[Thanis]

I guess I don't see the benefits...

One benifit, after the fact, the number of rounds you had could not be called into question.

Does not justify mag limitations. But would be one benifit.

 

[RETSUPT99]

There is a posted speed limit in most states. Your car can go faster then the posted speed limit. There is a personal responsibility.

Going faster than the posted limit (within reason) could cause others harm.
Carrying a particular number (many) of mags is not an a safety factor effecting others.

-------------------------------------------------------------

To the OP...No Limits!
I would see 'unreasonable' only in the comfort department.:22a:

 

[Thanis]

...Carrying a particular number (many) of mags is not an a safety factor effecting others...

Thats not really true.

It has been clearly shown that requced speed limits on a highway does prevent accidents.

In the same way, there are studies that show the greater the number of rounds available, the more that are fired. The greater number of rounds fired, the greater the chance a stray hits an undended victim.

Now I want to state again, I'm not for limitations, as it is a fix for a problem that does not exist.

 

[KenpoTex]

One benifit, after the fact, the number of rounds you had could not be called into question.

Does not justify mag limitations. But would be one benifit.

The type of prosecutor who would try to come after you due to the number of rounds in a magazine is also going to come after you for all the other crap that gets beaten to death on these forums (ammo type, after-market mods, caliber, laser devices, training, lack of training, etc.). If you're justified, you're justified...if not, you're screwed regardless.

In the same way, there are studies that show the greater the number of rounds available, the more that are fired.

Can you please cite some of those studies?

 

[Thanis]

The type of prosecutor who would try to come after you due to the number of rounds in a magazine is also going to come after you for all the other crap that gets beaten to death on these forums...

Not really. A good number of SD shootings involve questionable scenarios, where you had to be there to know. A shooting at a mall parking lot with a 33rd capacity mag would create questions. I would imagine stadard capacity would warrant fewer questions.

...there are studies that show the greater the number of rounds available, the more that are fired...

...Can you please cite some of those studies?

Quick search: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

"Since NYPD adopted semi-automatic pistols (en-masse) in the early 1990s, the number of shots fired per officer has edged upward."

Come on. If you have a five or six shot revolver, you are going to be a little more careful. It is common sense to believe a person is going to fire a round or two extra in many situations if they have a semi-auto. It is just fact.

Now just as a matter of ratio, everytime a round misses, the is going to be a % that hits an unintended target. So the basis for the rational, high capacity mags "could" increase unintended victims, has some facts to support it. Now how often does this happen? Now contrast this with the number of lives and injuries saved because of an armed CPL holder. It is a non-problem.

If you wanted to save more lives, reduce the national speed limit.

Again, I agree, it is slight. Does not justify mag capacity limitations. But the point is that there are reasonable standards that will apply after the fact (esp after the fact). So a blanket belief that carrying very high capacity mags is procted by 2A, is not true. Personal responsibility applies.

 

[Longbow]

Big +1 for that.

 

[stanislaskasava]

I don't like your question, Thanis, because it smells a lot like elitism to me. It presumes that one elite, such as you, can make a judgement from afar as to what is or is not 'reasonable' for someone else. It also seems to be based on this ubiquitous touchy-feely blame shifting game that liberals like to play -- instead of punishing some jerk who negligently shoots a bystander with some hard jail time, you are shifting the blame to the magazine. "The magazine made me do it" so let's punish the magazine.

Your choice of the word 'unreasonable' is just icing on the red herring cake intended to distract us from your blame shifting via the demonizing adjective of 'capacity'. "Let us make a magazine that has not unreasonable capacity, and give them Barabbas." Someone could be negligent with a revolver. Simply put, "Capacity's got nothin' to do with it."

I think Americans should be free to do what they know is best and also have assurance that they will be held fully responsible for crimes or negligence. This means that a man with a five shot j-frame should be held no less responsible than a hi-cap Glockster for his actions. A man who finds it prudent to carry '33 in the clip' doesn't need you or any elite to do his thinking for him. You don't know his circumstances.

What we do need is less touchy-feely and more 'hangins' and jail time. If we put the finger on the losers, then the rest will work itself out without any frivolous questions such as "How many rounds are unreasonable?"

 

[KenpoTex]

Not really. A good number of SD shootings involve questionable scenarios, where you had to be there to know. A shooting at a mall parking lot with a 33rd capacity mag would create questions. I would imagine stadard capacity would warrant fewer questions.

Any shooting is going to "create questions." We are going to be judged by what was reasonable given the context of the circumstances. Now is it possible that carrying a 33rd mag in your pistol might make LE or the prosecutor look at you a little more closely? Maybe, but I don't really see many people doing that anyway so I think this is really a non-issue.

Quick search: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

"Since NYPD adopted semi-automatic pistols (en-masse) in the early 1990s, the number of shots fired per officer has edged upward."

Come on. If you have a five or six shot revolver, you are going to be a little more careful. It is common sense to believe a person is going to fire a round or two extra in many situations if they have a semi-auto. It is just fact.

heh...why not quote the full passage, not just the part that supports your position?

Since NYPD adopted semi-automatic pistols (en-masse) in the early 1990s, the number of shots fired per officer has edged upward, though not nearly as much as many have maintained.

The number of shots being fired, per incident and per officer, has shown gradual escalation over the last decade. While some may rush to judgment and assert that high capacity pistols are the primary culprit, substantive changes in the way police are being trained to use these pistols (e.g., “fire until your foe falls,” “vertical tracking,” etc.) has also influenced this trend.

The increase in shots fired by officers in shooting "incidents" appears to be relatively stable when viewed within an historical context,

In addition, since one landmark studyi indicated that 85% of officers who were feloniously slain weren’t able to fire their handguns before being slain, statistical averages of shots fired must be examined with caution.
An in-depth 1992 reviewii of Portland, Oregon’s police shootings revealed an increase in the number of shots fired per incident from 2.6 rounds per revolver to 4.6 rounds fired from pistols. However, the study also seemed to suggest that hit probability increased with adoption of semi-auto pistols. From January 1, 1983 through January 5, 1990, Portland police reportedly struck adversaries with 24 rounds out of 67 fired (36% hit ratio). Firing semi-auto pistols from July 21, 1984 through February 7, 1992, officers struck their adversaries with 19 rounds out of 44 that were fired (43% hit ratio).

Of course, comparing one department to another doesn't really work because their training methods and proficiency standards may be different. However, I think the argument "if you have more rounds you'll automatically shoot more" is tenuous at best.

Again, I agree, it is slight. Does not justify mag capacity limitations. But the point is that there are reasonable standards that will apply after the fact (esp after the fact). So a blanket belief that carrying very high capacity mags is procted by 2A, is not true. Personal responsibility applies.

What is protected by the 2nd Amendment, and what may or may not be "reasonable" to carry around with you are two very different things. Let's avoid the trap of applying an arbitrary standard of "reasonableness" to what we have the right to own/carry. This is exactly what our enemies try to do ("why do you need an AK-47 to hunt deer?" or "why do you need an assault rifle to protect yourself?" etc.)

 

[TN_Mike]

For CC, is there some type of mag capacity limitation that is unreasonable?

Yes there is. Any restriction on the capacity of a magazine is unreasonable. Period. If they can make it and I want it because it will help me keep my family safe, then there should be no restriction on my ability to buy and carry it.

 

[Thanis]

...It also seems to be based on this ubiquitous touchy-feely blame shifting game that liberals like to play...

I think there are many "feelings" on both sides.

 

[Thanis]

...Now is it possible that carrying a 33rd mag in your pistol might make LE or the prosecutor look at you a little more closely? Maybe, but I don't really see many people doing that anyway so I think this is really a non-issue...

It was an extreme example to highlight somewhere between factory standard and extreme high capacity is a reasonable standard that will be applied after the fact.

It is only a non-issue because it does not happen often (and does not justify a need for a law). At the same time, as someone commented, in one of the replies, it does happen, and resulted in problems for the CPL holder.

 

[Thanis]

...However, I think the argument "if you have more rounds you'll automatically shoot more" is tenuous at best...

I would agree, it is tenuous. The facts (studies), for either side of the statement, are often layered in a confusing manner that results in uncertanity of the value of the statistics provided (or the statistics used for one group (say LEO) do not directly transition to common use of the wider segment). Both sides demand the other provides facts, but neither seaks truth, only facts to support their beliefs.

So in general, I'm simply willing to believe the greater the number of rounds available, at some ratio the greater the number of rounds used (even if minor).

In addition, you stated training. I would think proper training would alter behavior, but there is a great deal of resistance in the pro-gun crowd to require the type of training that would assure a level of control that would alter my basic premis, the greater number of round, the greater number of shots fired. I'm not suggesting that CPL requires greater training, as I don't see an existing problem requiring the training. I only make this statement to support my premise that the greater the number of rounds available the willingness to believe the greater the number of rounds fired.

I imagine all of this makes me sound liberal or whatever lable someone would like to apply. However I'm just a person who never likes extremes (no capacity limitations vs required limitations) unless it is an issue that demands that level of devotion.

If I woke up tomorrow, and there was a federal ban on using a 33rd mag as a CC mag, I would read on this board how stupid the ban, because who would carry a 33rd mag for CC (that oddly begs the argument that there should be greater limitations) and it is not like the BG will follow the law. However, just because a law is not followed by criminals does not prove the law should not exist. At the same time, most would agree, that the 33rd mag is extreme for CC.

As I stated, sometimes we are against something because anti-gun is for it, and we don't trust the agenda (and I'm not suggesting that is not a valid reasoning).

However there are those who will carry some type of high capacity mag, resulting in a common enough questionable SD situation, and find 2A does not protect the right to high capacity mags (or even the use of the firearm). Only good judgement does that.

 

[SIGP250]

Depends entirely on your state laws. Same as barrel Length, type of weapon etc.

Even though I have a MO Endorsement to carry in 35 states, I must be cognizant of all state law of which I might peacefully carry to.

 

[KenpoTex]

from post #43

Now I want to state again, I'm not for limitations, as it is a fix for a problem that does not exist.

If you acknowledge that the problem does not exist, then what is the point of this thread? Do you just have issue with 33 round Glock mags? You've admitted that you can't really say what a "reasonable" or "responsible" number is with regard to capacity (even though you keep tossing those terms around) as long as it's not 33 rounds.
Is it the number that bothers you? Is it the fact that the mag hangs out the bottom of the pistol?

It was an extreme example to highlight somewhere between factory standard and extreme high capacity is a reasonable standard that will be applied after the fact.

Is this one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" things?

However there are those who will carry some type of high capacity mag, resulting in a common enough questionable SD situation, and find 2A does not protect the right to high capacity mags (or even the use of the firearm). Only good judgement does that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there...

 

[HotGuns]

However I'm just a person who never likes extremes (no capacity limitations vs required limitations) unless it is an issue that demands that level of devotion.

What may seem extreme to you, may not be extreme to me.

As long as I can carry a magazine that suits me and it is legal to do so, I don't really care what someone else thinks of it. Too many rounds or not enough is really no concern of theirs.

Someone telling me that a magazine that holds 33 rounds, or 15 rounds, or even 10 rounds is more "dangerous" than a magazine of say, 8 rounds is a totally ignorant of reality. It's because of this, that people tend to balk and voice displeasure when a Congressmen or Senator,or any other anti-gun yahoo for that matter, tends to want to make the world safer by limiting magazine capacity.

Its a bunch of baloney and we know it, and is nothing more than a step by step approach to limiting magazine capacity even further.

To say that a large magazine capacity means that the shooter will fire more rounds downrange is a rather silly assumption and and one that ignores reality. If you bring a box of 50 rounds with you to shoot, a large capacity magazine means only that you would spend less time reloading. If you are carrying a high cap in a defensive weapon and have to shoot someone, you shoot only to stop the threat, and whether that takes 1 shot, 3 shots or 30 shots is irrelevant.

So really, whats the point of this thread?:scruntiny:

 

[Thanis]

...Is this one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" things?...

Ya, maybe that sums it up. Plus, the arbitrary nature of the statement. Because sometimes you can't see it till after the fact.

What may seem extreme to you, may not be extreme to me...

Fair enough.

...So really, whats the point of this thread?

That at some point, after the fact, the round capacity of the mag, does create some assumptions about the carrier. It is ambiguous, and is hard to put a number on it.

 

[Pikachu711]

From my point of view what is the point of carrying a "high capacity" magazine when it takes so little time to change magazines. Most days I carry my normal 10-round magazine with 2 extra 10-round magazines in a fanny pack to & from work. Whether it be one 33-round magazine or 3 10-round magazine what's the difference in the scheme of things. It doesn't matter that much to me!

When the sleeves to my 15 round magazines arrive I'll be carrying 2 additional 15 round magazines. It's the same amount of magazines but if I need them they are there if I need them.

On a slightly off-topic subject I was at work tonight working when the local police arrived on the property. I work as an "unarmed" security officer. Apparently one of the residents received a threating phone call. It was from a very angry ex-boyfriend who was threatening to come to her home and kill her. This is one time I wish I worked as an "armed" security officer.

I did it once for several years but that's when I loved working as an armed security guard as well!

 

[MattInFla]

I seriously doubt anyone, anyplace ever survived a gunfight and said "man, I wish I'd had a smaller gun with less ammo."

Matt

 

[Pikachu711]

It never ceases to amaze me that the anti-gun people make suck a big deal about high capacity magazines. How long does it take to change a magazine? Very little time indeed.

Again, it doesn't matter the capacity of the magazine. What matters it the total number of rounds in whatever total of magazines you have at that moment.

 

[KenpoTex]

I seriously doubt anyone, anyplace ever survived a gunfight and said "man, I wish I'd had a smaller gun with less ammo."

Matt

Exactly...to quote a former SEAL I know, "there's no such thing as too much ammo unless you're swimming."