Some people make the argument that we shouldn't have firearms with high capacity magazines and they often point to mass shootings saying that high capacity mages allow more people to be shot quickly.
Pro gun advocates seem to commonly answer that someone can just carry 9 ten round magazine instead of 3 thirty round magazines and still shoot quickly.

I have been pondering this for some time as I often run arguments and counter arguments through my head. It would seem that this counter argument ends up defeating itself. If the argument is that I can still shoot quickly and just carry more low capacity magazines then they might simple say that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then a size limit regulation doesn't hinder you significantly and you are not suffering any loss. Additionally they might reason that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then something much more restrictive is necessary.

Because of this I generally tend to avoid this argument as it seems to defeat itself.
Thoughts?

Some people make the argument that we shouldn't have firearms with high capacity magazines and they often point to mass shootings saying that high capacity mages allow more people to be shot quickly.
Pro gun advocates seem to commonly answer that someone can just carry 9 ten round magazine instead of 3 thirty round magazines and still shoot quickly.

I have been pondering this for some time as I often run arguments and counter arguments through my head. It would seem that this counter argument ends up defeating itself. If the argument is that I can still shoot quickly and just carry more low capacity magazines then they might simple say that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then a size limit regulation doesn't hinder you significantly and you are not suffering any loss. Additionally they might reason that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then something much more restrictive is necessary.

Because of this I generally tend to avoid this argument as it seems to defeat itself.
Thoughts?

So why bring it up?

Some people make the argument that we shouldn't have firearms with high capacity magazines and they often point to mass shootings saying that high capacity mages allow more people to be shot quickly.
Pro gun advocates seem to commonly answer that someone can just carry 9 ten round magazine instead of 3 thirty round magazines and still shoot quickly.

I have been pondering this for some time as I often run arguments and counter arguments through my head. It would seem that this counter argument ends up defeating itself. If the argument is that I can still shoot quickly and just carry more low capacity magazines then they might simple say that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then a size limit regulation doesn't hinder you significantly and you are not suffering any loss. Additionally they might reason that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then something much more restrictive is necessary.

Because of this I generally tend to avoid this argument as it seems to defeat itself.
Thoughts?

you mean like this demonstration?

The argument is easily found here. Look at the time, effort and interpretation of the laws so that WE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS take so that we are in compliance. You think a criminal will follow these laws? Care? Bank robber: "Oh wait we can't rob the bank with these magazines"  You think these guys complied with any laws about magazine restrictions? http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/08/12/news/story6.html

The argument is easily found here. Look at the time, effort and interpretation of the laws so that WE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS take so that we are in compliance. You think a criminal will follow these laws? Care? Bank robber: "Oh wait we can't rob the bank with these magazines"  You think these guys complied with any laws about magazine restrictions? http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/08/12/news/story6.html

Is this a typo, a reporter error in quoting the prosecutor, an ignorant prosecutor (say it ain't so!) or did they really have a full auto?

"I was very relieved that the jury found you cannot take an automatic assault rifle, aim it at a police officer and fire 25 rounds without intending to kill him," said Deputy Prosecutor Jean Ireton.

Some people make   I have made the argument that we shouldn't have firearms with high capacity magazines and they I often point to mass shootings saying that high capacity mages allow more people to be shot quickly.

Fixed your comment for you!   

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=16441.msg153113#msg153113

Is this a typo, a reporter error in quoting the prosecutor, an ignorant prosecutor (say it ain't so!) or did they really have a full auto?

"I was very relieved that the jury found you cannot take an automatic assault rifle, aim it at a police officer and fire 25 rounds without intending to kill him," said Deputy Prosecutor Jean Ireton.

Not sure if the AR-15 used was ever definitively determined to be Full Auto capable or not.

Officer Rosskopf believed that the person firing at him used an automatic rifle because "the rate of fire was so high," and Talakai testified that Defendant told him that Defendant had fired shots at the officer with his AR-15 rifle switched to fully automatic mode, see State v. Pone, 78 Hawai`i 262, 265, 892 P.2d 455, 458 (1995) (in reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion of the trier of fact); State v. Batson, 73 Hawai`i 236, 248-49, 831 P.2d 924, 931 (1992)

http://hawaii.gov/jud/23820sdo.htm

So why bring it up?

To see what people think. To see if maybe I missed an angle. To provoke further thought among those who might use the argument. To make us all better at verbally defending firearm ownership.

.

Fixed your comment for you!   

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=16441.msg153113#msg153113

Not quite, I repeatedly mentioned that I was discussing concerns/questions brought up by others, specifically those for moderate gun control. I am not going to address that topic here, I am interested in the thoughts of others here on this specific question.

Not quite, I repeatedly mentioned that I was discussing concerns/questions brought up by others, specifically those for moderate gun control. I am not going to address that topic here, I am interested in the thoughts of others here on this specific question.

Really?

I don't need a study to prove that an at-15 with a 100rd mag is much more effective at shooting multiple targets quickly than a 5 round bolt action rifle. If someone went on a killing spree and all things were equal except for the firearm, the person with high capacity and high rate of fire would be able to kill or wound more people. We can say that it is not worth the restriction of our rights but it is a rational conclusion.

Sounds like your opinion, not those of others.   

I see the argument of magazine cap restrictions similar to disarmament. Again these laws don't prevent anything. All this legislation doesn't address the real issue - and its that evil people will do evil things.
On one of our country's most horrific attacks what did the 9/11 hijackers use? Box cutters.
What mag cap lows and other restrictive laws on the very same tools we use to defend ourselves with, is to disarm the citizens and outsource our INALIENABLE right to self-defense to the government. What does that create? A populace that is incapable of supporting themselves. Heck we see it going on right now.
So legislators can go down this neverending road of what-ifs and seize every imaginable tool or they can empower the citizen. One must ask, what would you think our govt. will do? You'd be naive to think  that govt. will naturally gravitate towards empowering its people. WHat we have seen in these past years is making its citizens more reliant and taking away tools of empowerment.

I think this is a worthwhile topic for discussion.  As we all believe that mag limits inhibit our rights, it might be better if we move the topic so as not tip our hand.

Using mag limits only limit those who will follow the restrictions.  Thereby putting the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage.

Ask those mag limit peeps this.... Why are HPD not following these same restrictions imposed on us citizenry?  Because criminals, by definition,  will not follow these asine restrictions, thus they need as much advantage as possible to engage these possible threats.

Using mag limits only limit those who will follow the restrictions.  Thereby putting the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage.

Ask those mag limit peeps this.... Why are HPD not following these same restrictions imposed on us citizenry?  Because criminals, by definition,  will not follow these asine restrictions, thus they need as much advantage as possible to engage these possible threats.

Well now you're just talking crazy common sense........WTF is the matter with you?   

 

Some people make the argument that we shouldn't have firearms with high capacity magazines and they often point to mass shootings saying that high capacity mages allow more people to be shot quickly.
Pro gun advocates seem to commonly answer that someone can just carry 9 ten round magazine instead of 3 thirty round magazines and still shoot quickly.

I have been pondering this for some time as I often run arguments and counter arguments through my head. It would seem that this counter argument ends up defeating itself. If the argument is that I can still shoot quickly and just carry more low capacity magazines then they might simple say that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then a size limit regulation doesn't hinder you significantly and you are not suffering any loss. Additionally they might reason that if you can still shoot quickly with low capacity magazines then something much more restrictive is necessary.

Because of this I generally tend to avoid this argument as it seems to defeat itself.
Thoughts?

May I suggest that you define "high capacity" magazines?

In terms of future legal arguments and attempts to repeal magazine limits, I would further suggest that you use the term "standard capacity" magazine to refer to those magazines that hold more than 10 rounds but are otherwise standard equipment that comes with a handgun when purchasing.

May I suggest that you define "high capacity" magazines?

Bloomberg: 3
Cuomo: 8
Many "gun violence" crusaders: 0

just go with, if hi cap mags are only for killing more people then why do cops have them?

if they reply because the bad guys have them too, then they've just conceded that the law has no effect on criminals.

just go with, if hi cap mags are only for killing more people then why do cops have them?

if they reply because the bad guys have them too, then they've just conceded that the law has no effect on criminals.

Perfect and simple answer.

After a nauseating debate with my ultra liberal relatives in California recently regarding 2A, welfare, etc., I finally got them to concede with a similar statement to yours, here is what I said in a nutshell;

Drugs are illegal right?, well yes.....then why does the Bay Area have such rampant drug use and drug related crime ?AND
firearms are basically illegal in Detroit right?, well yes......then why is it the murder capital of the U.S.?
These statements finally got them to stop, ponder, and had no response....maybe even saw a little, tiny lightbulb go off in their heads.

Laws are only as good as the citizens that abide by them and evil cannot be regulated by law.