The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Magazine Bans Thwart Self-Defense
Bans on standard magazines benefit criminals and endanger victims
Proponents of bans on standard firearms magazines claim that the bans do not affect lawful self-defense, and do impair mass shooters. Supposedly, victims will be able to escape or fight back during the "critical pause" when a mass shooter is swapping magazines. The claims are not plausible, as explained in an amicus brief I filed on Nov. 30 in the U.S. District Court in Colorado. The case is Gates v. Polis, which challenges the Colorado legislature's 2013 ban on magazines over 15 rounds.
The brief was on behalf of Sheriffs and law enforcement training organizations: the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, 10 elected Colorado County Sheriffs, and the Independence Institute (where I work).
Below are excerpts from the brief explaining how magazine bans endanger the innocent, and do not impede mass shooters.
Law enforcement officers carry standard capacity magazines—up to about 20 rounds for handguns, and 30 rounds for rifles—for the same reason that law-abiding citizens often should: they are best for lawful defense of self and others. When defenders have less reserve ammunition, they fire fewer shots, thus increasing the danger that the criminals will injure the victim. . . .
The most common type of handgun chosen by sheriffs and their deputies is the full size 9mm pistol. Although larger calibers (such as .45) are available, many deputies and citizens prefer 9mm because its recoil is easier to control, and because its ergonomics make it a good fit, including for many females. The 9mm pistols still have good "stopping power," which is the purpose of defensive shooting.
While compact or subcompact 9mm handguns have small magazines, the standard magazines for a full-size 9mm are commonly 16 or more, as in the 17-round Glock 17; the same is true for full-size 9mm pistols from Springfield, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and similar companies.
Most law enforcement patrol cars carry a rifle, a shotgun, or both. The rifle is usually a semi-automatic with magazines of 20 or 30 rounds. A typical officer's arms are powerful enough for defense against violent criminals, and appropriate for use in civil society, because ordinary officers' arms are not military arms.
In a typical Sheriff's Office, only a small number of deputies possess genuinely military arms, such as machine guns or stun grenades. These arms are deployed only for unusual situations, such as hostage scenarios or high-risk warrant service. These are certainly not the arms that a citizen would see a deputy carrying during standard foot, bicycle, or automobile patrol. Neither sheriffs nor the public would tolerate the use of military equipment for routine law enforcement. . . .
Almost always, law enforcement officers are second responders. Because officers cannot be everywhere, and because criminals choose the time and place for their surprise attacks, crime victims are their own first responders. If a victim has the opportunity to call 911, the call is in effect a request to send armed men and women who will bring the arms sufficient to defeat the attacking criminals. While waiting for minutes for armed rescuers to arrive, the victims should have sufficient arms to repel the attackers.
Just as any gun is better than no gun, a small magazine is better than nothing. But in general, the best magazines for defeating violent attackers are the magazines chosen by prudent professionals with extensive collective experience in lawful defense. . . .
Neither citizens nor law enforcement officers frequently fire more than 15 shots in self-defense. Indeed, the vast majority of Colorado law enforcement officers never fire one defensive shot in their careers. This does not mean that officers should not carry firearms. A firearm, like a fire extinguisher, is a tool for rare emergencies, and in emergencies, essential to survival.
The largest national survey of defensive gun use found that 51.2% of incidents involved multiple attackers. See Wiliam English, 2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned, Georgetown McDonough School of Business Research Paper No. 4109494, at 10, 14-15 (Sept. 28, 2022).
Most defensive shots are misses. A New York Police Department study of 1998–2006 found an average hit rate "18 percent for gunfights," and 30 percent "in situations in which fire was not returned." Bernard Rostker et al., Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process 14 (2008). Another study examined target range shooting at realistic-size targets at various distances; the hit rate for police recruits who had completed academy firearms training was 49 percent, whereas the rates for untrained, "naive" recruits with little if any prior firearms experience was 39 percent. William Lewinski, et al., The real risks during deadly police shootouts: Accuracy of the naive shooter, 17 Int'l J. of Police Sci. Management 117 (2015).
Unlike in the movies, many attackers do not desist after being hit once. See Police1, Should cops shoot to incapacitate? (May 13, 2021); English at 28–33 (examples). In general, only hits to the central nervous system or an airway instantly incapacitate. Emily Lane, Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings, The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), July 19, 2019.
If a citizen or an officer sees one assailant, she does not know if a second assailant is unseen nearby. As officers are taught, "If you see one, there's two. If you see two, there's three." When a defender knows that she has a greater reserve, she is more likely to fire sufficient shots, because she knows she will have sufficient ammunition to deal with a possible second or third attacker.
Conversely, when a defender has fewer available shots, she must make a calculation before each shot to determine whether she can successfully make a threat-ending shot now or whether it is worth the risk to wait a few moments in hopes of a better opportunity. The defender's critical moments of hesitation could cost her life. By constricting reserve capacity, the magazine ban increases the risk of injury for victims and reduces it for attackers. That is the opposite of the Second Amendment.
Reserve capacity is even more important for citizens than for law enforcement officers. It may be impossible for a citizen under attack to extract a cell phone and dial 911. Usually, the only magazine the citizen will have is the one in her firearm. In contrast, officers generally wear small always-ready radios, to immediately summon assistance. Unlike the typical citizen, the typical officer will have several back-up magazines ready on a belt. Officers can sometimes call for back-up before taking on a situation, but the citizen never has the option, because the criminals decide the time and place for attack. Persons with mobility disabilities are impacted even more severely because they cannot retreat or take cover to change a magazine.
Law enforcement and citizens also prefer standard magazines for cover fire (a/k/a "suppression fire"). With cover fire, the defender shoots carefully to keep the attacker pinned down. This stops the attacker from being able to target potential victims and allows victims to escape. For example, at the University of Texas in 1966, the criminal shooting from a tower was pinned down by cover fire from citizens and police. Mark Lisheron, A Killer's Conscience, Austin American-Statesman (Dec. 9, 2001). Similarly, at Trolley Square, Salt Lake City, in 2007, an off-duty officer kept the shooter pinned down until a SWAT team arrived. It took 15 hits until the criminal collapsed. See Off-duty officer shrugs off 'heroic' label, Deseret News (Feb. 16, 2007). . . . .
As detailed in Part II, supra, crime victims who are forced to rely on magazines with sub-standard capacity will fire fewer defensive shots, even against multiple attackers, for fear of running out ammunition. This reduces the risk of injury to the attackers and increases the risk of injury to the victim. Usually, the citizen defender will have only the one magazine in his or her firearm. Law enforcement officers often carry two spare magazines (sometime more) on their duty belts. This is a better practice, but most citizens do not wear duty belts, so even if they had a spare magazine, they would be defenseless while fishing for a magazine in a pocket or purse.
Mass shooters operate differently. They bring enormous quantities of ammunition, and often two or more firearms. While a well-prepared citizen might have a spare magazine in a compartment in her purse, the mass shooter can arrange for all his magazines to be handy for rapid swaps; this is because the mass shooter knows in advance exactly when he will attack.
For mass shooters, magazine changes are speedy. At Columbine, one criminal used a 9mm TEC-DC9 semiautomatic pistol with one 28-round, one 32-round, and one 52-round magazine to fire 55 rounds total. The other criminal used 13 ten-round magazines in a 9mm Hi-Point 995 semiautomatic carbine to fire 96 rounds during the same period. Carey Vanderborg, Columbine Shooting Anniversary: Five Other Deadly School Shootings, Int'l Bus. Times (Apr. 20, 2012).
Likewise, the Sutherland Springs shooter changed magazines 15 times, firing at least 450 rounds in seven minutes; the Parkland shooter fired more than 150 rounds in five-and-one-half minutes, changing magazines five times; the Sandy Hook shooter fired 156 rounds in five minutes, emptying three 30-round magazines and replacing two other 30-round magazines that still contained ammunition; the Fort Hood shooter used 20- and 30-round magazines, firing 214 rounds in 10 minutes. See E. Gregory Wallace, "Assault Weapon" Lethality, 88 Tenn. L. Rev. 1, 31–32 (2020) (citing sources). At Virginia Tech, the criminal fired 174 rounds from two handguns in 10–12 minutes while walking among classrooms, and changed magazines 17 times. All his magazines—of 10 or 15 rounds—were legal in Colorado. The shooting review panel concluded: "10-round magazines . . . would not have made much difference in the incident." TriData Division, Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech: Addendum to the Report of the Review Panel 74 (Nov. 2009).
Defendant theorizes that magazine changes provide a "critical pause" allowing the opponents to retreat or to attack the shooter. This is an accurate scenario when the shooter is a citizen defending herself. Under the stress of surprise violent attacks, fine motor skills degrade. The victim may need a good number of seconds to retrieve and insert her back-up magazine.
In contrast, mass shooters are not surprised. Defendant's speculation about the "critical pause" for mass shooters is unsupported.
First, the majority of mass shootings take place over an extended time, so that the criminal can change magazines at leisure. "[C]lose examination of mass shootings also indicates that killers typically take their time, firing deliberately at individual victims over fairly long periods of time." Gary Kleck, Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control, 52 Am. Behav. Scientist 1447, 1451 (2009). "[M]ass shootings . . . usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer—especially one armed with a backup gun—would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It's thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size." Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1489 (2009).
A study of all U.S. mass shootings 1994-2013 in which shooters used semiautomatic firearms and detachable magazines, found only one case, Tucson 2011, where the shooter may have been tackled by bystanders while swapping magazines. Gary Kleck, Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages, 17 Just. Res. & Pol'y 28 (2016). As Kleck noted, eyewitness reports conflicted about whether the Tucson shooter was trying to reload or his gun jammed. Id. at 39–40. The reload claim comes down to the testimony of one eyewitness who insisted that Glock handguns never jam—which is not true. See Colorado Outfitters Assoc. v. Hickenlooper, Joint Appendix at 16:3358-60. At the district judge's urging, the parties stipulated that Glock pistols can jam. Id. at 18:3763. [The amicus brief here cites the Joint Appendix in the 10th Circuit appeal, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding no party has standing on any claim). The Joint Appendix is not available on the public Internet. The cited testimony is from the district court case, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (D. Colo. 2014), by Roger Salzberger on April 9, 2014, on pages 1428-29. The stipulation that Glocks can jam came the next day, April 10, 2014, on trial transcript page 1832.] See also Sam Quinones & Michael Muskal, Jared Loughner to be charged in Arizona shootings targeting Gabrielle Giffords, L.A. Times (Jan. 9, 2011) (eyewitness descriptions of the jam).
Yet [defendant's expert George Louis] Klarevas claims that Tucson involved only a reload. Klarevas Decl., Ex. 32 ¶30.
Klarevas swears as a fact that people escaped the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting because of magazine changes. Id. There is nothing in the official report about students escaping while the shooter was reloading. See TriData Division, Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech: Addendum to the Report of the Review Panel 74 (Nov. 2009).
The Klarevas Declaration likewise states with certainty that the children at Sandy Hook "escaped their attacker as he was swapping out magazines." Klarevas Decl., Ex. 32 ¶30. But the Hartford Current article he cites states that children escaped because the shooter "stopped firing briefly, perhaps either to reload his rifle or because it jammed." Dave Altimari, et al., Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped, Hartford Courant (Dec. 23, 2012) (Ex. J to Klarevas Decl.). According to the article, it also was possible that the children escaped while the shooter was firing at others in the room. Understandably, the children's statements were "not entirely consistent." Id.
Gun jams do interrupt shooters. Clearing a jam involves both of the steps for a magazine swap (remove one magazine, and insert another) plus all the intermediate time to do whatever is necessary to clear the jam. Some jams take minutes to clear. No one knows when a gun will jam, but a criminal can anticipate and prepare for magazine changes. The random benefits of long pauses from gun jams are distinct from the very short pauses from magazine switches.
Uncited is Klarevas' prior candid admission: "a person set on inflicting mass casualties will get around any clip prohibitions by having additional clips on his person (as Loughner did) or by carrying more than one fully loaded weapon (as Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho did)." He argued that the better approach was to improve laws to stop dangerously deranged people from acquiring firearms. Louis Klarevas, Closing the Gap, The New Republic (Jan. 13, 2011).
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cops are apparently awful shots, and security guards are worse. I’ve seen security guards in training repeatedly miss not only the man size silhouette at 7 yards, but also the big piece of paper it was printed on.
Why is it anyone else's business if someone has a magazine with thirty rounds?
Well it becomes their business if the person who has that magazine is emptying it in a school or a store or other public place.
If only such a thing were a crime. I mean drunk driving is a crime due to the indiscriminate danger it creates for others.
Why should not emptying a clip in random directions in a public place be a crime? Call it reckless endangerment or something.
Interesting that you bring up drunk driving. You could argue it’s nobody’s business if someone wants to drink too much at a bar, and that if they drive after that’s a crime and it’s on them. And yet dram shop acts impose liability on bartenders for over-serving. This is because the public has an interest in not being subject to greater dangers than they otherwise would be.
No.
It's because they are the relatively deep pockets.
"The public" also has the interest of "being able to own effective arms".
The spree killing rate is so low that realistically it's not a serious threat - media attention and how useful it is for paranoid-progressive fundraising and vote-gathering are why we constantly hear about it, and why they have to lie about "mass shootings" to inflate the values, etc.
I'm more concerned with the diseases you spread when you stick your infected member into any dude you run into at the bath house.
Why? Are you afraid you might be next in line for that infected member?
How is that different from owning a car that can travel at greater than the maximum speed limit? Should cars not be sold that go faster than 75mph?
That "expert" didn't even use correct terminology. "Clips," FFS.
“Whatever rationale will justify more gun and ammo sales” seems to be the guiding star of this site’s Second Amendment analysis.
Yes.
And that is a good thing.
Way to engage with the argument!
There is nothing appropriate about banning magazines which have been sold as standard for ~40 years by claiming they are suddenly "high-capacity" and only members of the Government get to have them.
Unless of course, you consider the 2A to be something you can ignore and violate because it doesn't fit your political views.
"The Second Amendment is real law and means what it says", yes.
"Zomg SELLiNG GUNZ" is not an argument - and note that the biggest spur to gun sales has pretty much always been one of two things, these past 30 or 40 years: people trying to ban them, or spikes in the crime rate.
Want people to buy fewer guns? Stop trying to take them away, and make people feel like they don't need one as a last resort.
Anything else is like hippies pretending windmills can power the world - hallucinatory nonsense.
Hold onto your pearls when the next front in SCOTUS jurisprudence that reinforces the Miller holding that the arms suitable for martial use are at the core of the 2A civil right.
So far we have the 2A protecting the right to a gun in the home(Heller) , and in the public square (Bruen). The next big ruling will reinforce the citizen's right to a "military grade" weapon suitable for use in a militia, for defense of home AND homeland. Bye bye assault weapon and standard capacity magazine bans.
People are just tired of all the school shootings and gang violence in the ghetto.
These magazines are the tool of the trade of the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member. Banning them makes it easier to deal with these people!
They're the tool of the trade of every gun owner. You're an idiot.
And that assumes that the people leading this campaign to ban these magazines even want to deal with the "crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member".
Just remember, the same side that whines for decarceration, whines about defunding the police, accuses police of hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, accuses the criminal justice system of being systemically racist...
...is the same side that pushes for these laws which would be enforced by these very same police in this very same system!
Defenderz comment was rude - but entirely correct.
Are people tired enough of mass shootings to demand that the perpetrators be subject to the death penalty if found guilty? I haven't seen any sign of that yet, or are those signs being purposely obscured by various gatekeepers?
Except it doesn't.
Why do you believe carjackers and muggers are "easier" to deal with when they have a revolver pointed at you than an automatic?
They don't engage in running gunfights a lot, they want concealable, not High Capacity BangBang.
There are probably statistics about how many shots are fired in civilian self-defense situations. I would think the court might want to know that.
Why would that be helpful to the court?
A bizarre question, buddy.
Obviously I disagree. What numbers could be useful? The minimum number is 0 for a gun pulled on an assailant (s) & them surrendering or running away. An average could be calculated from reported incidents where shots are fired. However that number might not well represent unusual attacks that are rare but require a lot of shots.
I am making the (possibly wrong) assumption that you believe the court should set a number that is allowed or is constitutional?
It is so weird to me that for people who really like the idea of shooting people this quote becomes an argument for making sure people have more bullets: Most defensive shots are misses.
And the logic that "if there's one assailant then there's another you can't see. And if there's another you can't see then that one also has a friend you also can't see" is weird that it applies only to attackers. Seems just as reasonable that if there is one non-attacker that can be seen then there is another non-attacker you can't see and you're apparently almost as likely to hit that person as the person you're shooting at.
I don't care if there are magazine bans as I don't think it'll change anything much one way or the other. But the argument for more bullet availability looks as dumb as the argument of making sure the assailant has to reload so you can go commando in the pause is.
Perhaps you could explain your ideas here.
Well, it also applies to non-attackers, but discussing a life and death situation, why concern yourself with discussion about the people that are not shooters?
How did you reach this conclusion? Nothing in the article, or any of the links, or any study I've ever heard of, suggests that it is "as likely" for a defensive shooter (civilian or police) to hit a non-attacker with any given shot as it is for them to hit an attacker.
A quick internet check shows a study from Berkeley, and another from the University of Chicago, that show that non-fatal police shootings are about 800 per year, and accidental police shootings (hitting any non-target) at about 200 per year. I could not find data exclusively for civilians, but they tend to be better shots, so I'd expect those numbers to be similar-or-better for them.
Data only up through 2019, though, so if you have more recent studies to support your conclusion, I'd be interest in seeing them.
Otherwise, can you explain why you made this claim?
"Well, it also applies to non-attackers, but discussing a life and death situation, why concern yourself with discussion about the people that are not shooters?"
You may not care about non-shooters. But as a non-shooter I care.
"How did you reach this conclusion?"
I'm being hyperbolic. When shooting at an attacker you are, per the stats quoted, more likely to miss than to hit the attacker. And every bullet fired is going to hit *something.* And since we're apparently assuming the space is full of people we just haven't seen yet it seems to me they are quality candidates for where the majority of bullets may end up.
I'll be honest. As an outside observer--possibly being one these hard to see people just lurking about but assumed to be present--of you and an assailant shooting at each other, since apparently a majority of the bullets you all will be firing will not go into either one of you, my preference is that as few bullets as possible be fired, even if that makes it more likely you, the victim, will be dead at the end of it.
So it is in your interest to have as many bullets as you can get because you'll probably be a really bad shot. It is in society's interest that people just have fewer bullets to spray around semi-randomly. But then I'm also not one of those people who gets secretly, or not so secretly, excited about the possibility that some day I'll be given an excuse to shoot someone so I'm biased.
yes
If you are a non-attacker, why would a self-defense shooter want to shoot you? That's what the topic you are commenting on is about. Simply claiming to have an interest in endangering someone else's life because you, personally, are not in danger severely devalues the life of the other person. It's a rather immoral and selfish position, similar to the politicians that want their guards to be armed to protect from criminals while preventing citizens from doing the same.
Ah. Well.
At least you're honest about "Fuck your life; only I matter", however short sighted it may be.
If you are a non-attacker, why would a self-defense shooter want to shoot you?
Well, Toranth, there is always pure malevolence, followed by lies about self-defense.
That's before you get to the part you try to rule out with your non-attacker premise, which takes mass shootings out of the discussion. Some folks think mass shootings belong in the discussion. But we all get that gun nuts are perfectly okay in those cases with, "Fuck your life; only I matter." In fact, you think it's a virtue.
Then there are the cases where victim-minded self-defenders who are only mildly unhinged threaten or actually shoot non-attackers mistakenly. Those abound, and make the news all the time, after someone the wrong color rings the wrong doorbell, or in other circumstances.
Some of those cases get prosecuted, some get covered up. A lot of the threat cases result in nothing more than an unnecessary terrifying encounter, in which gun nuts would judge it entirely justified for either party to get shot. That is not an illustration of the virtues of high gun prevalence.
Plus which, as the military understands so well, armed people in firefights will shoot anyone to save their own lives, and they all expect they might have to do it. Thus, any situation where self-defense becomes general makes a target of anyone seen to be armed who is not unambiguously known to be an ally.
Mishaps which occur routinely in military operations—where they routinely get dismissed after the fact as an unavoidable cost—should not be expected to be absent from civilian life in areas of high gun prevalence. One feature both situations have in common are those after-the-fact cover-ups, to protect people judged to have made honest mistakes under extreme duress.
Luckily for everyone, however, most pistol packers respond to mass shooting situations with cowardice. They wisely flee without engaging anyone. That has the unintended virtue to keep body counts down, but it sets up gun nuts to crow about proud exceptions. Nevertheless, it remains impossible except by an explanation of cowardice (or police cover-ups) to square claims of what high percentages of people go armed, with the routine lack of any armed resistance at mass shooting venues where tens or hundreds of people were present.
"Well, Toranth, there is always pure malevolence, followed by lies about self-defense."
I thought we were talking about defensive shooters, not gun-grabbers.
"And since we’re apparently assuming the space is full of people we just haven’t seen yet it seems to me they are quality candidates for where the majority of bullets may end up."
Are you saying that you regularly accompany violent armed criminals in their criminal endeavors?
In a public place with a crowd, shooter starts to fire at people. Suppose that one person goes down. What do the other people do? For a few seconds they stand and stare then they will verbalize then either drop to the ground or run and hide. Suppose that there is someone who decides to shoot back. After the short interval, they will be in one of three places - standing up, on the ground, or behind cover or concealment. The innocents will move away from the shooter. When the citizen starts to fire, chances are the shooter/bad guy will be surrounded by empty space. It is possible that other citizens will be behind the shooter/bad guy but it is reasonable to think that bystanders they will be behind cover - they don't want to get shot by the shooter. Citizen engages shooter. Besides the shooter, who is going to get hit? How does that work? If you are a bystander and you get shot in this exchange, then you apparently stood, frozen in place. If that happens, it seems to me that you are much more likely to be shot by the bad guy - after all, that is why he is there. If there is no citizen, you might get shot by the shooter. If the citizen can suppress the shooter - that is, shoot at him enough to keep him from shooting bystanders - then you get some protection. If the citizen hits the shooter, you get protection. The citizen didn't create the problem but, it seems to me, if he can distract, injure, or kill the shooter then he is part of the solution.
If you live in a rural area, the odds of a defender's bullets that miss the intruder hitting an innocent human that the defender is unaware of is pretty tiny.
Look at how rarely police, with their "high capacity" magazines and generally high "miss" rate, hit a bystander that was not the target.
If they are not needed for self-defense, then they are not needed for on the governor's and mayor's security details. Those security details are there for the purpose of self-defense.
. . . shall not be infringed . . .
Prisoners.
Mental inmates.
5-year olds.
"A New York Police Department study of 1998–2006 found an average hit rate "18 percent for gunfights," and 30 percent "in situations in which fire was not returned."
So that's 82% and 70% going downrange to hit innocent bystanders.
Am I the only person to have a problem with this?
And why are they shooting when fire is not returned?
The defensive shooter shooting at a particular, violent intruder will miss, but the bullets do not go in random directions; the places they will stop are all in a small cone shaped area centered on wherever the defender aimed. The size of that cone depends on how practiced the defender is and how much time they have to aim while avoiding the intruder’s bullets. Let’s say the two are separated by twenty feet and the defender only manages to shoot within arms length of the opponent, say six feet from side to side. That’s about 17 degrees. Out of 360 degrees in which innocents might be standing. That’s roughly a 5% chance that an innocent would even be in the cone behind the intruder, much less be hit by the bullet traveling somewhere in that cone. Add to that that responsible gun owners are taught to think about what is behind the target and the chances of an innocent being hit are really quite small. So the moral balance is between a large chance that the defender would be killed and a tiny chance an innocent might be injured.
That's not remotely how you calculate statistics.
All you calculated, is if a bystander encompasses 17 degrees of your degree of vision, you have a 5% chance of hitting them (they're either extremely tall, or your discounting the 3rd dimension).
The fact is any shot that is fired at the intruder and misses has roughly the same chance of hitting an innocent as a completely random shot.
Accounting of course for the fact that the missed shot should be close to the intruder, so much more likely to have a roughly horizontal trajectory. And more likely to be directed at a hallway/doorway (bad) or some kind of cover (good).
To actually calculate the statistic you need real world data... which reminds me.
David Kopel's argument was that citizens defending themselves need large magazines because they would need the extra bullets to defend themselves.
He had several citations of cops needing extra bullets magazines in practice along with discussions of specific mass shooter incidents.
But police weapon use isn't the same as civilian self defense, it would generally be done at further range, used against targets more likely to take cover.
So why didn't Kopel have a single citation of a clear case of self defense where the civilian defender ran out of ammo with bad consequences?
It's odd that he found examples in every category but the one that was central to his thesis.
96 and 450 and 150 rounds, and all perfectly legal.
960 or 4500 or 1500 rounds can all be perfectly legal too I suppose. Is there a stopping point?
1500 rounds of ammo is around 20 to 30 pounds (assuming smaller calibers). Larger rounds, like 30-06, can weigh 50 pounds or more. Not including the significant weight of the containers needed, of course.
Any would-be mass shooter that is trying to carry around 4500 rounds of ammo is going to be pretty unsuccessful.
Weight comes to immediate mind -- the clip adds to the weight of the weapon. Worse, your balance will shift as you fire.
You're only talking about current technology.
The 2A was ratified in an era when there was no standing army, and when militias, though required to be organized and trained, were manned by ordinary citizens using muskets or rifles which had to be laboriously reloaded after each shot. Who knows what the future will bring? Lighter ammunition? Nuclear bullets? Ray guns?
Well, except for all the standing armies worldwide (including the US one, however small it was), and the various types of repeating rifles used and much admired by the Founding Fathers that were into that sort of thing - like Thomas Jefferson.
With all the fuss about spent uranium bullets, don't wait for nuke bullets, although the 155 MM Davey Crockett was the smallest nuke ever made. Critical mass and all...
Rail guns use aluminum bullets and lasers don't use any projectile, but both use MASSIVE amounts of electricity.
Why should there be?
is there any truth to the rumor that if you leave a clip loaded indefinitely, it will damage the spring and the rounds won't feed?
No.
Unless you store them in water, then they might rust.
ABC says "no". I'll say maybe. It depends on the quality of materials used, the length of time stored compressed and the conditions of storage. A good-quality civilian magazine of relatively recent manufacture would be good for years at least, maybe decades. But a military surplus made-by-lowest-bidder than just barely worked when it was brand new? I wouldn't want to depend on it.
Note that there are two possible malfunction modes. First, the spring material goes from elastic to plastic (that is, permanent) deformation. The cusp between elastic and plastic deformation is a function of many factors, including time. The general concept is viscoelasticity and the specific mechanism is molecular "creep". While that factor is very small in metals (and springs are designed to minimize it), it is not precisely zero.
Second and more likely to be relevant, a magazine left loaded is inherently a magazine that's not being cleaned. Dust and other gunk build up over time. A spring that was adequate to move the material into position in the absence of friction may become inadequate as friction increases.
So the argument is that firing fewer misses is a bad thing?
If you want to argue that its fun or hunting, sure.
But at 30 shots, you get the idea that a claymore might be a better self defense.
"First, the majority of mass shootings take place over an extended time, so that the criminal can change magazines at leisure. "[C]lose examination of mass shootings also indicates that killers typically take their time, firing deliberately at individual victims over fairly long periods of time."
Why do the "majority of mass shootings take place over an extended time"? Why do "killers typically take their time"?
Because most mass shootings take place in GUN FREE ZONES!!!
They have that time because law abiding people don't carry weapons in a gun free zone.
Funny how all of the anti-gun people paint gun owners as people who can't wait to kill somebody, yet when they use defensive fire to pin down a shooter, the anti-gun use their "marksmanship" as an excuse to try to justify their anti-gun views.
Here is a quote on this issue.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14
"All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.
For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I'd catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I'd find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child's bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I'd find out for sure whether a lab was there.
How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we've got some evidence, but it isn't enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.
Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I'll make the world safer for you. No question about it.
The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I'm allowed to do to you, what's going to keep you safe from me?
Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.
That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven't really thought through the consequences. I won't argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.
Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.
Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier."- Paul Harding
That would be a good argument IF the right in question was a fundamental right (freedom of speech, privacy, safety, etc). But gun rights aren't fundamental rights, they're secondary rights.
The idea behind gun rights is they're needed to protect other rights. So you can't claim an erosion of another right (safety) is an acceptable price to pay for gun rights.
You need to actually show that the degree to which gun rights enhance those other rights outweighs the cost to safety.
"That would be a good argument IF the right in question was a fundamental right (freedom of speech, privacy, safety, etc). But gun rights aren’t fundamental rights, they’re secondary rights."
Really? Where did you take a Civics class at. There's a reason that it is the SECOND Amendment, not the 28th or the 31st.
These people have to pretend that there is no second amendment!
You missed the point.
The 2nd amendment is by definition a right in the US constitution.
That doesn't make it a fundamental right, just something the authors really cared about.
It's true that as a constitutional right it comes at the cost of safety, but that doesn't mean the cost is justified.
If you actually want to demonstrate gun rights are worth the cost in safety you can't just say it's in the US constitution and therefore it means freedom. You need to demonstrate what those gun rights actually buy you in terms of fundamental rights.
Right...............the Founders put the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights because they didn't believe it was a fundamental right....................................
LMFAO
They literally said it here to help maintain a well trained militia.
Maybe someone can tell me why, if anti-gun laws actually work, places like California, Washington, D.C., and Chicago aren't significantly safer than Vermont or New Hampshire?
Because they have large cities with gang problems so you can't compare the two directly.
So, it's not a gun issue. It's a people issue.
Like most things in reality it's a complicated issue.
Yes, there's some people in those cities who are at a much higher likelihood to commit crime.
Yes, if you can reduce the number of guns they have access to you'll also reduce homicides.
Whether the US can do that with municipal or state level gun laws is a question that would need proper research.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that you don't disarm criminals by disarming law abiding citizens. It's really not that complicated.
Thank you for admitting guns aren't the problem.
If guns aren't the problem why do so many Democrats think that antigun laws are going to solve the problem? Oh, that's right. They don't. Each new law is just a place to start so they can pass new, more restrictive laws later.
Most of these people are also against stop and frisk laws. I am against those laws as well but at least they are more closely targeted at the demographics that are more likely to commit violent crimes. Do you think we should be using stop and frisk in the name of safety? Should we weaken 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights in the name of safety? Arguably the weakening or elimination of those rights would do more to increase public safety than magazine bans.
My thinking is that freedom can be dangerous. But lack of freedom is worse.