relationship could be established between the number of pages in a book and the murder rate? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/66 "2016-01-17T02:51:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What world would that be? Seriously, is there an actual scenario you can paint for us where a causal relationship could be established between the number of pages in a book and the murder rate? I’m happy to compose a weird sci-fi story for you in which single volumes pose grave threats, but I think you’d be somewhat missing the point if you’re observing that the factual world of the analogy is unlikely to come to pass. The point of **Bricker’s** comparison was to show that if we treated the Second Amendment like the First, then there would need to be some greater justification for infringement than some theorized harm. But that’s false. The First Amendment allows for such restrictions on little more justification than minor harm-reduction. Presumably, over time Second Amendment jurisprudence will become similarly complex and nuanced, and I would expect magazine capacity to fall into a different category than, say, a handgun ban (though, as I pointed out, I don’t think the book volume analogy is fair to supporters of a strong Second Amendment). ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/67 "2016-01-17T03:00:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I’d just legalize drugs, if the goal is to reduce violence and not just gun ownership. These two are not mutually exclusive. I’m for decriminalization and legalization within parameters. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/68 "2016-01-17T15:22:56Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I do. > > It would analyzed as a time, place, manner restriction, surely. So the question would be merely whether it was properly tailored to whatever purpose it was passed for. In the hypothetical world in which 200+ page books lead to more deaths than multi-volume version of the same book, such a law would very likely survive First Amendment scrutiny. > > But this analogy is unfair to your side, isn’t it? The degree of impact of separating a book into volumes on the book’s communicative content is probably less than the impact of separating magazines on effective self-defense (or other Second Amendment protected interests, to the extent they exist). Of course, the very hypothesis that 200+ page books lead to more deaths than their slimmer cousins is suspect – just as the hypothesis that lower magazine capacity is also safer is less than solidly established. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/69 "2016-01-17T15:39:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, the very hypothesis that 200+ page books lead to more deaths than their slimmer cousins is suspect – just as the hypothesis that lower magazine capacity is also safer is less than solidly established. Correct? Yes. Though, as with the other comparison, I’m not sure that helps your argument much. The weakest way to attack a piece of legislation under time/place/manner review is to attack the legislature’s judgment that harm is being caused. If a legislature were to conclude that magazine capacity affects gun deaths, there is enough evidence for that to survive the scrutiny it would receive under the analogous First Amendment standard of review, whether or not it is the wisest or best factual conclusion the legislature could reach. The far better constitutional argument would be that, again by analogy, the change does not leave open sufficient alternative means of exercising the right (in this case, self-defense) because magazine capacity does affect that at the margins. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/70 "2016-01-17T16:48:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes. Though, as with the other comparison, I’m not sure that helps your argument much. The weakest way to attack a piece of legislation under time/place/manner review is to attack the legislature’s judgment that harm is being caused. That’s true. But here we’re not yet at that point – we have a bunch of people urging the legislature to adopt this determination. > [@](#): > > The far better constitutional argument would be that, again by analogy, the change does not leave open sufficient alternative means of exercising the right (in this case, self-defense) because magazine capacity does affect that at the margins. Agreed. But the two arguments are not mutually exclusive. I can certainly argue that there is no real harm, and that even if there is, the prohibition forecloses alternate means to exercise the right. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/71 "2016-01-17T16:58:05Z")
Of course. But I took your point to be that the Second Amendment argument is strengthened by reference to how such things might be treated under the First Amendment. So I was addressing, by analogy, how both arguments about the reality of the harm and arguments about time/place/manner restrictions are treated. In both categories, I don’t think the analogy to the First Amendment is helpful to those who want to argue that magazine limits are unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/72 "2016-01-17T17:26:49Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Of course. But I took your point to be that the Second Amendment argument is strengthened by reference to how such things might be treated under the First Amendment. So I was addressing, by analogy, how both arguments about the reality of the harm and arguments about time/place/manner restrictions are treated. In both categories, I don’t think the analogy to the First Amendment is helpful to those who want to argue that magazine limits are unconstitutional. I think I’m missing something. Why would a restriction on 200 page books which lead to greater deaths than multi volume versions of the same book be evaluated under the time, place, manner criteria? That criteria leads to an intermediate scrutiny analysis, however what you are suggesting is far from content neutral. Evaluating the content of the books to determine impact is the opposite of content neutral. I think the analysis you suggest would only be used if this 200 page restriction was placed upon ALL books. Is that what you’re saying? Otherwise, strict scrutiny would apply and I’m thinking such a restriction would fall. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/73 "2016-01-17T18:06:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think the analysis you suggest would only be used if this 200 page restriction was placed upon ALL books. Is that what you’re saying? Yes, that’s how I understood the analogy. But it’s **Bricker’s** analogy. He’s free to clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/74 "2016-01-17T21:08:50Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Actually, after looking into the magazine controversy, to any kind of meaningful impact efforts are much better spent on universal registration, universal pre-checks, national database and all transactions going through an approved dealer or some other “official” form. No need to rat hole on magazine capacity. I agree that this is not really a productive use of the gun control lobby’s political capital. The one situation that the gun control lobby relies on for their push for magazine caps is a mass shooting where the shooter hasn’t practiced reloading their weapon (See Gabby Gifford shooting). It shouldn’t take anyone more than 2 seconds to reload a magazine and if you practiced, I bet you could do it in under a second. A well practiced shooter will reload their magazine well before their magazine is empty so you can’t count their shots to wait for them to be empty and the magazines have extra weight and fall out easily without the need to pull them out (see Virginia Tech shooting). Aside from the fact that it would be virtually impossible to enforce such a ban at the national level, there are very few arguments that really support capping magazine size. I don’t think it would affect my life very much but it would simply be another pain in the ass law that I have to comply with that will make me resistant to any other law that comes down the pipeline. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/75 "2016-01-17T22:04:26Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > [W]ere I to purchase a weapon to be used to defend myself, I would not want a legislator to decide for me how often I have to reload in a firefight. I would like statistics showing how often law-abiding citizens using a handgun to defend themselves fire so many rounds that they need to reload. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/76 "2016-01-17T22:17:43Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > I would like statistics showing how often law-abiding citizens using a handgun to defend themselves fire so many rounds that they need to reload. Then why does a cop need more rounds? If a guy attacks me during a traffic stop you think it’s ok for me to have a 15 round mag in my pistol, but if the same guy broke into my home and attacked me then I’d only need a 10 round magazine? Few people have their house catch on fire but we don’t tell them how many extinguishers and smoke alarms they’re allowed to have. BTW, as of this month been on the job 32 years in a major metro area and never shot anyone. By your stupid standard I didn’t need any bullets at all. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/77 "2016-01-18T00:23:04Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > BTW, as of this month been on the job 32 years in a major metro area. Typo. 34 years. ---
**Author:** ![T.M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@T.M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.M)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/78 "2016-01-19T10:18:48Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Typo. 34 years. Just a question. How do you think we get on in the U.K. when ONLY the bad guys have guns? ---
**Author:** ![Dajn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c2a13f/32.png) [@Dajn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dajn)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/79 "2016-01-19T10:26:26Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > (Mods - no factual answer so not GQ, not sure if more IMHO or Great Debates, but it’s kinda like religion so I’m going with GD) > > Not quite sure how to frame this spin off from this [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=779407&page=2). Trying to understand the “need” under _common scenarios_ for high capacity magazines. I’m having difficulty imagining a responsible gun owner with a reasonable skill level that would need 30 rounds in a single clip when out hunting or for home defense. I’m not even sure how to define high capacity for various firearm types such as handguns, shotguns and rifles. My understanding is that 30 round is standard for an AR-15 type long gun (who some will refer to as an assault weapon)? Correct me if I’m mistaken but seems like 6 shot revolvers were standard for decades if not longer. > > I would appreciate gun owners actually inputting to make this into a more technically relevant debate as I’m not up to speed on standard magazine sizes nor what might be sensible to a firearm owner? For example, 3 10 shot magazines versus 1 30 shot magazine, or 2 13 round magazines. Please also help from the debate derailing into hair splitting rat holes over whether a 13 round magazine for a Glock makes sense but a 12 round magazine doesn’t if you would? Let’s at least try to sketch out the broad strokes. Note: all numbers pulled out of my ass since I’m not a firearm enthusiast at this time. > > Why would a hunter would need a 30 round magazine (or greater capacity)? If a deer hunter is such a bad shot that it takes 30 tries to bag a deer, I have concerns about collateral damage and accidents. I can see a convenience factor if you’re out hunting feral hogs by helicopter in Texas or taking out a prairie dog colony (if in fact these actions are legal). But also think that having a couple of smaller magazines would pretty much accomplish the same task, and these are not mainstream scenarios. > > Castle defense as well. What’s a good number of rounds in a single magazine to adequately defend your home against armed intruders? Add in a safety factor. Is it 6, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50? Again, can we use reasonable scenarios instead of The Hells Angels and the Banditos joined forces to burgle your hi dev TV to watch the Super Bowl or the zombie apocalypse actually is here. :smack: > > [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqXGhaMAvyQ)is the first Bing search engine video hit for a [“why do you need a 30 round magazine”](https://www.bing.com/search?q=nra+whay+do+you+need+a+30+round+magazine&form=EDGNTC&qs=PF&cvid=04549a687f5f45039837a46d3bc8323b&pq=nra%20whay%20do%20you%20need%20a%2030%20round%20magazine). For those that don’t want to watch the couple minute video, his message is basically “you want to have more firepower than the bad guy.” Would appreciate firearm enthusiasts views on whether this guy is in the ballpark or a raging loon? He’s just the first video that came up in the search and I watched and not cherry picked to push an agenda. > > Is it also agreed that a ban on high capacity magazines is not a 2nd amendment issue? For example, if the AR-15 type long gun has a 10 round magazine, it’s still an effective weapon for hunting and/or home defense, correct? It’s limiting the bullets in a magazine rather than anything to do with the right to buy and/or own the firearm? > > And, there isn’t any magic number that will satisfy all people and all cases for magazine limits. That said, I would like to at least get to a broad consensus if there is any logic to a magazine limitation, and if it does in fact make sense to try limit magazine capacity what would be a “tolerable” limit. I do fear that this debate is akin to how many cats in a house moves you from cat lover to crazy cat lady to public health hazard…1 round is probably too limited, 100 unnecessary and where is the middle ground if there is one? Thanks for playing. Please stop being an anti gun moron. Don’t talk about things you don’t understand. Do you see me talking about makeup and what girl you don’t like at work? ---
**Author:** ![Dajn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c2a13f/32.png) [@Dajn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dajn)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203/80 "2016-01-19T10:38:38Z")
I just read my last post. I need to stop smoking so much weed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-firearm-owners-need-high-capacity-magazines/743203.md?page=5)