Per Wikipedia, so go there for the primary sources, but:
That becomes trickier. But I think there is an argument–not necessarily a good one, but an argument–that any time a shooter has to stop shooting, there is a chance of lives being saved. It’s not just changing mags, it’s also breaking the shooting rhythm and taking attention away from the situation. That can mean a lot. And being a klutz comes naturally to most of us–it takes a lot of very specific practice to be able to smoothly and easily swap magazines or use a speedloader in combat.
.
You mean intrapolaraized laser rifle. The term “intrepulated” is a term the gun grabbers made up in order to try to confuse people into thinking that intrapolarized laser rifles are like the wave motion cannons used by our Spartan supersoldiers in their battle against the machine berserkers.
It is based on the testimony of several people there.
If your shooter is not a klutz and doesn’t drop his reload magazine, then I guess you’re screwed. There is also the report that some of the kids at Sandy hook escaped while the shooter was reloading. It probably didn’t change the death toll, just who got killed.
Saying that smaller magazines allow a higher chance of survival may or may not be true, but it smacks of John Derbyshire style action hero bravado, “if I were there, I’d beat up the shooter while he was reloading.”
It is slim and easy to cover with a jacket a couple of spare mags. would give you 18 rounds. Unless you are a police officer your objective must be to escape the situation as soon as possible not get involved in a fire fight. If it is a case of home invasion lay down some fire while your family escape to safety and then join them leaving the insurance company to pick up the tab.
There are other choices that have higher magazine capacity that are just as concealable. The Glock 26 will have a 10 round capacity and is only slightly thicker. This is a preference item of course, but carrying around extra mags is an increased burden.
Your objective may be to escape, or it may be to eliminate the threat. With a hit rate at 30%, and 3 hits to stop a threat, 6 rounds would be insufficient to stop a threat from a single target, let alone multiple.
But you didn’t address why being in a city is different from being in another location. Why do you think that is?
GaryM is correct. While they both bear the “AK 47” moniker, the weapon available for purchase by civilians in the United States is not the same as the one used by the UK military.
I agree that’s an argument. It doesn’t seem super strong to me, but it’s not specious either.
I think though, that it is hard to attribute Smaller mags to saving lives in this case. The guy was tactically stupid and inept. An intelligent active shooter is going to engage from a position where no one is going to be able to engage with him hand to hand. Shooting in a crowd seems to have been this guy’s fortunate downfall.
So many books contain vermin and collect mold. Just think of all of the trees that die because corporations want to print books.
Books over 200 pages tire minds, and allow them to become deranged.
Books contain ideas which cause people to deviate from the accepted ideologies, ergo, try and help me understand why we need books over 200 pages? Also, why do we need more than 10 books per household? If we need more than that, we have university professors whom we can call.
I’m also reminded of Baby Face Nelson; he had 17 bullet holes in him, and, IIRC, he killed 2 FBI agents in his last gunfight. He left the gunfight alive, while the others didn’t. A 30 round mag isn’t enough for me.
We can posit all kinds of scenarios which make it silly to have over 1 round per aggressor to be overcome; however, they are unrealistic. Also, if I am in a crowd and fire off something like 6-10 rounds at one aggressor, I’d bet that the number of collateral damage hits are in the negligible range, statistically speaking.
Further, let’s not be bitches about this; guns are not only for target practice, sportsmanship and hunting-they are also for killing people. That is what makes them valuable. If the police are no where around, I don’t plan to wait on them, and I am not going to leave my family to the mercies of whoever is around. I’ve been victimized by mob actions, and, while it was low level, it was terrifying, and the fact that I survived was only because…well, I don’t know, but, it wouldn’t have taken much for them to behave quite more viciously, a whole mob against 1 person. Mobs are like that.
If the legendary “Breakdown of Society” or wtf one wants to call it happens, my plan is to have plenty of ammo in one magazine. If my house is being assaulted by more than 1 person, my job is to keep them outside of the house, which can best be accomplished with a large capacity mag. Sure, sure, you can cackle about extremists, militia and internet tough guys, but, if you and 5 or 6 guys are against a 30 round mag, you will behave a bit differently that if you are against X number of low capacity mags.
And, no, nobody "needs’ high capacity mags; it just increases their odds of staying alive.
IMHO that’s the wrong attitude. Guns are used to prevent harm to you, others, and your property. People being killed may be a result of that, but it’s secondary. That’s why it’s called ‘Defensive Gun Use’.
Quartz, no offence but handsomeharry has a legit point. Guns are lethal weapons and they are meant to disable/main/stop/kill people. It’s not to say that guns cannot at the same time also be a tool that can be used to prevent harm to you, others and your property.
I’ve been educated on the need for whatever size you feel you need for defensive purposes. Less so on the deer hunting aspect that some folks in the interwebs claim.
If I thought limiting magazine capacities would actually save some significant number of lives, I don’t think I would object to it, but the examples that are put forward for when these smaller magazines would have saved lives seems to hinge entirely on extremely rare mass shooting events where the shooter might be taken down by some nearby civilian because something happens while he is changing magazines (and we assume the shooter will only have these smaller limited size magazines because we will somehow make the millions of currently existing magazines disappear).
We might as well hope the shooter trips and falls, thereby giving some civilian the opportunity to bumrush the shooter.
IMHO, the benefit of having access to larger size magazines are largely principle based. Lots of folks use pump action shotguns for home defense and they only have 8 round capacity. Plenty of people use revolvers with 5 to 7 round capacity. Plenty of people use pistols that have a relatively small number of rounds. But I the notion that we should ban something just because people can live without (and it doesn’t present a real improvement is safety) it is not really a very good justification for infringing on a constitutional right.
Guns are fun to shoot … using high capacity magazines allows the shooter to regulate the number of rounds shot better than a belt feed … guns can overheat …
