I really don't care if Americans own AR-15... Ak-47... etc. of the military style rifles that so many are up in arms (pun) about. What I don't understand is why American civilians feel the need for high capacity mags for their guns. I think this is the main cause for the higher casualties in many of the mass shooting incidents we have had. The down time for reloading is substantially reduced when the shooter can shoot 30/60 or more times before stopping to reload. Evan I know you are passionate about this, but explain to me why you think this is so important for civilians to have access to. My sphere of gun experience has been hunting and target practice. I fortunately have not had to use a gun in defense of my property or my loved ones, but if that situation was to occur, I think the six shots in my .38 and three shots in shotgun will be reasonable firepower in a close quarters situation that would require. I'm not trying to troll you guys, I just would like to understand your thinking on why a gun that holds so many rounds is so important to you.
I would explain my reasoning in two different ways:
1. It's none of the government's business as Kory said and it's also simply not effective. I'll explain. Whether changing 10 round mags (limit under the original assault weapons ban) or 15 round mags the capacity is sufficient to kill. Under the old AWB you could still buy high cap magazines (grandfathered in just like the current proposal) as long as they existed prior to the ban date. Two things happened. One, it became much more difficult for law abiding citizens to get or replace their existing magazines as the price skyrocketed.
For a drug dealer, a wealthy guy like the Vegas shooter, someone that just inherited a significant chunk of money like the Parkland shooter, or the Va Tech shooter who studiously planned out his massacre (not to mention Columbine...they also used pre-ban hi-cap magazines) there's simply nothing to prevent them from getting hi-cap magazines.
As I said, the current bill also grandfathers in existing mags and people will just order huge shipments and manufacturers will produce balls to the wall until the date the ban comes into place. This time, there will be such a large number of mags on the street I don't think the price increases will be nearly as steep (early on a pre-ban Glock mag was $40 or so but it went up to $100 or more during the original AWB).
You can't confiscate mags unless you literally want civil war, so a mag ban would be incredibly impotent. People have been stockpiling dozens or hundreds of magazines since the day the past ban expired. Can't put the genie back into the bottle. Finally, as I mentioned, those that do mass shootings or commit street crime will still get the mags as they did before. All you've done is make them more expensive for millions of law abiding citizens because of the actions of a few.
2. I don't think millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans should lose their rights over the actions of criminals that will find a way to circumvent restrictions. 3-D printers are here. Printing mags or an AR-15 lower receiver is already possible with a low-level 3-D printer. 5 years from now? 10 years from now? Going to be interesting to see how we have to pay to download patents and then can print many items on our own. Criminals, of course, don't care about patents or criminal law.
Finally, from 1992/93 before the AWB until the sunset of the AWB in 2004 we has massively higher rates of gun homicides, robbery using a firearm, etc. Ironically some of the biggest decreases came AFTER 2004. If the AWB was effective that wouldn't have happened. Academic studies have been done. They either say the impacts were minimal or inconclusive. The evidence required to infringe upon my Constitutional rights should be a lot more than minimal or inconclusive.
So, that's my reasoning. It's ineffective, it punishes innocent, law-abiding citizens, it doesn't hurt criminals or mass-shooter, they can easily practice mag changes and just use standard capacity mags. The reason people in the firearms community like hi-cap mags is not in case of a Soviet invasion. It's because large mags are much easier to use at the range. You'll here some people say it also evens the playing field with the government, and that's partially true as well. For some people it's because they want to make sure they have 15 or 17 rounds in a mag in case a burglar breaks in or someone tries to rob them and starts shooting first.
My question is return is why are you so convinced that magazine capacity limits would have a positive effect? Finally, I would also pose this to you...you might say no one needs a high-capacity magazine or an AR-15. That's probably true for the vast majority of Americans. But it isn't about need. You're a hunter. You don't NEED to hunt. You can go to a grocery store or a restaurant. But hunting is part of having liberty and freedom (even though the government sometimes interferes unnecessarily in that area minus conservation and population management techniques that actually work) to engage in an activity you enjoy. Eat meat you killed yourself. It's sport. It's also about access to different types of meat and for some people it does help them stretch a dollar. But, in 2018 there's no NEED.
Nonetheless, I'd fight just as hard for you, ghost, if someone tried to infringe on your liberty and freedom. Especially when the proposed solution just doesn't make sense and is largely driven out of emotion. If we make people watch Bambi twice before letting them vote on a hunting ban you know what would happen. Do we want our society's freedom and liberty determined by the emotional vagaries of mob rule? I don't.
