One reason why we need more than 10 rounds...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
- Status
Spats McGee
Administrator
To the extent possible, I try not to engage in the Argument of Needs. My theory is that by engaging that argument, to some degree, you concede that your RKBA is connected to what you need.
Just to be clear, I actually think that recreation is a perfectly good and sufficient reason for continuing the legal private ownership of guns and accessories. Of course, there are certainly other important beneficial factors to gun ownership, and, even more to the point, we don't have to explain why we need guns to justify owning them because our right to own them is not based on having to provide a need.
That said, when a person says that they believe that gun ownership should be allowed so that people can defend themselves and then state that no one needs more than ten (or 7) rounds to accomplish the goal, the argument I have presented is useful.
Basically it makes it clear to a person who believes in the right to own guns for self-defense that restricting the round count of the firearm can significantly impair a citizen's ability to mount an effective defense.
It never hurts to demonstrate to a person that one of their preconceived notions is badly in error. If that person is at all disposed to rational thought, such a demonstration will force them to acknowledge that there is a possibility that their other preconceptions may also be wrong.
Not only is it tiresome to keep hearing the talking heads repeatedly chant the mantra that no law-abiding person needs more than 10 rounds without anyone ever showing why it's absolutely not true, it also encourages fence-sitters to join the antis because it appears that they have a point when no one can answer the question directly and decisively. While we know why it's a red herring, not everyone cares about the philosophy of the founding fathers as it applies to private gun ownership.
In short, while it is true that they are wrong to imply that "need" is the criteria that should be applied to go beyond what they consider to be a reasonable round count, it is also true that they are badly mistaken as to what a reasonable round count really is.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out both errors--in fact, it strengthens the argument considerably because effectively attacking what they believe to be "reasonable" with hard facts often resonates much more strongly than a discussion of the real meaning of the constitution and the philosophy of the founding fathers which they fundamentally disagree with anyway.
Some people aren't ever going to give any weight to the idea of inalienable rights--but it's pretty hard for them to ignore the fact that taking 5 rounds out of a law-abiding homeowner's gun could reduce his chances of surviving a home invasion by two persons from 70% to 35%.
That said, when a person says that they believe that gun ownership should be allowed so that people can defend themselves and then state that no one needs more than ten (or 7) rounds to accomplish the goal, the argument I have presented is useful.
Basically it makes it clear to a person who believes in the right to own guns for self-defense that restricting the round count of the firearm can significantly impair a citizen's ability to mount an effective defense.
It never hurts to demonstrate to a person that one of their preconceived notions is badly in error. If that person is at all disposed to rational thought, such a demonstration will force them to acknowledge that there is a possibility that their other preconceptions may also be wrong.
Not only is it tiresome to keep hearing the talking heads repeatedly chant the mantra that no law-abiding person needs more than 10 rounds without anyone ever showing why it's absolutely not true, it also encourages fence-sitters to join the antis because it appears that they have a point when no one can answer the question directly and decisively. While we know why it's a red herring, not everyone cares about the philosophy of the founding fathers as it applies to private gun ownership.
In short, while it is true that they are wrong to imply that "need" is the criteria that should be applied to go beyond what they consider to be a reasonable round count, it is also true that they are badly mistaken as to what a reasonable round count really is.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out both errors--in fact, it strengthens the argument considerably because effectively attacking what they believe to be "reasonable" with hard facts often resonates much more strongly than a discussion of the real meaning of the constitution and the philosophy of the founding fathers which they fundamentally disagree with anyway.
Some people aren't ever going to give any weight to the idea of inalienable rights--but it's pretty hard for them to ignore the fact that taking 5 rounds out of a law-abiding homeowner's gun could reduce his chances of surviving a home invasion by two persons from 70% to 35%.
Shotgun693
New member
Then you can explain to'm why people other than White, Male, property owners ought to be able to vote.
Read what you will, believe what you want
Such an eye opener, Mr. Ayoob/Russian Reporter, and the all and sundry posters.
We carry a pistol, here in Florida, because we can.
The reality of the use of a carry pistol to fight for your life, defend your Wife, etc.
You carry what you can carry every day, so it must be light, lots of effective cartridges, be accurate (good night sights) reliable!
After a lifetime of study of fights with weapons, and being involved with more than enough violent confrontations, any less than 16 rounds of effective 9mm cartridges, is silly.
(reference .38/.40/.45 ACP instead of 9mm, fill your boots)
Why 16 rounds? I think the Glock 19, is the best CCW fighting pistol in the World! So that is what I carry. You? carry what you want.
No one can show me, and it is me communicating here, that flooding an aggressor with these wimpy pistol rounds, all of them, 9/40/45 is not a great idea!
To shoot a lot, you need a lot to start with.
Such an eye opener, Mr. Ayoob/Russian Reporter, and the all and sundry posters.
We carry a pistol, here in Florida, because we can.
The reality of the use of a carry pistol to fight for your life, defend your Wife, etc.
You carry what you can carry every day, so it must be light, lots of effective cartridges, be accurate (good night sights) reliable!
After a lifetime of study of fights with weapons, and being involved with more than enough violent confrontations, any less than 16 rounds of effective 9mm cartridges, is silly.
(reference .38/.40/.45 ACP instead of 9mm, fill your boots)
Why 16 rounds? I think the Glock 19, is the best CCW fighting pistol in the World! So that is what I carry. You? carry what you want.
No one can show me, and it is me communicating here, that flooding an aggressor with these wimpy pistol rounds, all of them, 9/40/45 is not a great idea!
To shoot a lot, you need a lot to start with.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Excellent point.JohnKSa said:
David Kopel addressed the issue of magazine capacity in this youtube interview: The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) .
223 shooter
New member
Totally agree. This same scenario occured at my sister's last year with the exception that the 5 were right where they intended to be. Her husband was held at gunpoint and her 19 year old son was nearly beaten to death.
After a home invasion like this it sickens me that some politicians have the gall to harass law abiding gunowners on the number of rounds their guns should hold.
There are situations where a 16 round pistol or 20 round rifle are nice to have on hand as opposed to something like a 5 shot J-frame.
I think the poster before who suggested avoiding the argument of needs said it best. I think the best way to accentuate that is to go down the car, or food route.
Meaning....why do you need all this food?
To feed my family.
Do you need this much?
Uh yea.
Why?
Because we would lose weight.
Could you live at a lower weight?
Yes.
So you need less food. Let me have this food. (Pick out steaks and beer)
No, I bought it...I need it.
No, you need some food.
Maybe you could give your entire food budget to the government and they give you back something with nutritional value in the amount they determine you need.
How is this related to 30 round mags?
Guns, yes the entire gun, including mags, ammo, sling, etc are all protected rights by the second amendment. Food, especially the good food is an unprotected product that you have NO fundamental right to. If we accept removal of rights, how do we protect ourselves from a government who might try to manipulate us with food.
You're nuts!
Point out a dictatorship who's dictator is full after each of his 3 squares, but many of his people starve to death. Really, you can point to most countries on the globe. You could point to the USA. Diverting corn to fuel makes people not afford food in the USA everyday.
Most likely you will be done.
If not, point out how the New York law prevents police from having more than 7rds. The police are going nuts and the governor is making laws with his mouth to make 30 rd mags ok for police....hmm wish he support his constituents like that. Wonder why the police and his security team need 30 rnd mags?
Meaning....why do you need all this food?
To feed my family.
Do you need this much?
Uh yea.
Why?
Because we would lose weight.
Could you live at a lower weight?
Yes.
So you need less food. Let me have this food. (Pick out steaks and beer)
No, I bought it...I need it.
No, you need some food.
Maybe you could give your entire food budget to the government and they give you back something with nutritional value in the amount they determine you need.
How is this related to 30 round mags?
Guns, yes the entire gun, including mags, ammo, sling, etc are all protected rights by the second amendment. Food, especially the good food is an unprotected product that you have NO fundamental right to. If we accept removal of rights, how do we protect ourselves from a government who might try to manipulate us with food.
You're nuts!
Point out a dictatorship who's dictator is full after each of his 3 squares, but many of his people starve to death. Really, you can point to most countries on the globe. You could point to the USA. Diverting corn to fuel makes people not afford food in the USA everyday.
Most likely you will be done.
If not, point out how the New York law prevents police from having more than 7rds. The police are going nuts and the governor is making laws with his mouth to make 30 rd mags ok for police....hmm wish he support his constituents like that. Wonder why the police and his security team need 30 rnd mags?
When I went to PLDC (sergeant school in the Army) way back when, I found it interesting that they teach that after a firefight, you check your men and yourself for "leaks", because men are often shot and don't know it. In fact, do a search for Medal of Honor narratives and you'll find hundreds of men who were grievously wounded, shot many times, yet survived to defend their buddies or take down that machine gun nest. Roy Benevidez looked like a postage stamp after being perforated so many times yet rescued many men and documents. It is a Hollywood myth that people just fall down after being shot. It just don't happen like that.
Welcome back KJM,
So true, the human body can take so much more punishment, and still carry on, it is in our nature.
The brain is a wonderful organ, and with the right motivation can push us on, to unbelievable heights.
My Glock 19, with 16 rounds is more of a comfort than a pistol with less!
So true, the human body can take so much more punishment, and still carry on, it is in our nature.
The brain is a wonderful organ, and with the right motivation can push us on, to unbelievable heights.
My Glock 19, with 16 rounds is more of a comfort than a pistol with less!
I think it's a mistake to try to argue based on what we "need". In all likelihood none of us will ever "need" a firearm that fires more than 10 rounds. The point here is that whether we need them or not the 2nd Amendment makes no stipulation on what citizens may own or not own.
If you stick up for me and my single action revolvers and lever action rifles Ill stick up for your Glocks and AR's.
If you stick up for me and my single action revolvers and lever action rifles Ill stick up for your Glocks and AR's.
chucknbach
New member
All you have to do is ask the Koreans that defended their businesses with assault weapons during the LA riots if they would have rather had 10 round mags.
What happens when you have to defend against an angry mob?
What happens when you have to defend against an angry mob?
Rifleman1776
New member
Once you begin trying to justify "need" you have lost the argument.
The only "need" for certain firearms is to be able to protect ourselves from a well equiped government gone bad. That is also the basis of the 2ndA.
We have the right to own, keep and bear these firearms and items. Your desire to have them is the only justification required.
The only "need" for certain firearms is to be able to protect ourselves from a well equiped government gone bad. That is also the basis of the 2ndA.
We have the right to own, keep and bear these firearms and items. Your desire to have them is the only justification required.
I think that if it happened that a licensed concealed carry owner was killed during a robbery or other assault after emptying his gun, the media would make a big deal out of it to "prove" that concealed carry by citizens was not the answer to crime. That said, I cannot recall ever reading/hearing about such a scenario in the real world. Even today many folks, including off-duty LEO's carry j-frame snub nose revolvers with only 5 rounds. I have nothing against large capacity magazines, but personally I feel pretty safe if I am carrying a small semi with 6 to 8 rounds or my j-frame with 5. On the other hand, I know of at least one person in my pistol club who routinely carried 3 handguns plus several extra magazines when he carries. Maybe he envisions the possibility of being attacked by an entire gang of criminals. If you like larger capacity mags, fine, but you probably won't convince anyone that you "need" them.
Playing into justifying "hi cap" mags is the point - a 30 rounder is standard. Ten is a low capacity hunting magazine.
Capacity isn't a real issue anyway - one of the Columbine shooters had a weapon with 17 TEN round magazines, and it didn't seem to impede him any. The Newton shooter changed mags repeatedly, leaving partially filled ones scattered thru out the building.
If someone asks why I need a "hi cap" mag, I'm now likely to ask why they need a 24 pack of beer, or a carton of cigarettes, or more than ten gallons of gas.
The concept of magazine capacity is a deliberate ploy to suck you into bargaining about what you can get by with - any limitation is exactly that, and a victory for them.
Capacity isn't a real issue anyway - one of the Columbine shooters had a weapon with 17 TEN round magazines, and it didn't seem to impede him any. The Newton shooter changed mags repeatedly, leaving partially filled ones scattered thru out the building.
If someone asks why I need a "hi cap" mag, I'm now likely to ask why they need a 24 pack of beer, or a carton of cigarettes, or more than ten gallons of gas.
The concept of magazine capacity is a deliberate ploy to suck you into bargaining about what you can get by with - any limitation is exactly that, and a victory for them.
mrbatchelor
New member
I'll go back to my dog example.
Dogs maim and kill mostly young children. To the tune of millions a year in liabilities. (Lots of trial lawyer links with google for stats.)
But young children die, so why do you need dog.
Oh, but my dog is different, you say. Well, owning a dog contributes to the dog culture. By merely owning a dog you make it easier for irresponsible dog owners to leave loaded dogs near children.
So by banning dogs we can save lives and millions p dollars worth of years destruction.
Police and military could still have dogs. They're trained to handle dogs.
But you're little FiFi is a menace to society and needs to be put down.
Sorry. It's for the children.
Dogs maim and kill mostly young children. To the tune of millions a year in liabilities. (Lots of trial lawyer links with google for stats.)
But young children die, so why do you need dog.
Oh, but my dog is different, you say. Well, owning a dog contributes to the dog culture. By merely owning a dog you make it easier for irresponsible dog owners to leave loaded dogs near children.
So by banning dogs we can save lives and millions p dollars worth of years destruction.
Police and military could still have dogs. They're trained to handle dogs.
But you're little FiFi is a menace to society and needs to be put down.
Sorry. It's for the children.
chucknbach
New member
You are right but keep in mind we are dealing with people who couldn't care less about the 2nd amend, some gun owners included. Beat them on 2 fronts I say.
LOL. I've been using this quote for everything lately.
Vito, you can not predict the future. Government collapse, economic collapse, nuclear terrorism strike, natural disaster, UN take over, another world war. Will any of these things happen tommorrow? Don't know, probably not. In 50, 100 years. We do not know but lets give our children a fighting chance. It's for the children!
Last edited:
- Status