First off, framing the question in terms of “need” shifts the burden to individuals. The burden should rightly be placed on those that want to prohibit. If we were to adopt this framework, the debate would essentially be over because there has been nothing to support the need to prohibit magazine capacity. Since that’s not conducive to discussion, I’ll try to address the underlying questions, while at the same time reserving the position that there is no need to justify.
Secondly, I’m not a hunter. I don’t have expertise or even great familiarity with the intricacies of hunting so I will not speak to those. I would say that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. I do know for varmint control, the ability to follow up in rapid succession is desirable.
Third, the question should not focus on a 30 round magazine capacity, though that is the standard for millions of center fire rifles. Virtually all magazine capacity limits in the country use 10 rounds as the demarcation point so my focus will be on that limit. To be clear, I oppose any limit on magazine capacity. If there were magically 1000 round magazines that were not unwieldy and were also reliable, then I would want to use those.
Fourth, the term “high capacity” is looked at in the same way “assault weapon” is looked at by gun rights advocates. It’s a made up term, designed to elicit an emotional response. The phrasing implies there is a “normal” and “low” capacity as well. I think a standard capacity magazine is what the manufacturer intends and typically includes with the firearm. So a Glock 17 with a 17 round magazine is not “high capacity” - it is standard capacity. An AR-15 pattern semi auto rifle has a standard capacity magazine of 30 rounds.
It is not agreed that a ban on high capacity magazines is not a 2nd amendment issue. I do not think it is super clear that a magazine limit would be either upheld or struck down at the SCOTUS level, but thus far at the federal district court level 10 round limits have been upheld, and 7 round limits have been struck down. My personal belief is that a 10 round limit offends the 2nd amendment, but a 100 round limit would not. The criteria I apply is the “dangerous and unusual” and “in common use” indicated in Heller. I don’t wear a black robe for a living so my opinion is pretty worthless in terms of the law.
So let’s talk about the benefits of higher capacity magazine sizes. I often use police as a proxy primarily because there are so many of them, and there tends to be data available to analyze. Conveniently, many cities provide ‘use of force’ reporting data for their departments. Before you go on, think in your mind how often you think police hit their target when they fire. …. While it varies by year and between departments, it’s in the 25-40% range generally. In officer involved shootings (OIS) where there is only one officer, the hit rate tends to be higher than where there are multiple officers involved. Now think of how many round it takes to stop a threat. … Unfortunately there is not as good data on this subject. Police are trained to shoot until the threat has stopped. Unless a person is shot and instantly stops, they remain a threat. Instant stops require brain or upper spinal cord hits. Hits even center mass will leave an attacker a window of opportunity to continue to fight and inflict injury. Shot placement is critical. The general thought it to fire until the threat falls. Combine hit ratio and number of hits it takes to stop a threat – if it takes 3 hits to stop a threat, and your hit ratio is under 1/3, 10 rounds is insufficient.
There are a few key scenarios where this is important. If there is an intruder in your home, I expect most people will not have time to gather their spare magazines for reloads. They are going to get their quick access weapon. That weapon needs to be as effective as possible. If there are 2 assailants, given what you now know about hit ratios, do you think 10 rounds is sufficient? I don’t. Contrast this with the supposed benefit of magazine limits – forcing people to have to reload in the event of spree shootings. The people who engage in spree killings have the leisure of planning their attack and will often carry multiple weapons and multiple magazines Even if they only used 10 round magazines, reloads don’t take very long. In a home defense scenario, without having spare magazines it’s not a question of also having to reload, it’s that without carrying extra mags you wont be able to reload. I want access to the best balance of effective defense – that means the more rounds available in a single magazine. Reloads in defense scenarios may not go smoothly, and even having available extra mags in a surprise situation is unlikely.
I readily acknowledge that anything that makes self defense effective will make offense more effective. That being said, it’s informative to look at what police elect to carry for their own protection. They are not carrying snub nose revolvers – they are carrying 17 round Glocks, shotguns, and semi-auto rifles with 30 round mags. Any argument that supports their carry of these items applies to the general public as well. Yes police have a higher frequency of exposure to situations where these tools are needed, but danger doesn’t ask you if you are a police officer before paying you a visit.
The other scenario that I personally consider is civil unrest. In recent memory there have been multiple occasions where there was temporary localized civil unrest where people needed to provide for their own defense. In those cases, more capacity is desirable. The situation would be multiple simultaneous attackers that would need to be suppressed.
