Octopus Overlords

After doing some research, I'm willing to revise my glib opinion.

After review, a couple of the top mass shootings involved 100-round magazines. I agree that it is excessive. However, I disagree with the target of 10 rounds.

The M-16 was issued with 20-rd magazines, then expanded to 30. I could certainly get on board with establishing either as a max size for rifles of any type. For pistols, set the size at the maximum for the model, or find the reasonable max for all models for ease. If Glock determines that a standard magazine for a Glock 17 is 17 rounds, then let's establish that as an upper limit.

I think magazine size, fire rate, and what ever the measure for damage/ stopping power is, should all have cap
Perhaps start with what ever those values were when the 2A was written.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:04 pm I think magazine size, fire rate, and what ever the measure for damage/ stopping power is, should all have cap
Perhaps start with what ever those values were when the 2A was written.

Wouldn't that be...one?

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:19 pm For pistols, set the size at the maximum for the model, or find the reasonable max for all models for ease. If Glock determines that a standard magazine for a Glock 17 is 17 rounds, then let's establish that as an upper limit.

"Magazines for pistols cannot extend below the bottom of the grip by more than 1/2 inch, including areas intended for gripping."

But I generally agree that (up to a certain point) magazine size isn't all that much of a factor. It's just too quick and easy to swap magazines to really make a difference, and it doesn't take that long to learn to swap them in a fraction of a second.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:27 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:04 pm I think magazine size, fire rate, and what ever the measure for damage/ stopping power is, should all have cap
Perhaps start with what ever those values were when the 2A was written.

Wouldn't that be...one?

It's just a starting point. "the other side" can then argue for those values to be increased to something that they can politically argue for I suppose.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:31 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:19 pm For pistols, set the size at the maximum for the model, or find the reasonable max for all models for ease. If Glock determines that a standard magazine for a Glock 17 is 17 rounds, then let's establish that as an upper limit.

"Magazines for pistols cannot extend below the bottom of the grip by more than 1/2 inch, including areas intended for gripping."

But I generally agree that (up to a certain point) magazine size isn't all that much of a factor. It's just too quick and easy to swap magazines to really make a difference, and it doesn't take that long to learn to swap them in a fraction of a second.

Am I out of line for suggesting people shouldn't have magazines beyond something as crazy low as like just 2 or 3 shots?

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:36 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:31 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:19 pm For pistols, set the size at the maximum for the model, or find the reasonable max for all models for ease. If Glock determines that a standard magazine for a Glock 17 is 17 rounds, then let's establish that as an upper limit.

"Magazines for pistols cannot extend below the bottom of the grip by more than 1/2 inch, including areas intended for gripping."

But I generally agree that (up to a certain point) magazine size isn't all that much of a factor. It's just too quick and easy to swap magazines to really make a difference, and it doesn't take that long to learn to swap them in a fraction of a second.

Am I out of line for suggesting people shouldn't have magazines beyond something as crazy low as like just 2 or 3 shots?

In order for that particular law to ever pass, you'd need to reach a point at which nobody felt the need for guns for any purpose anymore, and were willing to let it go unopposed. Likewise with the stopping power. We can (maybe) argue right now that guns should be limited to what is necessary for certain functions - hunting and self defense. Hunting requires stopping power. Self defense requires a reasonable number of rounds (let's go with five or six) and it also requires stopping power. To use another analogy, it's like limiting all cars to just one wheel, and all engines to 15 horsepower.

In other words, by the time anyone could actually pass a cap on stopping power and a magazine size of two, they could also pass a straight up all-guns ban.

So to stay in the realms of reality - I'm ok with saying a 5-6 round limit. And what is deemed reasonable stopping power... human without body armor, a deer... Special licenses can be given for something special (protection from bears or boar)... not hard to get - but would require some background check/regulation, etc.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:52 pm And what is deemed reasonable stopping power... human without body armor, a deer...

Once you get to that point, the rest is irrelevant. If you can take down a deer humanely, you can drop any human just as quickly. Nobody is going around a school with a .50 or a .45-70. You either have to limit guns to below what's necessary for humans and medium game, or there's no point in limiting them at all.

MA and CA have 10 round limits. I don't like mag caps under what the production standard is but I can live with 10 rounds.

Regulating "stopping power" would be a mess. You're not only dealing with caliber but also bullet mass (gr weight) and load. Also bullet shape (ball, hollow point, wadcutter, etc), barrel length, all which affect lethality and "stopping power". Armor piercing 5.7 x 28 has less "stopping power" than 9mm but can cut through body armor.

I live in a land where pistol magazines are limited to 10 rounds. How many more do I need in the pistol if the first 10 aren’t gonna cut it?

If you need to take out more than two guys, the chances are that the third one will kill you regardless of how many rounds are left in your magazine.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:11 pm If you need to take out more than two guys, the chances are that the third one will kill you regardless of how many rounds are left in your magazine.

Chances are higher he'll kill you if you have to swap mags.


But it's true, most self defense shootings end in under 5 rounds.

In the overwhelming majority of the incidents where an armed civilian fires a shot in self-defense, probably 70 to 90% of them are able to resolve the situation within 3 or 4 rounds, and usually closer to one or two rounds. Every once in awhile, the good guy fires more like 5 to 8 rounds. And in some very rare instances, we see round counts in the low double digits. And if you look more closely into those instances with the higher round counts, in many cases, the suspect was actually disabled after the first couple of shots, but that wasn’t immediately obvious to the good guy, so they kept firing until the gun was empty or it was clear there was no more threat.

Actually I prefer revolvers myself. But I do put a live round under the hammer. Magazine size is kind of a non issue with me but once again the large sized magazines are too prevalent. Need to find a better solution.
This type of reasoning gets the number of people shot down maybe but it's not stopping the shooting.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Chances are higher he'll kill you if you have to swap mags.

Why does me having to swap mags increase the chances of me getting killed, but a mass murderer having to swap mags doesn’t reduce his effectiveness?

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 8:40 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Chances are higher he'll kill you if you have to swap mags.

Why does me having to swap mags increase the chances of me getting killed, but a mass murderer having to swap mags doesn’t reduce his effectiveness?

Because school children aren't shooting back. A decent shooter can swap mags in under a second (getting there takes an afternoon - a short afternoon - for most people), and an inexperienced shooter in just a couple of seconds, which isn't enough time to make a difference when shooting people standing around, but is enough to make a big difference when you're in a fight.

Just feels odd to make the argument that limiting magazine size is bad because I need to be able to fire as many rounds as possible without pause, but is also useless in slowing mass murderers because they can change mags in less than a second. Seems like if I could change mags in less than a second, then maybe it’s possible for me to have only 10 rounds in the mag - especially since that mag swap is faster than I can accurately fire rounds from the pistol, no? I can fire as fast as I can pull the trigger, but between the recoil and reacquiring the target, that feels like I’m not doing that in 500 ms.

In any case, the mag swap issue is why I would rather make it much more difficult to acquire a semi-automatic rifle.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:07 pm Just feels odd to make the argument that limiting magazine size is bad because I need to be able to fire as many rounds as possible without pause, but is also useless in slowing mass murderers because they can change mags in less than a second. Seems like if I could change mags in less than a second, then maybe it’s possible for me to have only 10 rounds in the mag - especially since that mag swap is faster than I can accurately fire rounds from the pistol, no? I can fire as fast as I can pull the trigger, but between the recoil and reacquiring the target, that feels like I’m not doing that in 500 ms.

In any case, the mag swap issue is why I would rather make it much more difficult to acquire a semi-automatic rifle.

I mentioned it in the other thread, but let me be more clear here about my point: It wouldn't be without benefits. It would save lives. I would be willing to be that in long term, it would save single digits of lives per year. And if we could pass every measure we wanted, that would be in there. But in the grand scheme of what would be effective for saving lives, it would be very, very minor. Limiting magazine size is not bad. It's just not the best choice. And we cannot pass every measure we want, so if we can pass anything, it needs to be something that counts.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:41 pm Limiting magazine size is not bad. It's just not the best choice. And we cannot pass every measure we want, so if we can pass anything, it needs to be something that counts.

I'm just not sure you hear it... what you just said is indeed heirloom quality "perfect is the enemy of good".

“Perfect is the enemy of good” is a quote usually attributed to Voltaire. He actually wrote that the “best is the enemy of the good” (il meglio è nemico del bene) and cited it as an old Italian proverb in 1770, but the phrase was translated into English as “perfect” and made its way into common parlance in that form.

I also don't understand why you think that we are only allowed to pass one thing and then we are done. Why can't we try to pass the "not bad" thing, then also try to pass the "best choice"?

Unagi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:19 pm Why can't we try to pass the "not bad" thing, then also try to pass the "best choice"?

Because with the current system, we'll be very, very lucky to pass one thing. And I think, if we do manage to, we need to make sure it counts.

Again, crossing the threads: If you know the "not bad" thing and you know the "best choice", what's next? How do you pass them? Right now we have a tiny big more inertia than in the past - not much, but a little. We've got one dollar. No matter how bad we want to, we can't get the bubble gum and the comic book.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:26 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:19 pm Why can't we try to pass the "not bad" thing, then also try to pass the "best choice"?

Because with the current system, we'll be very, very lucky to pass one thing. And I think, if we do manage to, we need to make sure it counts.

Again, crossing the threads: If you know the "not bad" thing and you know the "best choice", what's next? How do you pass them? Right now we have a tiny big more inertia than in the past - not much, but a little. We've got one dollar. No matter how bad we want to, we can't get the bubble gum and the comic book.

But the bubble gum may cost exactly one dollar. And the comic book likely costs three (but comes with some bubble gum too!), or we wouldn't be talking about this.

If all things are equal - of course: go with the 'Best Choice', but this whole discussion is usually more like "Oh sure, we may be able to do X - but that's a drop in the bucket compared to Y... let's focus on Y." While ignoring that it all started with the idea that X was within reach.

What’s the best choice? I hope it’s not “fix the government”, because you don’t know what that means (based on your responses elsewhere). I’m not trying to argue, so don’t get me wrong. I’m trying to understand what exactly you think we should do.

Specifically.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:28 pm Specifically.

I did address that elsewhere. I don't have to know specifically how to fix a problem to recognize that it is the thing that is causing the larger issue.

The issues with our current government are preventing progress on any number of issues, guns included.

Any of us can give examples of what I'm talking about, and any of us can point out some of the abuses and loopholes that are part of it. But if we can't pass any progressive legislation or take any progressive action, we have to figure out how to deal with that problem before we can deal with any specific subject that the GOP doesn't agree with.

I don't have to know the solution to recognize the problem.

Well, some good news for Blackhawk maybe

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/04 ... un-reform/

Follow the money. And it has felt like Uvalde is different, maybe it can be...

Blackhawk wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:28 pm Specifically.

I don't have to know the solution to recognize the problem.

Of course not, but in the other thread you said we had to instead “fix the government”. I asked what that meant, and you didn’t have an answer.

What problem is it that you’d like other people to figure out how to solve first? “Fix the government” isn’t a problem that I can figure out how to solve. What needs to be fixed about the government first, before we can do anything about mass shootings.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the magazine size thread.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:19 pm

Blackhawk wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:28 pm Specifically.

I don't have to know the solution to recognize the problem.

Of course not, but in the other thread you said we had to instead “fix the government”. I asked what that meant, and you didn’t have an answer.

What problem is it that you’d like other people to figure out how to solve first? “Fix the government” isn’t a problem that I can figure out how to solve. What needs to be fixed about the government first, before we can do anything about mass shootings.

I thought it was obvious (and I may have been wrong) that I was talking about the abuses and loopholes that allow Mitch McConnell (primarily - and others, and whoever inherits his role next if we don't step up) to effectively have an unlimited veto regardless of who won the vote, and that (amongst other things) they've used it to ensure that the one recourse we normally have to address it (to vote them out of office) has been heavily corrupted to prevent just that. Add in the fact that they're personally profiting by not taking action, and that they're using that power to effectively force the entire party to toe the line rather than doing what they were elected to do. They've learned to very effectively abuse the system, and until that aspect of the government is fixed, everything else is off of the table.

And I'm sure that there are a number of other factors that I don't recognize. And that isn't even touching on the Supreme Court, which has become their safety net.

Unless you have Uncle Mitch's permission, it isn't happening. And Unky Mitch doesn't like gun control bills. They cost him money. And until that's fixed, not much else is happening.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:29 pm Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the magazine size thread.

Yeah, but my banana clip is bigger.

Isgrimnur wrote:Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the magazine size thread.

And yet I can fight in here.

BH - what do we do if the problem you are talking about is even less fixable than gun control?

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:42 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the magazine size thread.

And yet I can fight in here.

BH - what do we do if the problem you are talking about is even less fixable than gun control?

If I consider gun control (currently) unfixable, and the thing that makes it (and other problems, like medical reform and climate change) unfixable is less fixable, then we are in a state of 'screwed.'

Which we may be.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:29 pm Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the magazine size thread.

Well, maybe if we had a Firearm Policy-"Fix the Government" thread...

Making the magazine size smaller makes people (especially politicians) feel better but it doesn't solve or even alleviate the problem. Until you can convert all the gun nuts like me into giving up their guns there is no solution.

dbt1949 wrote:Making the magazine size smaller makes people (especially politicians) feel better but it doesn't solve or even alleviate the problem. Until you can convert all the gun nuts like me into giving up their guns there is no solution.

And yet somehow making me having a smaller mag puts me in harms way.

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:04 pm Making the magazine size smaller makes people (especially politicians) feel better but it doesn't solve or even alleviate the problem. Until you can convert all the gun nuts like me into giving up their guns there is no solution.

It’s not a zero sum game. I get a little frustrated with this belief that any attempt at gun law reform instantly means “big government is taking everyone’s guns in preparation for world domination!”.

We regulate motor vehicles to a much greater degree than we do guns, for crying out loud.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:07 pm Just feels odd to make the argument that limiting magazine size is bad because I need to be able to fire as many rounds as possible without pause, but is also useless in slowing mass murderers because they can change mags in less than a second. Seems like if I could change mags in less than a second, then maybe it’s possible for me to have only 10 rounds in the mag - especially since that mag swap is faster than I can accurately fire rounds from the pistol, no?

As noted, mass shooters usually aren't dealing with anyone shooting back so a second here or there isn't a huge deal. OTOH, in a self defense situation a decent shooter can get 3 or 4 rounds on target in the time it takes to swap mags.

But a few things on favor of mag limits. In a mass shooter situation, every mag change has the potential of introducing failure. Misaligned mags, backwards mags, chambering malfunctions, etc. Under pressure these things can happen. However, the same applies to legit gun use. And a lot of mass shooters are detached from reality and don't see to have any stress as they shoot unarmed kids.


The comically large drum mags that at currently in favor of gangs here are actually mixed bag. They make accurate shooting nearly impossible, which is bad for bystanders but good for targets. They also have an extremely high failure rates and hinder concealabilty. The number of police stops that yield firearms is way up because of mags sticking out of pants or from under a car seat.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:07 pm I can fire as fast as I can pull the trigger, but between the recoil and reacquiring the target, that feels like I’m not doing that in 500 ms.

Have you fired an AR15 or 9mm subgun with a red dot? You can easily shoot with both eyes open, acquiring targets at will and the recoil is negligible. As fast as you can see something and put the dot on it you can shoot it. It honestly feels like a cheat code or something. And it's not like you need hundreds of hours. Any disgruntled kid with a few hundred rounds and YouTube can get the hang of it.

Sure, for a .45 1911 you aren't shooting that fast where fast mag change makes a huge difference. "Stopping power", hit placement, speed. Choose two. Unless you have an AR15 (or similar). Then you get all three.

And, FWIW, for most handguns other than revolvers and many rifles, changing magazines isn't visual. If done properly, you never take your eyes - or the sights - off of the target.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am And, FWIW, for most handguns other than revolvers and many rifles, changing magazines isn't visual. If done properly, you never take your eyes - or the sights - off of the target.

No offense intended at all (nor perhaps taken, just being careful) -- But to me that's not really worth much at all, as we most often are not talking about someone with hundreds (nor dozens) of hours training on how to quick exchange magazines.

But - point taken.

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:08 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am And, FWIW, for most handguns other than revolvers and many rifles, changing magazines isn't visual. If done properly, you never take your eyes - or the sights - off of the target.

No offense intended at all (nor perhaps taken, just being careful) -- But to me that's not really worth much at all, as we most often are not talking about someone with hundreds (nor dozens) of hours training on how to quick exchange magazines.

But - point taken.

Twos of hours. Maybe.

With regard to my point about the mag switch time, I was talking specifically about a handgun, not an AR-15.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:21 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:08 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am And, FWIW, for most handguns other than revolvers and many rifles, changing magazines isn't visual. If done properly, you never take your eyes - or the sights - off of the target.

No offense intended at all (nor perhaps taken, just being careful) -- But to me that's not really worth much at all, as we most often are not talking about someone with hundreds (nor dozens) of hours training on how to quick exchange magazines.

But - point taken.

Twos of hours. Maybe.

I'd say more like 5 to get started but it's also a perishable skill. If you don't keep practicing you'll lose it. Muscle memory and fine motor skills.