Why didn't you respond to my post above about (what you call) the "rational" argument, and which you claim the proposers of the mag limit are "correct in their reasoning", that if you really believe that "mag limits might end up saving a life or two through the increased amount of time people have to flee," that the logical position to adopt is to ban all firearms other than single-shot muzzleloaders? Clearly that argument "isn't irrational and isn't just emotion", according to you, so please tell us why and how you would rebut such an argument. Certainly if a 10 round magazine capacity has the benefit of saving some lives, single shot firearms with a reload time of at least 20 seconds would save even more lives. So you don't think saving more lives is the morally correct thing to do? Your rebuttal is that "the amount of people saved would be very small in number"? What if that "small number" includes your child or spouse or parent? It will be someone's child or spouse or parent. Your "objective" rebuttal is lacking.

I admit I don't have the perfect rebuttals to every anti-gun argument that exists. This is why I "play test" various arguments, I find holes that I hadn't previously realized and perhaps find holes in other's arguments that they hadn't realized. The end result is a more solid argument. And if no one has a good rebuttal then I objectively reexamine my position on a matter.

Now as to your specific challenges it can go back and forth.
-I would argue that limiting firearms to single shot only would place an undue restriction on the ability of someone to use a firearm to protect themselves since missing one shot leaves you at a big disadvantage. Thus we need more than just 1 -3 rounds. I would show that under stress at close distances even trained shooters will miss a significant numbers of shots and even then many of those shots might not be in vital areas.
-Now the strongest argument I would anticipate from the gun control crowd would be to say, that they do realize you need more than just a couple rounds and suggest a "reasonable" number. They apparently often suggest 10 as that number.
-I would counter by saying that there might be more than one dangerous individual or animal.
-I anticipate that their counter argument would be to ask how often someone needs to defend themselves from a large number of attackers where you would need 30 rounds or 75 rounds, etc. Additionally they would likely add that if there is more than one attacker that you can just reload.
-I would argue that with more rounds I might be able to stop an attacker or a mass shooter.
-They would argue that with more rounds shot there would also be a higher chance of an unintended target being hit. They would then revert to my previous argument about even trained shoters missing under stress to further support their argument that a large number of rounds would miss the target. (double edged sword)
-I would point out that mass shootings are rare and that such a mag limit of ten would not likely save that many lives. (If I point out that reloading takes time then all I really did was introduce a double edged sword that they can use right back against me)
-I anticipate that they would then argue it is not very common for an individual to be attacked by a large number of individuals so the amount of people suffering injury from not having a 18 round pistol mag instead of two ten round magazines would also not be statistically significant. Essentially arguming that a ten round magazine limit is not an undue burden or restriction on someone's rights. (the rarity of a certain type of shooting can also end up being a double edged sword)
-I could argue that the 2nd amendment says they cannot limit magazine sizes however if I do that then I never really beat the reasoning of their argument, I just changed subjects. I prefer to actually defeat their reasoning instead. So I will admit I get a little stuck here, I am not sure what rebuttal to offer to the last point the other side would likely make.
-I could go down the road that a legal gun owner has done nothing wrong worth taking away their rights
-But they would counter that the rights lost are not a significant burden and that the lives saved are worth the minor burden. Additionally they might point out that many mass shooters and murderers were legal law abiding gun owners until such time that they actually comitted the crime.
-Also the problem with the question of whether the burden is unreasonable ends up becomming a subjective opinion instead of a objective argument. Similar to a bicycle helmet law, the question isn't so much who is supported by fact but a mere opinion on whether it is something worth legislating. If I want to change their opinion I need to beat the logic. I need to objectively show that the burden they propose is unreasonable and I am not sure how else to do that.

So are there any angles you think I have left out in exploring this debate?

I admit I don't have the perfect rebuttals to every anti-gun argument that exists. This is why I "play test" various arguments, I find holes that I hadn't previously realized and perhaps find holes in other's arguments that they hadn't realized. The end result is a more solid argument. And if no one has a good rebuttal then I objectively reexamine my position on a matter.

Now as to your specific challenges it can go back and forth.
-I would argue that limiting firearms to single shot only would place an undue restriction on the ability of someone to use a firearm to protect themselves since missing one shot leaves you at a big disadvantage. Thus we need more than just 1 -3 rounds. I would show that under stress at close distances even trained shooters will miss a significant numbers of shots and even then many of those shots might not be in vital areas.
-Now the strongest argument I would anticipate from the gun control crowd would be to say, that they do realize you need more than just a couple rounds and suggest a "reasonable" number. They apparently often suggest 10 as that number.
-I would counter by saying that there might be more than one dangerous individual or animal.
-I anticipate that their counter argument would be to ask how often someone needs to defend themselves from a large number of attackers where you would need 30 rounds or 75 rounds, etc. Additionally they would likely add that if there is more than one attacker that you can just reload.
-I would argue that with more rounds I might be able to stop an attacker or a mass shooter.
-They would argue that with more rounds shot there would also be a higher chance of an unintended target being hit. They would then revert to my previous argument about even trained shoters missing under stress to further support their argument that a large number of rounds would miss the target. (double edged sword)
-I would point out that mass shootings are rare and that such a mag limit of ten would not likely save that many lives. (If I point out that reloading takes time then all I really did was introduce a double edged sword that they can use right back against me)
-I anticipate that they would then argue it is not very common for an individual to be attacked by a large number of individuals so the amount of people suffering injury from not having a 18 round pistol mag instead of two ten round magazines would also not be statistically significant. Essentially arguming that a ten round magazine limit is not an undue burden or restriction on someone's rights. (the rarity of a certain type of shooting can also end up being a double edged sword)
-I could argue that the 2nd amendment says they cannot limit magazine sizes however if I do that then I never really beat the reasoning of their argument, I just changed subjects. I prefer to actually defeat their reasoning instead. So I will admit I get a little stuck here, I am not sure what rebuttal to offer to the last point the other side would likely make.
-I could go down the road that a legal gun owner has done nothing wrong worth taking away their rights
-But they would counter that the rights lost are not a significant burden and that the lives saved are worth the minor burden. Additionally they might point out that many mass shooters and murderers were legal law abiding gun owners until such time that they actually comitted the crime.
-Also the problem with the question of whether the burden is unreasonable ends up becomming a subjective opinion instead of a objective argument. Similar to a bicycle helmet law, the question isn't so much who is supported by fact but a mere opinion on whether it is something worth legislating. If I want to change their opinion I need to beat the logic. I need to objectively show that the burden they propose is unreasonable and I am not sure how else to do that.

So are there any angles you think I have left out in exploring this debate?

You are WAY over thinking all of this.  It's so simple:

Q:  Why do Cops carry standard capacity mags of 15-17 rounds on average?

A:  Because they have to defend themselves against criminals, sometimes multiples.  They need at least as much firepower as the criminals might possess whether or not the criminal legally obtained these standard capacity magazines.

Q:  Are the criminals the Cops encounter any different than the ones civilians encounter? 

A:  There is no difference.  Consider the fact that Cops don't "just know" where the criminals are.  They are normally responding to a 911 call by a civilian.  So, both Cops and civilians are facing the same types of threats.  The frequency with which Cops encounter criminals may or may not be higher than a given civilian -- that is completely irrelevant as it is often dependent on where you live.

Q:  Are Civilians' lives as important as Cops?

A:  Yes, especially mine and my family's!!

CONCLUSION:  Given that both group's lives are important, and both groups potentially face the same threats, civilians are as justified in availing themselves of standard capacity magazines as Cops.

The end.

  Rational means based on truth or knowledge, not a belief.

How about a simple video demonstration of 30 round magazines vs 100 round magazines. Is this enough truth for you?
Now imagine the difference between the recorded times and 10 round magazines. Make no mistake it is rational.

You are WAY over thinking all of this.  It's so simple:

Q:  Why do Cops carry standard capacity mags of 15-17 rounds on average?

A:  Because they have to defend themselves against criminals, sometimes multiples.  They need at least as much firepower as the criminals might possess whether or not the criminal legally obtained these standard capacity magazines.

Q:  Are the criminals the Cops encounter any different than the ones civilians encounter? 

A:  There is no difference.  Consider the fact that Cops don't "just know" where the criminals are.  They are normally responding to a 911 call by a civilian.  So, both Cops and civilians are facing the same types of threats.  The frequency with which Cops encounter criminals may or may not be higher than a given civilian -- that is completely irrelevant as it is often dependent on where you live.

Q:  Are Civilians' lives as important as Cops?

A:  Yes, especially mine and my family's!!

CONCLUSION:  Given that both group's lives are important, and both groups potentially face the same threats, civilians are as justified in availing themselves of standard capacity magazines as Cops.

The end.

Another aspect of the "exceptions" made for cops (and some military) is that the exemption from the 10-round magazine limit applies when they are off duty and carrying concealed in civilian clothes and no more subject to criminal attack than any other civilian. Why? Yeah, I know, they're "special" and the "only ones" trained well enough to handle a 12 or 17 round mag and cops never commit crimes (except that they commit gun crimes at a higher rate than civilian CCW license/permit holders).

How about a simple video demonstration of 30 round magazines vs 100 round magazines. Is this enough truth for you?
Now imagine the difference between the recorded times and 10 round magazines. Make no mistake it is rational.

Oh, we get full auto but 10 round mags? Yeah, that seems rational.

How about a simple video demonstration of 30 round magazines vs 100 round magazines. Is this enough truth for you?
Now imagine the difference between the recorded times and 10 round magazines. Make no mistake it is rational.

Where in the video did they demonstrate the "lives that can be saved" during a mag change?

Points that make this video irrelevant to the mag capacity limits argument:

1.  He's using a fully automatic rifle.  How many mass shooters have used those in recent memory?  The rate of fire for that rifle is already going to give an advantage  to the 100-rd mags, since it takes him less time to dump a 30rd mag than to swap it.  In an active shooter scenario using a semi-auto rifle, the shooter is going to be picking off targets a few bursts maybe at a time.  Total times would be much closer if using both capacity mags the same way in a semi.  Remember, this demonstration is for use in a firefight.  How many mass shootings have resulted in such a situation where the shooter would have this kind of advantage?  Normally they commit suicide before that happens.

2.  He paused during the first 30rd mag dump.  That added a couple of seconds.

3.  He used 7 - 30rd mags for 200 rds.  That's 6 changes.  Difference in total times was 19.01 seconds.  19.01 / 6 = 3.168 seconds per change.

Please demonstrate how that 3.168 second pause can be considered in any way a "window of opportunity" in an attempt to escape, disarm the shooter, or call for help!!

Oh, we get full auto but 10 round mags? Yeah, that seems rational.

Full auto has nothing to do with it. What is being demonstrated is how much faster the high cap magazines are able to put lead down range via fewer reloads. The reload times would not change if the demonstrator used semi auto. The video would just be a lot longer.

Please demonstrate how that 3.168 second pause can be considered in any way a "window of opportunity" in an attempt to escape, disarm the shooter, or call for help!!

The demonstrator appears to be proficient with the ar-15, probably moreso than the average criminal but lets still use his average. Now take the batman movie theater shooting which I cannot recall the name of right now. The individual goes in and starts blasting. Lets say he has to reload twice because he could only get 10 round mags instead of a 30 round magazine. Do you mean to tell me that the additional 6 seconds won't allow more people to fleet the room? Do we really need some study to be performed to find out how many people could get out in that additional 6 seconds to prove anything to prove what I am saying? 6 seconds is a long time in a shooting incident.

How about a simple video demonstration of 30 round magazines vs 100 round magazines. Is this enough truth for you?
Now imagine the difference between the recorded times and 10 round magazines. Make no mistake it is rational.

You offered no real insight into how this will be a practical solution to anything.  The shooter takes a few seconds to reload?  He does it more than once?  Where is the commentary on the result?  I'm referring to your supporting evidence, not just you making deductions again.

You keep focusing on ways to make an active shooter LESS LETHAL, right?  Answer this:  can you make the shooter LESS-THAN-LETHAL without banning guns, knives, explosives, cars, hammers, bats, ice picks, screw drivers, forks, other ordinary household and industrial tools, poisons, ropes, and so on?

The answer is, OF COURSE YOU CAN'T MAKE ANYONE LESS-THAN-LETHAL if they know what they are doing and have the means, both inclusive and exclusive of guns.

Therefore, until you can make the chances of surviving any mass murder acceptable TO ME (and on a rational, non-emotional basis),  I submit there is no "common sense" or "rational" method for making any mass murderer less lethal enough to solve the problem.

Hence, the part of the equation you need to look at is balancing active shooter firepower with intended victim firepower.  Guns are the great equalizers.  When you try to limit the firepower of guns for one side and not  the other (because laws are not effective for limiting criminals), you have created an imbalance in favor of the shooter.  Gun free zones are an example of how uneven that balance can become.

We need to focus on making the intended targets MORE LETHAL, not trying to see if we can make potential shooters LESS LETHAL.

You are WAY over thinking all of this.  It's so simple:

Q:  Why do Cops carry standard capacity mags of 15-17 rounds on average?

A:  Because they have to defend themselves against criminals, sometimes multiples.  They need at least as much firepower as the criminals might possess whether or not the criminal legally obtained these standard capacity magazines.

Q:  Are the criminals the Cops encounter any different than the ones civilians encounter? 

A:  There is no difference.  Consider the fact that Cops don't "just know" where the criminals are.  They are normally responding to a 911 call by a civilian.  So, both Cops and civilians are facing the same types of threats.  The frequency with which Cops encounter criminals may or may not be higher than a given civilian -- that is completely irrelevant as it is often dependent on where you live.

Q:  Are Civilians' lives as important as Cops?

A:  Yes, especially mine and my family's!!

CONCLUSION:  Given that both group's lives are important, and both groups potentially face the same threats, civilians are as justified in availing themselves of standard capacity magazines as Cops.
The end.

Ok the first one is a good point but the second one doesn't always hold true. The average civillian is not going to face all the same criminals. The average civillian is not going to enter into someone's house or try to arrest someone with a warrant, etc. I wouldn't consider that a very strong argument. Come to think of it I think we could expand on the first one a bit for a stronger argument. When stores are robbed there is often more than one suspect and they are often armed. The store owner may need those extra 5-7 rounds aand is at an elevated risk for facing such an encounter.

The demonstrator appears to be proficient with the ar-15, probably moreso than the average criminal but lets still use his average. Now take the batman movie theater shooting which I cannot recall the name of right now. The individual goes in and starts blasting. Lets say he has to reload twice because he could only get 10 round mags instead of a 30 round magazine. Do you mean to tell me that the additional 6 seconds won't allow more people to fleet the room? Do we really need some study to be performed to find out how many people could get out in that additional 6 seconds to prove anything to prove what I am saying? 6 seconds is a long time in a shooting incident.

Since what you are saying is purely subjective and without any supporting reports that people were able to live in that 2 x 3-second intervals, then YES, you need more than that.

What you failed toi show is that the use of a 100-rd magazine actually saved lives because it malfunctioned.  Lower capacity magazines are usually more reliable.  Had he used 10 or 30 rd mags and not a "high capacitty" one, more people would have died.

Ok the first one is a good point but the second one doesn't always hold true. The average civillian is not going to face all the same criminals. The average civillian is not going to enter into someone's house or try to arrest someone with a warrant, etc. I wouldn't consider that a very strong argument. Come to think of it I think we could expand on the first one a bit for a stronger argument. When stores are robbed there is often more than one suspect and they are often armed. The store owner may need those extra 5-7 rounds aand is at an elevated risk for facing such an encounter.

Don't cherry pick your criminals, and don't equate serving a high-risk warrant with a mugging or home invasion.

When Cops serve warrants on known drug houses, are they carrying JUST their service sidearm?  I think they might have better arms than that.  Apples and oranges.

I didn't say all civilians cross paths with all the same types of criminals as Cops, but when a Cop comes to help you during a break-in, he's not carrying a 10-rd limited magazine, is he?  You are facing that same criminal and should have the same right to arm yourself as the Cop.

You keep focusing on ways to make an active shooter LESS LETHAL, right?  Answer this:  can you make the shooter LESS-THAN-LETHAL without banning guns, knives, explosives, cars, hammers, bats, ice picks, screw drivers, forks, other ordinary household and industrial tools, poisons, ropes, and so on?

I think that the question here is where do you draw the line so we can maximize protection while limiting the restriction of people's rights. Those who believe in a mag size limit will say that having 10 rounds instead of 15 is a very minor restriction while we say this is a significant restriction. Certain rights can be restricted in as minimal way as possible if the need is great enough. When it comes to drawing the line some of it comes down to subjective opinion. Two people can look at the exact same set of facts and still arrive at a different opinion. I cannot force someone to like vanilla over chocolate even though vanilla is obviously better but if I make a good enough argument then maybe I can get them to reconsider their opinion.

Since what you are saying is purely subjective and without any supporting reports that people were able to live in that 2 x 3-second intervals, then YES, you need more than that.

What you failed toi show is that the use of a 100-rd magazine actually saved lives because it malfunctioned.  Lower capacity magazines are usually more reliable.  Had he used 10 or 30 rd mags and not a "high capacitty" one, more people would have died.

Now you are adding things. We are talking about an all things equal comparrison.

How is it subjective? It takes time for a crowded room to empty. More time means more people are able to empty. I am not claiming a certain number here, I am not saying it would save 3.5 people per second or any such claim that would require some objective testing.

Ok, how about my own personal experience. I play paintball and I pay with pump guns with have ten round capacity. That reload time puts me at a disadvantage, it affects how fast I am able to shoot at targets. I have flanked people and they move before I can shoot them because I am having to reload more often. Playing with a large magazine makes a big difference. I can invite you to come play paintball with me if you think I am making this up.

Don't cherry pick your criminals, and don't equate serving a high-risk warrant with a mugging or home invasion.

When Cops serve warrants on known drug houses, are they carrying JUST their service sidearm?  I think they might have better arms than that.  Apples and oranges.

I didn't say all civilians cross paths with all the same types of criminals as Cops, but when a Cop comes to help you during a break-in, he's not carrying a 10-rd limited magazine, is he?  You are facing that same criminal and should have the same right to arm yourself as the Cop.

I generally agree, I just get over technical sometimes and nitpick the small details. I was personally thinking of instances where an officer responds to a domestic violence case inside someone's home as IIRC these are especially dangerous. But yes they would be facing the same home invader as the homeowner.

I think that the question here is where do you draw the line so we can maximize protection while limiting the restriction of people's rights. Those who believe in a mag size limit will say that having 10 rounds instead of 15 is a very minor restriction while we say this is a significant restriction. Certain rights can be restricted in as minimal way as possible if the need is great enough. When it comes to drawing the line some of it comes down to subjective opinion. Two people can look at the exact same set of facts and still arrive at a different opinion. I cannot force someone to like vanilla over chocolate even though vanilla is obviously better but if I make a good enough argument then maybe I can get them to reconsider their opinion.

Wrong.  I do not say mag limits are a "significant restriction."  I say it is a non-solution to an invented problem that makes little to no difference in an active shooter scenario.  It's arbitrary and will cause the deaths of more people than it saves.  The limit is not the issue.  The issue is whether you want a politician to tell you how many bullets will be enough if you ever have to fire your gun.  Would you not think that is your decision to make?

Now you are adding things. We are talking about an all things equal comparrison.

How is it subjective? It takes time for a crowded room to empty. More time means more people are able to empty. I am not claiming a certain number here, I am not saying it would save 3.5 people per second or any such claim that would require some objective testing.

Ok, how about my own personal experience. I play paintball and I pay with pump guns with have ten round capacity. That reload time puts me at a disadvantage, it affects how fast I am able to shoot at targets. I have flanked people and they move before I can shoot them because I am having to reload more often. Playing with a large magazine makes a big difference. I can invite you to come play paintball with me if you think I am making this up.

No we are not!  You used this specific example.  I merely used the facts of the actual event, not some academic "let's look at this in a vacuum" bullshit.

Have you ever programmed simulations for real word events?  I have many times.  It's one of the many jobs I've had. 

One thing all simulations need" random calculations to drive the scenario. That's because not all factors can be imagined.  The real world is more random than "it takes a room a certain amount of time to empty."  Really?  We aren't talking about an orderly egress, but a stampede of terrified people pushing and shoving and getting trampled.  Tell me again how you can guess-timate how long emptying that theater will take.

Ok, how about my own personal experience. I play paintball and I pay with pump guns with have ten round capacity. That reload time puts me at a disadvantage, it affects how fast I am able to shoot at targets. I have flanked people and they move before I can shoot them because I am having to reload more often. Playing with a large magazine makes a big difference. I can invite you to come play paintball with me if you think I am making this up.

You may have just made the opposing point here...  Let's break it down:

"I play paintball with pump guns with have ten round capacity."  Making you the "law abiding citizen" in our scenario.

"That reload time puts me at a disadvantage." Because you, as a law-abiding armed citizen, chose to abide by the law...  something that criminals, like mass shooters, are notoriously unlikely to do.

"Playing with large magazines makes a big difference." Exactly.  And the player with the standard capacity magazines (describing them as "large capacity" plays into their argument that those mags are somehow abnormal and dangerous) is the "mass shooter" in our scenario, who is VERY unlikely to follow magazine size limit laws.

So, all else being equal, our "mass shooter" (with standard capacity magazines) has a significant advantage over our "law abiding, armed citizen" (with restricted capacity magazines).  That seems to me like a pretty powerful argument for NOT trying to restrict magazine capacity...

No we are not!  You used this specific example.  I merely used the facts of the actual event, not some academic "let's look at this in a vacuum" bullshit.

Have you ever programmed simulations for real word events?  I have many times.  It's one of the many jobs I've had. 

One thing all simulations need" random calculations to drive the scenario. That's because not all factors can be imagined.  The real world is more random than "it takes a room a certain amount of time to empty."  Really?  We aren't talking about an orderly egress, but a stampede of terrified people pushing and shoving and getting trampled.  Tell me again how you can guess-timate how long emptying that theater will take.

I never claimed to know how many people would be able to exit in an extra 3 - 6 seconds, only that with more delay there will be more chance to flee and this may result in more people surviving. If this is a big open area that extra 3-6 secondsd means people can run that much farther.

Yes we can throw in all sorts of curve balls into scenarios but when comparing them it should be compared evenly. Someone might trip and block the doorway but this is just as likely whether the suspect uses 10 or a 100 round mag.

However I would agree with your previous post, I don't think this would result in a significant number of lives saved and that would be my argument against it.

You may have just made the opposing point here...  Let's break it down:

"I play paintball with pump guns with have ten round capacity."  Making you the "law abiding citizen" in our scenario.

"That reload time puts me at a disadvantage." Because you, as a law-abiding armed citizen, chose to abide by the law...  something that criminals, like mass shooters, are notoriously unlikely to do.

"Playing with large magazines makes a big difference." Exactly.  And the player with the standard capacity magazines (describing them as "large capacity" plays into their argument that those mags are somehow abnormal and dangerous) is the "mass shooter" in our scenario, who is VERY unlikely to follow magazine size limit laws.

So, all else being equal, our "mass shooter" (with standard capacity magazines) has a significant advantage over our "law abiding, armed citizen" (with restricted capacity magazines).  That seems to me like a pretty powerful argument for NOT trying to restrict magazine capacity...

Indeed my example can be used to argue both sides. Yes a criminal might still be able to get a high cap mag even if illegal but it would make it more difficult. Realistically, most people who would CCW wouldn't carry high cap magazines, carrying a full size pistol isn't comfortable. So I think most good citizens who would confront an active shooter would be at a round disadvantage anyway.

If I had to choose betwen one or the other I would be more interested in fighting to get CCW legal than have high cap mags legal.

As Maui sugested, this is not a sollution to the problem on hand. I would suggest that we could save many many more lives through things done at the social level than by limiting mag size. We solve family problems and bullying problems and we will save a lot more lives.