If the question had been “Why does anybody need a ratchet set”, people would have fallen all over themselves explaining how they work and situations where they’ve found them useful in the past. Funny how when the device in question is a 30-round mag, then the answer becomes “I don’t have to tell you.” That sounds a lot like “I don’t know, so let’s change the subject quickly.”
True.
But to quote Monty Python, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Why n the world you by you believe that one of my statements - or questions - is a “goalpost?”
The reason for this difference is: there does not appear to be a significant political movement afoot to ban ratchet sets. The inference drawn from the question is one of genuine interest in the possible uses of a ratchet set, and the sense of the questioner would be equally captured by, “Say, I have no idea what people use ratchet sets for – what do you do with them, anyway?”
No. To the contrary, the question sounds like, “I have no understanding of firearms and find them scary. But I will nonetheless undertake to impose policy limits in law on their use.”
Purely from a target shooting perspective, I find it much easier to retain the sight picture when I don’t have to drop the empty magazine and reload a fresh one. If I could have a magical magazine that teleported a fresh bullet to replace the one just fired, target shooting would be more productive, since less of my time would be taken up with the scut work of loading and more time could be used on actual shooting.
For this reason, I favor both research into teleportation – the long game – and in the interim higher capacity magazines to reduce, although not eliminate, the problem described above.
Now you’ve heard a description of a specific need.
I guarantee you that some participants in this thread will show up in anther thread months or years hence with the same question, and urging upon their readers the same inference that no answers must mean that no one knows.
True, but if ownership of guns (and I gather gun-related accessories) is to be considered a right, then no explanation is required. Vaguely related, if someone demands a reason why a woman should seek an abortion, I’m okay with her responding “I don’t have to tell you why I want one”.
May as well go cut to the chase and argue that the exercise of this particular right is more destructive than beneficial to the republic and try to make a case for a more limiting interpretation, like any other right. The 2nd has already been subjected to this, so subject it a bit more. Define “arms” with a repeatibility limit or something, and if someone then says “I don’t have to tell you why I want a gun that is at (but not over) that limit”, let them and get back to living your life.
You didn’t read the thread, then. Plenty of answers were given.
…except for those of us who have answered the question. “Convenience” and “having more firepower” might not be satisfactory answers for you, but they are answers nonetheless.
Well, except several people did answer this question and didn’t try and change the subject, quickly or otherwise. In case you missed it the main answer was that the guns they have were built for magazines that would (arbitrarily) be considered ‘high capacity’. There were other reasons you missed as well, so might want to read through the thread.
Also, this gets more into something like ‘why does anyone ‘need’ cherry flavored vodka??’, as the whole ‘need’ thing is going to be purely subjective, unlikely your ratchet set example. People don’t ‘need’ a LOT of things that they want, and trying to ask why someone needs something that falls into the subjective category is kind of silly.
Shooting guns is a hoot. Probably a dozen times in elementary school. Probably half a dozen times in high school in a somewhat remote area and a case of beer (it was *hella fun *but I’m kinda ashamed that I did it). twice in Shanghai with an AK47 at a shooting range.
Last time when I took my father in law visiting from China and we blew off a box of ammo. It was a couple of years ago but it was a small caliber handgun at the local shooting range. I explained what we wanted to the clerk, and he was pretty excited “you mean your father in law from communist China is here celebrating his 2nd amendment right to shoot a gun?!? Let me set you guys up.”
So, far I think the consensus is
- self defense - why would you limit yourself when you might actually need that many shots, and while 4 armed intruders in your home might not be a common occurrence it’s not out in complete Hollywood fantasy territory
- Convenience
- Varmint control
- Haven’t heard from game hunters. Honestly, this is the one scenario that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me but the above all do.
Thanks for the replies so far. Trying to understand the issues and better to get input from all sides rather than listening to an echo chamber. I don’t generally interact with firearm enthusiasts in my circle.
I am curious when you think this becomes a 2nd amendment issue? It’s related but seems to be a step removed from the firearm. And at the time of the 2nd amendment, wasn’t the common rifle the Kentucky rifle that a proficient user could reload 2-3 times per minute? And I totally get it if the number of bullets is reduced to make a firearm “impractical” would be an infringement. I’m just not seeing if long guns were limited to a 20 round magazine that would obviously be an infringement.
Statistically, it seems that police make hits with about 1 out of 3 shots.
It also seems (depending on caliber) that it typically take about 3 hits to stop a human threat.
So three assailants means one would need an average of 27 shots, if one can shoot as well as the police. Of course, I’d probably only need three, as I’m from Wyoming. One, if I line them up first.
Depends. Generally with deer and other large game you don’t want to scare them or shoot them on the run and risk wounding, so capacity doesn’t matter and most deer rifles have 3-6 round capacity. You can certainly hunt with an AR (the typical .223 is on the weak side for deer but possible, but you can easily get an upper receiver that shoots .308 or something similarly powerful).
For birds and small game, it varies. Here and in many states, you are limited to 3 shotgun shells (2 in magazine + 1 loaded) for certain species like quail. But as many as you can possibly load is generally better. Granted, shotguns suitable for hunting are not “high capacity.” And .22s may be exempt from restrictions (for example the Marlin Model 60 is legal in California last I checked even though it is 14 shots as you cannot shrink the tubular magazine).
It’s easy enough to say “I don’t need it, I just really want it, and my mommy says I can have it.” No redirection or long-winded constitutional blather required.
Frequent news reports mention even trained police officers missing with some of their shots, even hitting innocent bystanders. Less trained citizens, in the passion of the moment, could easily miss with 8 of ten shots, getting only two into the suspect and, say, 3 into innocent bystanders. Will two shots be enough to kill? If unkilled the suspect might pull his own gun and fire at us.
And if there are two or even three suspects? Twenty rounds may not be enough. (Collateral damage can be ignored, since the right of the fearful to self-defend is inviolable.)
Absoilutely. I’ve also never understood the argument that bazookas or bocket launchers should be prohibitable.
not sure if you’re being sarcastic or serious?
No right is absolute. One can’t yell “fire” in a theater and be covered by the first. Automatic weapons have been restricted under the second.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A military application only weapon like a bazooka or rocket launcher might make sense for a “well regulated Militia.” As far as I know, National Guards probably have bazookas or rocket launchers (anyone know?). But I’m hard pressed for anyone to consider the Bundyites in Oregon a “well regulated Militia”. And a common sense question is does a civilian “need” a bazooka to protect their home under the castle doctrine? It’s already been established that a 50 caliber machine gun can be regulated when it comes to home defense.
Perfect response - especially from the standpoint of nobody is forcing you to own a weapon [except those communities that made a law stating that you have to own a firearm, I seem to remember at least one or two towns that did so back in the 70s and 80s] and nobody is forcing any random woman to have a mandatory abortion [well, except perhaps China]
And to put it out there, I have both had an abortion and own firearms, though the abortion was to preserve my health at that point in my life I would have had an abortion even if it was not to preserve my health and I previously held a post as an armed guard, did enjoy hunting for meat [venison and duck, YUM!] and still enjoy target shooting as both maintaining proficiency and having fun competing at punching holes in paper targets and destroying clay discs.
I don’t have to tell you even that much. First, sans sarcasm, give me a valid reason why it is any of your business at all whether I even own magazines, let alone their capacity.
But the 2nd is not an absolute right, nor a right without restrictions or oversight, correct? And I’m pretty sure magazines were not spelled out in the 2nd.
So make your case that a magazine restriction is warranted.
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.
Personally, I’d just legalize drugs, if the goal is to reduce violence and not just gun ownership.