Why do people use rare occurrences of mass shootings to justify limiting magazine capacities when the reality is that more law abiding people should have the option to protect themselves and others with the exact same capacities the Cops use.

I see 2 main themes in their arguments to answer that question:
1. Mass shootings get the most attention given the extremely violent nature and senselessness of it.
2. They think that if it saves a few lives then it is worth it. If if restricting you and I to ten round magazines allows one more victim to escape then it was work it in their mind.

I'm tired of people who think limiting the rights of millions who do nothing illegal will somehow prevent a criminal from obtaining illegal mags or finding other ways to circumvent the law (like carrying multiple weapons, planning his route so he's not exposed during reloads, firing the entire time from cover, etc, etc)

Agreed. I think it would be effective but that doesn't mean it justifies restricting all of our rights. Every time I point out that banning alcohol would save lots of lives too (more in fact), they abandon that same logic though!

Why are Cops exempted? 

My guess is that it can be justified because cops go through more serious background checks and regular training.

My guess is that it can be justified because cops go through more serious background checks and regular training.

lol
how often is the training that you do that you consider it "regular"?

Maybe you would like to participate in a controlled study and get shot at to see if you have a smaller chance of getting hit but I will pass.

How about this, if you had to shoot 30 rounds as fast as possible, would you choose a single 30 round magazine or 3 ten round magazines? My guess is you wouldn't need a scientific test to find out. Reloading takes time, why do you need a scientific test to prove this?

But check out this video. Having to reload added time to their shooting. All other things being equal are you going to tell me those extra couple of seconds won't make any difference in someone running from or attacking the threat?

Cool story bro 😎.  Again, you don’t offer any proof that mag limits result in lives being saved during a mass shooting.  All you’re doing is reguritating your theory in different ways.  You can’t cite a survivor from one of the recent mass shootings because there aren’t any that anyone can find.  So tell me how your theory would have resulted in more survivors of the worst mass shooting in modern Hawaii history - Xerox.

Maybe you would like to participate in a controlled study and get shot at to see if you have a smaller chance of getting hit but I will pass.

How about this, if you had to shoot 30 rounds as fast as possible, would you choose a single 30 round magazine or 3 ten round magazines? My guess is you wouldn't need a scientific test to find out. Reloading takes time, why do you need a scientific test to prove this?

But check out this video. Having to reload added time to their shooting. All other things being equal are you going to tell me those extra couple of seconds won't make any difference in someone running from or attacking the threat?

How many active shooters obeyed any magazine law?  Let's use Hawaii as an example since it's here.  Uyesugi used standard glock mags 15rds.  The mag limit was passed 2 years prior and there is no grandfather clause. 

So an active shooter will break the following laws: Murder, attempted murder, probably transporting a firearm in an illegal manner (depending on the state), gun free zone (depending on the location of shooting) but yet for some miracle reason, they will use 10rd magazines and not standard mags.  If they will abide by a 10rd magazine law, why don't we make the law 1 rd?

The only exception is Niklaus Cruz for some reason, he used 10rd mags.  And he also calmly ate at McDonalds after as well.

How many active shooters obeyed any magazine law?  Let's use Hawaii as an example since it's here.  Uyesugi used standard glock mags 15rds.  The mag limit was passed 2 years prior and there is no grandfather clause. 

So an active shooter will break the following laws: Murder, attempted murder, probably transporting a firearm in an illegal manner (depending on the state), gun free zone (depending on the location of shooting) but yet for some miracle reason, they will use 10rd magazines and not standard mags.  If they will abide by a 10rd magazine law, why don't we make the law 1 rd?

The only exception is Niklaus Cruz for some reason, he used 10rd mags.  And he also calmly ate at McDonalds after as well.

And  for some reason,  Niklaus Cruz used 10rd mags in a state with NO Mag limit  :wacko:

And  for some reason,  Niklaus Cruz used 10rd mags in a state with NO Mag limit  :wacko:

The reason he gave, according to what I read, was that larger mags would not fit in the bag he was using.

The 19-year-old school shooter who killed 17 in Florida on Valentine’s Day had 150 rounds of ammunition
in 10-round magazines. Larger ones would not fit in his bag, Florida state senator Lauren Book revealed.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/report-parkland-shooter-did-not-use-high-capacity-magazines/

I would have used a bigger bag.  Dumbass.

I would have used a bigger bag.  Dumbass.

I would say intelligence and logic are NOT in the mass shooters skill set. 

That shows he was bat shit crazy, and stopping after to eat a burger. Had he had an escape plan, he might have gotten very far.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

lol
how often is the training that you do that you consider it "regular"?

Well at least 3 hours a day, 4 days a week in Call of Duty HARDCORE mode so pretty regular.

Cool story bro 😎.  Again, you don’t offer any proof that mag limits result in lives being saved during a mass shooting.  All you’re doing is reguritating your theory in different ways.  You can’t cite a survivor from one of the recent mass shootings because there aren’t any that anyone can find.  So tell me how your theory would have resulted in more survivors of the worst mass shooting in modern Hawaii history - Xerox.

Again, do you need proof that magazine changes take more time than no magazine changes? Do you need proof that more time to flee gives you a better chance at survival?

The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous. You can't make the argument that it makes no difference but does make a difference.

How many active shooters obeyed any magazine law?  Let's use Hawaii as an example since it's here.  Uyesugi used standard glock mags 15rds.  The mag limit was passed 2 years prior and there is no grandfather clause. 

So an active shooter will break the following laws: Murder, attempted murder, probably transporting a firearm in an illegal manner (depending on the state), gun free zone (depending on the location of shooting) but yet for some miracle reason, they will use 10rd magazines and not standard mags.  If they will abide by a 10rd magazine law, why don't we make the law 1 rd?

The only exception is Niklaus Cruz for some reason, he used 10rd mags.  And he also calmly ate at McDonalds after as well.

I am not addressing the effectiveness of such a law, only the effectiveness of a high capacity magazine vs a 10 round magazine.

Again, do you need proof that magazine changes take more time than no magazine changes? Do you need proof that more time to flee gives you a better chance at survival?

The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous. You can't make the argument that it makes no difference but does make a difference.

I concede your point, but then the issue becomes what is the utility of interfering with a frequently exercised constitutional right in order to possibly have a minor effect on events that are extremely rare and only involve a tiny amount of people? It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?

I concede your point, but then the issue becomes what is the utility of interfering with a frequently exercised constitutional right in order to possibly have a minor effect on events that are extremely rare and only involve a tiny amount of people? It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?

The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself
is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous.

That's an insane comparison:

1.  an ATTACKER intent on killing the maximum number of people is going to plan, equip and be mentally prepared to empty a mag, reload, and continue firing.

2.  a VICTIM who is SURPRISED by an attacker is not going to be able to plan the time, place nor equipment for that situation. Only the attacker gets the luxury of choosing the time, place and situation.

Therefore, the victim not having planned to carry or have on hand several mags already filled and in a position to quickly change when needed is at a disadvantage.  Having a STANDARD CAPACITY mag reduces the disadvantages to at least two rather than three.

Assuming that all things are equal except for having a larger mag capacity, and that a person is more dangerous because of that, is naive at best --- dishonest at worst.

Let's say the Cops have the same capacity mags as a criminal.  That's not an advantage for either.  Same holds true for a home invasion.  The resident and attacker with the same number of bullets loaded is no advantage for either.

But, when Daddy has to protect his and his family's lives, forcing him to buy 10 rd mags is a disadvantage.  If he becomes a "danger" to the public, the Cops still have the advantage if mag capacities are equal -- they have an advantage in numbers of people, training, additional weapons and equipment.  In that instance, time is on the side of the criminal -- unless the victim is armed and has the firepower to resist until help can arrive.

It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?

The reason why this nation is moving towards the eradication of the 2nd Amendment should be clear to everyone by now.  Neo-feudalism is starting to take shape in the American empire where the ultra-wealthy will own everything and rule with a fascist government over a citizenry dependent on them.

Aside from eliminating the only two nations that can oppose them externally, Russia and China, the 2nd Amendment, allowing for an armed populace, is the only thing standing in their way domestically from taking absolute power in the US.

Haven’t heard the media report any mass shootings for weeks now.  Are even crazy people obeying the stay at home order?

Again, do you need proof that magazine changes take more time than no magazine changes? Do you need proof that more time to flee gives you a better chance at survival?

The same reason that high capacity magazines allow you to better defend yourself is the same reason it makes an attacker more dangerous. You can't make the argument that it makes no difference but does make a difference.

I'm not arguing that mag changes take time.  Yeah, you need to prove your theory, otherwise, it's just a theory.  You still can't provide an example of a mass shooting survivor that made it out because the shooter took too long to reload.  Now you're shifting your argument to include defensive uses of standard capacity magazines, which is a different topic all together.  The defensive use of a weapon is exactly that; defensive.  Someone has threatened me with rape, sodomy, or grave bodily harm.  That's a completely different set of circumstances than a mass shooting that is not in the least related to mass shootings.  You're grasping at straws to sustain your position.  Again, if your theory is true, then where are the survivors?

I concede your point, but then the issue becomes what is the utility of interfering with a frequently exercised constitutional right in order to possibly have a minor effect on events that are extremely rare and only involve a tiny amount of people? It is so far of a stretch to argue that this is in the interest of "public safety" that I am inclined to believe that the real issue is not about mass shootings, but the police and politicians are actually demanding a lethal advantage over private citizens. The real question is what are they preparing for and do they think of us as their enemy?

As I stated before I do not support high capacity magazine bans. I don't believe saving a few lives justifies greatly restricting the rights of hundreds of millions of people.

I'm not arguing that mag changes take time.  Yeah, you need to prove your theory, otherwise, it's just a theory.  You still can't provide an example of a mass shooting survivor that made it out because the shooter took too long to reload.  Now you're shifting your argument to include defensive uses of standard capacity magazines, which is a different topic all together.  The defensive use of a weapon is exactly that; defensive.  Someone has threatened me with rape, sodomy, or grave bodily harm.  That's a completely different set of circumstances than a mass shooting that is not in the least related to mass shootings.  You're grasping at straws to sustain your position.  Again, if your theory is true, then where are the survivors?

My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.

This article mentions a few instance where someone was stopped during a reload or got away during a reload.
https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/

Another instance where the shooter was stopped during a reload
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.

This article mentions a few instance where someone was stopped during a reload or got away during a reload.
https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-school-shooter-was-thwarted-by-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/

Another instance where the shooter was stopped during a reload
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

Not a mass shooting.  Next.  Jared had already killed several people including a six year old girl.  Again, mag restrictions don’t save lives because it fails to address the root cause of mass shootings and that’s the shooter.  If you look at the DOJ/FBI report on the incident you’ll read that Jared was subdued after his gun jammed.  He had expended all rounds from one mag, changed, shot the elderly woman as she tried to take his gun away, and then it jammed.  He was subsequently subdued by others in the crowd.  You should read the report rather than trust the media.