The Threat Posed by Gun Magazine Limits

Bans on "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" could endanger victims instead of saving them.

A limit on magazine capacity is emerging as a leading contender for the something that supposedly must be done in response to last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. A ban on "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" is one of the new gun restrictions approved by the New York legislature this week and one of the measures President Obama wants Congress to enact. 

The rationale for such limits is that mass murderers need "large-capacity" magazines, while law-abiding citizens don't. Both premises are questionable, and so is the notion that politicians should be the arbiters of necessity under the Second Amendment. 

The problem with letting legislators decide what gun owners need is immediately apparent when we ask what qualifies as a "large-capacity" magazine. Under current New York law and under the federal limit that expired in 2004 (which Obama wants Congress to reinstate), more than 10 rounds is "large." This week the New York legislature redefined large as more than seven rounds. 

Why? Because seven is less than 10. Duh. Or as Gov. Andrew Cuomo put it last week, "Nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer." 

That might count as an argument if the right to keep and bear arms were all about killing deer. But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment is also about defense against individual aggressors, foreign invaders, and tyrannical government. 

Toward those ends, the Court said, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own weapons "in common use for lawful purposes," which clearly include guns capable of firing more than 10 rounds (and certainly more than seven) without reloading. The Glock 17, one of the most popular handguns in America, comes with a 17-round magazine. One of the most popular rifles, the AR-15 (a style made by several manufacturers), comes with a 30-round magazine. 

Measured by what people actually buy and use, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are hardly outliers. In fact, there are tens (if not hundreds) of millions already in circulation, which is one reason new limits cannot reasonably be expected to have much of an impact on people determined to commit mass murder. 

Another reason is that changing magazines takes one to three seconds, which will rarely make a difference in assaults on unarmed people. The gunman in Connecticut, for example, reportedly fired about 150 rounds, so he must have switched his 30-round magazines at least four times; he stopped only because police were closing in, which prompted him to kill himself. 

Magazine size is more likely to matter for people defending against aggressors, which is why it is dangerously presumptuous for the government to declare that no one needs to fire more than X number of rounds. As self-defense experts such as firearms instructor Massad Ayoob point out, there are various scenarios, including riots, home invasions, and public attacks by multiple aggressors, in which a so-called large-capacity magazine can make a crucial difference, especially when you recognize that people firing weapons under pressure do not always hit their targets and that assailants are not always stopped by a single round. 

Living in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, I was glad that shopkeepers in Koreatown had "large-capacity" magazines to defend themselves and their property against rampaging mobs. I bet they were too. In fact, argues gun historian Clayton Cramer, those magazines may have saved rioters' lives as well, since they allowed business owners to fire warning shots instead of shooting to injure or kill. 

If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense and defense of others, shouldn't the same limit be imposed on police officers and bodyguards (including the Secret Service agents who protect the president)? And if the additional rounds do provide more protection against armed assailants, it hardly makes sense to cite the threat of such attacks as a reason to deny law-abiding citizens that extra measure of safety.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Don't apply reason (drink!) to their argument, you fool. Their intentions are good on the surface and beneath.

    On the surface they intend to save children's lives dammit. Lives which are at stake every day!

    And below that, they intend to make inroads into America's bitter clinger gun culture. Something about a frog and some warm water. Everyone loves warm water, right?

  • Killazontherun||

    Out here on the gun clinger parameter, we ain't frogs, we're devils. So, yes.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    As self-defense experts such as firearms instructor Massad Ayoob point out, there are various scenarios, including riots, home invasions, and public attacks by multiple aggressors, in which a so-called large-capacity magazine can make a crucial difference...

    LAWMAKERS DO NOT CARE. They have a limited capacity for imagination, to put themselves in the position of those little people who don't have metal detectors and armed police at their place of work and don't have a supervisory relationship with law enforcement. All they see from guns in the hands of citizens is a potential headache for themselves.

  • Ted S.||

    LAWMAKERS DO NOT CARE.

    I agree.

    They have a limited capacity for imagination

    Here, I disagree. They seem to have an unlimited capacity to think up ways to screw over the people.

  • Otisjay||

    and there Interns

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Oregon sheriff tells Biden to count him out:

    http://www.kval.com/politics/S.....43401.html

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If these guys get any federal grants, and they do, then they'll pull the trigger on enforcing these gun laws. They don't want to shoot their budgets in the foot. They can't lose those federal tax dollars they have in their sights.

  • some guy||

    They could pull this off though by just not talking about it. How are the Feds going to know if their force has a spoken, but unrecorded policy of ignoring certain gun law violations?

    This is an interesting side to the issue. The Feds will need the support of local law enforcement to uphold any new gun laws regarding individual citizens. Many jurisdictions will probably choose to overlook those laws just like many jurisdictions currently choose to overlook current drug laws. The only people who will really be in danger are the ones producing these "illegal" weapons.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Some guy, usually you are a real straight shooter, but you're really way off target here.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If you would wait for the smoke to clear, you would see that the commander at least zeroed in on my main bullet point. Which is better than the hollow points you're making.

  • Agammamon||

    I see what you're doing here, and I don't like it.

  • ||

    If the chief of police and the police officers union here are at all representative of the rest of the nation, the fucking police are gonna be happy to disarm the serfs.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Even without grants, local law enforcement will do so. See both alcohol and drug prohibition.

    My feeling is that if a national ban on guns passes Congress, it will be too late. Local law enforcement will refuse to assist (hah)? See how the Feds bypassed them during alcohol prohibition and the Civil Rights era. Active duty troops will refuse to act against civilians? See the Bonus Army, the civil rights era, and various anti drug support roles today. Governors will use the National Guard against Feds? See federalization of the NG during the civil rights era.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    You too, Cdr Lytton. Did you even read Fist's comment? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I read it. Note the first sentence of my reply.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I've read it a couple of times, and, while I can tell you were locked and loaded to post, I think you might have been firing blanks.

    Sometimes it's better to just keep it holstered.

  • ||

    I don't think he gets what you're aiming at.

  • ||

    An "eat shit and die in a fire, you prohibitionist fuck" at the end of his statement would have been the cherry on top.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Haha, it's nice that he threw the whole immigration law kerfluffle back in their face.

  • ||

    Guess what? Obama's announcement about all those awesome new restrictions he wants will take place while he's surrounded in little children who wrote to him about how awful the shooting in Newtown was.

    How much higher will the usurper-in-chief climb upon the corpses of those kids?

  • ||

    *by

  • Whiterun Guard||

    That's OK, I am positive that the media will call him on the-

    Oh man I can't even finish that.

  • ||

    How much higher will the usurper-in-chief climb upon the corpses of those kids?

    Newtown is the best thing that's happened to these guys in years - and you expect them not to capitalize on it?

  • An0nB0t||

    We'll see if they think it was such a boon in 2014. The proggies' behavior over the past month will prove to be the popular political equivalent of the entire Republican Party mouthing off about rape. A slaughter at the polls awaits, and if an/the economic collapse occurs, it's going to be doubly brutal, 1994-style.

    And if I'm wrong, well, I'm sure Chile or Switzerland will be in need of another swinging dick for one reason or another.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Unfortunately they have an infallible solution to make up for this:

    Moar Free Shit.

  • An0nB0t||

    Free shit works fine until all those trillions of dollars in bonds to finance your free-shit, class-warfare, never-mind-the-high-unemployment centric reelection come home to compete with Joe Q. Public's dollars. When tuna costs $2 a can next winter, it's going to be hard to blame it on Bush.

    And then there's the fact that the RKBA has always been the third rail in purple states, and there has been and will continue to be a ferocious popular reaction to any hint of gun control.

    I for one am usually a polite, HAL-like silicon-based life form, but I'm going to enjoy screaming myself hoarse while confronting a gaggle of fascists down at the state capitol this Saturday.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Well, I mean good luck with that, I really do wish you success.

    But I feel that you are vastly over-estimating the ability of the American voter to make a logical connection and act accordingly.

    That third rail will be rendered completely and utterly neutral by two things:

    1. The complete and utter incompetence of the 'conservatives' to take advantage of it.

    2. The vastly more important facet of the election: the appearance of empathy.

  • SugarFree||

    No, I think the GOP will gain plenty of seats in the mid-terms if they ram this garbage through. The problem will be that they will be GOP, committed to a tiny slice of liberty and ready to fuck freedom in the arse on every other subject.

  • An0nB0t||

    I think you're being overly pessimistic. For one, the neocons/tea party/whoever don't have to be competent, they just have to be less incompetent than the democrats who just screwed themselves again via another failed attempt at gun control.

    And secondly, empathy doesn't mean much in the context of threatening people's guns. All of the voters who stayed home when the Republicans were running McCain and Romney now have plenty of personal incentive to turn up at the polls, and it won't take much to tip the scales against the Dems in most states. From all the outrage that I'm seeing emerge from customarily lukewarm apolitical types, it's hard to fathom that the 2014 GTFO-Commie turnout wouldn't be at least as significant as in 2010 or 1994.

  • ||

    Which state, if you don't mind me asking?

  • An0nB0t||

    TN. I'm threatening friends and family that I'll run for office if they don't join me.

    Just to make a good impression for the media, I'm thinking of piling small children into the beds of our pickup trucks and then giving them all rifles to shoot in the air while I drive around in circles and call Obama a fascist over a bullhorn.

  • PapayaSF||

    When tuna costs $2 a can next winter, it's going to be hard to blame it on Bush.

    That will be the fault of the Republican Congress, or perhaps the Koch brothers.

  • Gamblorr||

    Regulate Big Tuna.

  • ||

    You think favoring gun restrictions is as politically fatal as the "r@pe ain't so bad" mouth-breathings?
    Did I read that right?

  • An0nB0t||

    Yes.

    Dipshit.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "while he's surrounded in little children who wrote to him"

    I find this completely disgusting. The left loves to exploit little children. They did it in ads to get Obama elected and they continue to do it now.

    They're the scum that scum scrape off their shoes.

  • SugarFree||

    I think of the scene in Stargate where in the tranny Pharaoh has all the little kid dressed like sluts huddle around him in order to not be shot with the giant black q-tip scepter gun.

  • An0nB0t||

    Rand Paul needs to get a bunch of one-legged orphans of colour to follow him around at every campaign stop for the next four years.

    It's a sure thing, I tell you, a sure thing.

  • wingnutx||

    It’s a well-run campaign.

    Midget and broom and what-not

  • Loki||

    They're the scum that scum scrape off their shoes.

    They're the bacterial puss that feeds off of pond scum. They're lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianis Trench. They're the lowest form of life on Earth. I could go on, but you get the picture.

  • ||

    Before we even get to this argument, it needs to be understood by cuntwad legislators and executives that need is utterly irrelevant. It's none of your fucking business what I need, or whether I need it. Freedom's freedom.

  • Meerkatx||

    Are you part of a well regulated militia? Because if you're not then there is no infringement upon you to have to pass certain hurdles to own a weapon.

  • An0nB0t||

    Yes, he is.

    Pretty tasty bait on a humpday morn, though.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Wow, I've never seen a straw man beaten so terribly!

  • Jeff||

    Dear illiterate fuck,

    "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."

    NOT

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of said well regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  • Jordan||

    Good thing the militia clause is just a prefatory clause. For your next trick, tell us how the 2nd only applies to muskets.

  • Ted S.||

    The same reason 1A only applies to the physical printing press and not the internet.

  • ThomasD||

    He's certainly part of the militia. To be 'well-regulated' would specifically include possessing weapon(s) suitable to the task of being in the militia.

  • ||

    THIS IS WHAT TONY ACTUALLY BELIEVES

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'd just like to see someone ask a Democrat talking about "need" how many abortions the typical woman needs.

  • waaminn||

    Dude seems to be a wee bit full of himself.

    www.AnonTake.tk

  • AlmightyJB||

    "If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense and defense of others, shouldn't the same limit be imposed on police officers and bodyguards (including the Secret Service agents who protect the president)?"

    Bingo! That should be added to the legislation. Instead of full cop support and tall tales (which they'll get) they would get strikes. This would go nowhere fast and would never see the light of day if it applied to cops. I believe SS carries full-automatice weapons or at least they used to.

    "But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment is also about defense against individual aggressors, foreign invaders, and tyrannical government."

    I guess we'll find out if they really believe that won't we?

    BTW...Great article Jacob. I don't give kudos often but this deserves them.

  • Ted S.||

    The NRA is calling out Obama on his hypocrisy in sending his kids to a school that apparently has armed guards.

    It's too bad to see the argument being used in pursuit of a bad end, but the point that Obama (and a whole bunch of other politicians) are hypocrites is one that needs to be made over and over and over.

  • The Derider||

    It's almost like the president and his family have unique security concerns.

  • DarrenM||

    It's almost like the president and his family have unique security concerns.

    So, everyone that goes to that school also has "unique security concerns"? It's the school that has armed guards, because the parents who have kids going there can afford it.

  • ||

    It's almost like some other asshole believes his life is worth more than mine because he was able to get himself elected to public office, and consequently makes special provisions and rules for his own protection of which I cannot legally avail myself because he's a giant, hypocritical fucking cunt.

  • ||

    "It's almost like some other asshole believes his life is worth more than mine "

    Because it is. Infinitely more valuable than your existence, in fact.
    If you don't realize that, you're either deluded or retarded. Tough call.

  • DJK||

    Last I checked, PM hadn't used his life to summarily execute citizens and non-citizens alike with Predator drones and a complete absence of due process. Based on that, I would say his life is infinitely more valuable than your dear leader's. Fuck off, you cultist fuck.

  • Fladnag the Yarg||

    The only way to deter tyranny is to allow citizens to have the same fire power as the "government". Anything less and less and your dead before you start.

  • ||

    King George III has assembled an armada off the Jersey shore and is preparing to invade.
    if you hurry, you have time to load your weapons.
    If you're lucky, you might get off a few rounds before he fires a cannonball into your compound and kills your cattle.

  • DJK||

    Perhaps a more recent example. General Sherman has assembled his troops around your great city of Atlanta and is about to burn it to the ground. Even more recent? The troops have come to round up your Japanese-American neighbors.

    I guess you're right. Government tyranny is only possible in the 1700s.

  • Agammamon||

    If they wanted to make people safer then all magazines should be required to hold at least *50* rounds.

    Its the ultra-large capacity magazines that have a tendency to misfeed if you look at them funny

  • Meerkatx||

    Odd. First author goes on to say that it only takes seconds to switch clips in and out so having smaller magazines won't matter, than goes on to say that larger magazines make it easier to fire more without worry about running out of ammo.

    Secondly I see he uses the gun nut fantasy of having to defend oneself from a rampaging horde of gangbangers/cops/zombies/looters theory. This is one of the big theories that makes most people ignore gun nuts.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Hahaha, it must kill you that no matter how much your beloved leader cries and whines, Americans are still going to own a shit ton of guns.

    And since you only feel and never think, it's got to be that much worse.

  • An0nB0t||

    Reason continues to stand as the web's gold standard in the art of sockpuppetry.

    (Going with Episiarch on this one.)

  • DrAwkward||

    It you like a pragmatic argument, there are many types of animals that travel in packs, wild dogs, wild hogs, wolves, coyotes, etc that can be deadly to you or your own animals. An AR-15 with a 30-round magazine is a fine tool for the job. And given the .223 carries about half the energy as a .308, one hit may not be enough.

  • Jordan||

    Riots and home invasions are figments of bitter clingers' imaginations. And the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have countenanced armed rebellion. Derp.

  • TX_Teacher||

    It's true! Riots and home invasions and attacks by multiple assailants have NEVAR EVAR NEVAR EVAR happened before.

    NEVAR.

    (spelling errors for sarcasm)

  • Fladnag the Yarg||

    SWAT teams never make mistakes!

  • ||

    Your little dick extension won't be a match for the SWAT team that accidentally no-knocks your bible=belting compound in the middle of the night, Nutter.

  • DJK||

    And our new troll reveals himself for what he actually is. A whore for big government and the continual use of violent force against law-abiding citizens. Fuck you, statist fuck.

  • T. Walls||

    So they're actually not "weapons of war"?
    So what's the problem?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Secondly I see he uses the gun nut fantasy of having to defend oneself from a rampaging horde of gangbangers/cops/zombies/looters theory. This is one of the big theories that makes most people ignore gun nuts.

    So I suppose the shopkeepers keeping their shops safe in LA, you know, the example used in the article, is just a figment of some imagination? Or the looters fought off during the chaos of Katrina (and other storms like Andrew) while trying to protect one's food supply and family?

    Yeah, those things never happened.

  • Jeff||

    You gun nutters just care more about the imaginary gooks of "Koreatown" (whatever the fuck that is, I ain't seen it!) than about the REAL LIVE DEAD CHILDREN OF NEWTOWN.

  • mad libertarian guy||

  • SugarFree||

    I believe young master Jeffrey was indulging in sarcasm.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    If only MLG had a large capacity magazine on his sarcasm detector.

  • SugarFree||

    To the 3D printer!

  • mr lizard||

    The troll is strong in this one. Bring balance to the SARC he will

  • Loki||

    You know what they say: good satire is indistguishable from the thing it's trying to satirize.

  • Jeff||

    Those are not CHILDRENZZZ. I still win!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    What do you expect? After all, he is the mad libertarian guy. Stay mad, mlg. Stay mad.

  • ||

    MLG,
    Are you actually afraid that zombies are going to rape your cattle?

  • Clano'6||

    You seem to have a preoccupation with cattle raping....perhaps you'd like to consult a professional? Of course, then you'd never qualify to own a handgun, but since you are obviously not worried about your safety in any conceivable scenario and have no intention of ever needing a firearm in any conceivable circumstance, then this won't bother you. Now about these raped cattle....

  • ||

    People shouldn't have to explain their right to self-defense - it's a personal and local issue - anymore the state has a right to decide what type of health care you want for your own, you know, body.

    I've really grown tired of the new angle liberals use now: "Nobody needs..."

    I have a moonbat friend who constantly says, "how much money does anyone need?" or "why does that person need such a big house!"

    I tell ya, these people SCARE me.

  • ||

    it's a tactic connected to the whole "affluenza" meme - money doesn't make you happy, so be glad the government takes it from you and you can discover real joy comes from shitting in a hole in the ground

  • DJK||

    Why does the government "need" to spend $4 trillion?

  • Hopfiend||

    I will go slow so you can grasp the points:

    1. Mass killers don't tend to be facing armed people, so switching magazines isn't an issue.

    2. People faced with multiple assailants do tend to be threatened with weapons making time a factor.

    Can you grasp this point?

    No response warranted to the intellectually bankrupt ad hominem.

  • meunke||

    I think here the author should have gone into greater detail for those who are not very familiar with firearms.

    The point that ‘it only takes a couple of seconds to change magazines’ isn’t some kind of ‘Aha! So it doesn’t matter’ issue. It matters, and it doesn’t matter, depending on the situation.

    If I go walking through a chicken coop executing hens, the fact that I’m using a 12 round mag instead of a 10 rounder (or hell, just a 5 rounder) makes zero difference. It doesn’t matter how many times I have to reload, I’m going to kill the hens.

    However, if I’m in an actual FIREFIGHT, having to stop to reload a low capacity firearm might just might cost me my life.

    In a similar manner, in a mass shooting like we just had, what exactly are first and second graders going to do? Are they taking advantage of some Spartan like combat training and just waiting for the attacker to drop magazines before rushing him? At the Virginia Tech shooting, the attacker lined people up against the wall and then went down the line, executing them, STOPPING TO RELOAD SEVERAL TIMES.

    In short, for actual defensive use, hi-caps (or rather the more correct term ‘standard caps’) can be very important. In a mass murder situation, it’s meaningless.

  • DarrenM||

    First author goes on to say that it only takes seconds to switch clips in and out so having smaller magazines won't matter, than goes on to say that larger magazines make it easier to fire more without worry about running out of ammo.

    A high-capacity magazine is much more useful for a defender. If you are an attacker, you will generally have time to switch magazines. If you are defending, that attacker may not be willing to give you that couple of seconds to switch magazines.

  • Gamblorr||

    Somebody who is prepping to go shoot a bunch of people is likely to bring as many extra magazines as he/she can carry. Somebody who has a gun for self defense is not at all times likely to have more ammo available than what fits in the gun. The author's point is not contradictory.

  • Sosalty||

    Meercat, 1 to 3 seconds isn't problematic when killing and passing time for the police to show up; so small mags won't prevent much mass killing. Now 1 to 3 seconds when defending yourself means live or die. But Prezbo will give you a fuzzy wuzzy self-esteem huggie for your insightful attempt to make a point.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That might count as an argument if the right to keep and bear arms were all about killing deer. But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment is also about defense against individual aggressors . . .

    A magazine capacity limit is an edict that I put myself at a legally mandated handicap in the unlikely event I need to use my weapon to defend my home.

    The government can fuck itself if it thinks it can force me to put myself at a disadvantage when protecting my family.

  • Fladnag the Yarg||

    Sorry to say, you're already at a huge disadvantage.

  • ||

    protecting your family against what?
    Zombies?
    Canadians?

    Why are you Nutters so paranoid?
    What makes you so afraid? TV? The Interwebs? Interbreeding? The bad food in your compound?

  • MisterDamage||

    Criminals. Duh.

  • DJK||

    You know, MisterDamage. No one would ever assault innocent people. Not the mass murderers these laws are provoking. Not the SWAT members our trolls have been fellating above. No one. Not possible. It's all just paranoid delusion, you nutter.

  • Clano'6||

    You are absolutely right! Why the hell are we spending money on cops and 911 call centers? This world of ours is just as safe as an Occupy rally.

  • AlmightyJB||

    We need better trolls. Looks like they'll be out in full force today. Please ignore them so we don't destroy our treads with strings of this crap.

  • SugarFree||

    Their dictator is in trouble; they must aid him in having complete control over us. The paltry 90% control He has now is not enough.

  • AZ||

    Well yeah, that 10% he doesn't have is what allows all the wreckers, obstructionists and bitter clingers to cause all his plans to fail miserably.

  • SugarFree||

    Just like the 2% of healthcare the Feds don't meddle in ruins the dream of a happy world free of pain or payments.

  • ||

    But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment is also about defense against individual aggressors, foreign invaders, and tyrannical government.

    Unless you're some prog like Aaron Sorkin, in which case you have a newsroom TV series where an actor who is allegedly a Republican but talks like a progressive Democrat slams politicians who point out the possibility of that whole tyrannical government thingy as being so crazy that said politicians have no business running for office.

    I mean, some crazy funny moments in the show, but wow, are progs ever annoying in their smugness and love of huge government.

  • Hopfiend||

    Yea I don't get that. Aren't the progs the ones who routinely demean American exceptionalism, except when it comes to the putative benevolence of the state. To say that the United State of America could never be tyrannical is a gross exhibition of exceptionalism in my opinion.

  • Killazontherun||

    fantastic point

  • DJK||

    Try asking a prog about the civil rights stuggle, Jim Crow laws, etc. All pretty reprehensible examples of government tyranny. But they sure as hell won't see it that way.

  • SIV||

    In honor of reason's Nick Gillespie and Cato's Robert A Levy I propose we rename the legally mandated 10-rounders "cosmotarian magazines".

  • SugarFree||

    The horse isn't just dead, it's tenderized.

  • ||

    well how else is it going to get into burgers?

  • An0nB0t||

    # of times kicked/gored by cattle: 0
    # of times kicked by a mare: 1

    I'll take the medium-rare horseburger, thanks.

  • ||

    Horsemeat is pretty good. I doubt it made shitty frozen burgers any worse than they already were.

  • AZ||

    Impossible - such a thorough beating would cause it to recognize that self-defense is important.

  • mr lizard||

    I am so glad I am down in Florida, we may be messed up, but at least our gun discussion centers around their appropriate use in conflict resolution.

  • wingnutx||

    Just wait.

    You have plenty of NY voters moving there wanting to remake things.

  • free2booze||

    Phew! I'm glad that law makers have finally put an end to the scourge of high capacity magazines. Handgun magazines are such sophisticated technology, I'm sure no one will ever be able to achieve the technical expertise to increase the capacity of their 7 round magazine. I'm sure it's impossible to put two 7 round mags together to form one 14 round mag.

  • SugarFree||

    But the time they take to swap mags will give his deliberately unarmed and terrified victims time to tackle him or something with like a handbag or some harsh language.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I may have found a stay at home job.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Well, duh. I'm not a gun guy, really. But I am considering starting a little metal working/machine shop. More of a boutique. Custom fabrication for a select clientele.

  • ||

    two 20-round mags + one roll of duct tape = one 40-round mag

  • Sosalty||

    Better yet, take machine shop at your local community college. Those well paid govt instructors love for their students to come in extra to prefab personal projects.

    Let's see, have hollow tubes been made illegal, hmmm, have springs been made illegal, hmmm, have those little plactic bullet ramps been made illegal? Yes, an assembly line in my cottage!

  • wingnutx||

  • Loki||

    Magazine size is more likely to matter in confrontations with people who are armed ... there are various scenarios, including riots, home invasions, and public attacks by multiple aggressors, in which a so-called large-capacity magazine can make a crucial difference

    No, no no! The proper response to any of the above scenarios is to hide in a closet and call the police. Then pray to whatever deity you believe in (or not) that the cops get there before you're found and murdered. Remember: it's better to die huddles in a corner cluthing a phone than to die on your feet with a gun in your hand.

  • Loki||

    *huddled

    typing FAIL

  • wingnutx||

    The winner of a gunfight is often the guy who simply doesn't run out of ammo.

  • Loki||

    True. In fact another point to consider is that, I've read somewhere (I forget where I read it, and if I weren't so lazy I'd google it and provide a link) that in most shootouts between cops and armed criminals, the trained police officers only average about 25% accuracy. The untrained criminals only average about 11%. That means that with a 10 round clip, you're most likely only going to hit your target with one round. And that one round may not even be fatal. Factor in multiple aggressors and you're pretty much fucked.

  • free2booze||

    The untrained criminals only average about 11%. That means that with a 10 round clip, you're most likely only going to hit your target with one round.

    If you live in NYS,3/4's of a round.

  • wingnutx||

    Lots of cops don't do any training beyond a semiannual qual of about 50 rounds or so.

    They just aren't gun guys, and view it as just one more thing they need to carry. These are the same ones that have no idea what gun laws actually are.

  • ||

    I'm stunned their hit rate is as high as 25% Just about every time I read reports about police involved shootings the number of rounds fired is astronomically out of proportion to the task. Most cops panic as soon as they hear a car backfire and their natural reaction due to their years of highly specialized training and consummate professionalism is to jump on their weapon like a 12 year old Call of Duty player with ADHD.

  • Stop The Decline||

    Excellent article.

    Limiting magazine capacity only puts law abiding citizens at risk. One shot, one kill is not a common occurrence unless you are a trained military sniper or play lots of video games. Many times a determined attacker will take upwards of 5 bullets before changing their mind or going down. Just last week in Atlanta a woman shot an intruder 5 times and he was still able to leave the house on his own power and try to escape.

    The other issue with NY limiting magazine capacity is that it disqualifies those residents from owning certain guns as not all have compatible 7 round magazines. Can you say Infringement.

    In the end, these policies are not about saving lives. If they were, more people would be on board. It is about making people who are afraid of guns FEEL safer, when in reality the threat hasn't been diminished. Security Theater at it's best.

  • PersonFromPorlock||

    I recently filed a petition with the Obama White House that needs 150 signatures before it can show up on the Open Petitions section of We the People. Those who want to have a little fun while educating Progressives may find it worth looking at. Make 'em sputter: Common-sense Media Control.

    After all, if creative interpretation of the Second Amendment can make schoolchildren safer, why should those First Amendment extremists escape when it's their turn?

  • Calitaxian||

    I would love to but they cant even seem to manage a sending me a verification email effectively!

  • PersonFromPorlock||

    Thanks for the effort. They do seem to be having second thoughts about the whole petition program, don't they?

    And no sweat: I'm sure that any Republican in the House will be glad to submit the measure once they've seen it.

    No, really....

  • ||

    Oh but proggies already support "common sense restrictions" on media and speech - just ask them about campaign finance and hate speech.

  • The Derider||

    What happened to those steadfast defenders of federalism?

    Maybe state autonomy isn't always a good thing?

  • Hopfiend||

    You aren't here to make have a real conversation but I will engage anyway.

    2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to the states. But, I don't know what NYS constitution says about RKBA.

    If you folk wish to ban guns and magazines go ahead but I won't be living in your state.

    I will be in a place where citizens and govt understand. My opposition to gun control is both principled and pragmatic.

    A citizen should by right be free to protect themselves and their property, especially because the police aren't required to (and are often the aggressors anyway). If gun control works for you and that is how you wish to live, fine, just don't attempt to impose a one size fits all solution from the central government.

  • ||

    Supporting federalism doesn't mean you relinquish the right to criticize policies just because they are enacted by the states rather than the federal government. And that having been said, certain rights can't be disposed of by the states - that's why we passed the 14th Amendment. That's why Colorado and Rhode Island don't have different versions of the internet, variously censored to the whim of the regulators in each state. The 2nd Amendment is no more negotiable by the states than the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    Also, in case you didn't hear, the mag cap ban Obama has requested congress to enact would be at the... wait for it... federal level.

    Was that about it, you disingenuous little garden gnome?

  • Nick H||

    I have been seeing the gun control advocates saying that changing magazines can give victims a chance and they point to the Tuscon shooting where apparently the killer was overtaken while reloading.

  • Brendan||

    That's about the only one they can point to. They never address the fact that the CT shooter had 14 minutes to do what he wanted, or that the VT shooter reload a dozen or so times during his massacre.

    This and this cover it pretty well.

  • Brendan||

  • XM||

    If states can legalize pot while the it's still illegal under Federal law, then can Obama (whose reaction on the recent drug legalization was "we have bigger fish to fry")stop states from legalizing certain guns and magazines under state law?

  • ||

    That's a pretty generous interpretation of Obama's statement. What he said was that the federal government wouldn't be going after individual users because they have "bigger fish to fry" - which has been the case since long before legalization. The federal government's "bigger fish" are the producers, which in the case of Washington would include the state itself.

  • 21044||

    I haven't read through all of the posts, so someone may have already written this.

    My uninformed opinion is seven was selected because that is the capacity of a typical Colt 1911 magazine. If six or less were picked, the argument could easily be made that they were trying to ban all semi-auto pistols by the back-door of regulation. However, by picking seven 1911s are still allowed and the argument that all semi-auto pistols were banned would fall flat. Mind you, the law means that a Ruger .22 with a ten round mag is illegal, while a 1911 would be legal. Assuming that you had a choice of getting shot at by one of these pistols, what one would you pick?

  • GroundTruth||

    Don't confuse me with logic, my mind is already made up!

  • Page Turner||

    Excellent article. One additional point - when they try to limit the number of bullets savvy gun owners make sure they have the most powerful bullets available in that gun.

  • LarryA||

    Measured by what people actually buy and use, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are hardly outliers.

    Particularly since (with the recent change) New York limits magazines to 7 rounds, three states limit them to 10, and one to 15. That means in 45 states (90%) the standard magazine size is whatever your gun holds.

  • ||

    Tide is turning, Nutters.
    Get your licks in while you can.
    Pretty soon, you'll be held in the same disregard as smokers and pedophiles.

  • Training Semarang||

    thanks for these info. visit our web on Training Center Semarang.
    please comment to improvement.

    success for you all.

    PELATIHAN SEMARANG

  • IT||

    Somewhere (I wish I could remember were) the success rate (hits vs. misses) of police officers is low under high stress situations. I can believe this. Its easy to miss with a hand gun when shooting quickly, let alone under the high stress of a home invasion. Ten rounds (or seven) might not be enough for even a single assailant.

  • Miner49er||

    History teaches that ordinary people are more likely to be harmed by their own governments than by criminals and foreign invaders combined. Federal, and some state and local governments are on the verge of insolvency. Loss of civil order is a real possibility.

    As happened in the former Yugoslavia, the African Great lakes region, Palestine, and Northern Ireland (to name a few), loss of civil order creates chances for neighbors to be aggressive. Some persons, unrestrained by external force, see the opportunity to obtain necessary resources, settle old scores, or just rob and pillage.

    Of course, deterring criminals, defending one's family, home or business are from criminals is also important. Our area is also rife with aggressive coyotes, and cougars have been seen often. Everyone should keep firearms, if only for these reasons.

  • T. Walls||

    N.Y. legislators are already scrambling to change the law to allow cops to have them. I guess cops have more rights than everyone else.

    Many classic rifles (M1 Garand, etc) and many classic or antique pistols (Luger, Mauser etc) have magazine capacities of 8 to 10 rounds. So you now have a whole class of gun owners with valuable, antique weapons that will never, ever be used in crimes being forced to surrender or sell their collectible guns.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement