I recently posted an article that outlined 3 practical reasons that we actually do need what the media call “high capacity” magazines. It was well received and I heard from a couple of you that you were able to talk with people you know using the points in the article to make people really think about the issue.
The response to the article made me curious about how you respond to the question “Why does anyone need more than 10 rounds in a magazine?” So, how do you respond?
Now is your chance to Be Heard! Leave a comment below to join the conversation.
When two cops in Torrance California shot at a vehicle thinking they were shooting at Dorne failed to kill the occupants with over 40 shots, I was convinced everyone should have an AR15 with a 100 round magazine. IF trained killers with 40 shots cannot do it,then I need 100 shots to stop a home invasion.
Emma Hernandez, 71, was delivering the Los Angeles Times with her daughter, 47-year-old Margie Carranza, when officers apparently mistook their pickup for that of Dorner.
Hernandez was shot in the back, and remains hospitalized in stable condition.
Carranza suffered a wound from glass that struck her hand and received stitches.
“Tragically, we believe this is a case of mistaken identity,” Charlie Beck, chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said on Thursday about the shooting.
Hernandez and Carranza are both expected to be okay. They have retained attorney Glen T. Jonas.
“There was no warning, there was no orders or no commands… just gunshots,” Jonas told reporters.
According to Jonas, the women’s vehicle was “the wrong color and the wrong model,” compared to Dorner’s.
http://ktla.com/2013/02/08/women-delivering-newspapers-in-torrance-shot-in-manhunt-for-ex-cop/
We had a similar shootout in Forest Grove, Oregon. Lots of property damage, but no one was hit.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/viewart/20130208/UPDATE/130208026/100-shots-fired-Forest-Grove-police-shootout
If time permits I go with the arguments you presented. If time is a factor or I don’t think someone would really listen to an extended argument I go with this –
In a situation where I’m fighting for my life I want the most amount of ammunition I can carry.
In the case of an AR15 – 30 rounds is the most ammunition that can be carried in the gun and have the gun still be reliable and not unwieldy.
For one thing they are not “High capacity” they are “standard capacity”. To answer the question though, it’s no different than having dual tanks on your truck.
I don’t think that when the people that wrote the second amendment were telling men back then that they could only carry five musket balls and only enough powder to shoot those five shots. And while we are at it, they probably didn’t say that the second was written to protect their hunting rights either. Those statements have shut a couple libs up when I answered their questions.
First let’s straighten one thing out – My AR-15 is a SELF DEFENSE tool, not an “assault weapon”! Since no govt can guarantee we’ll have no more natural disasters, no more race riots, no financial calamities, famines, food or fuel shortages in this country where I might have to defend against looting hordes, lawless mobs, multiple assailants, or even rogue cops with a grudge against white people, I consider it my natural self defense right to have arms with magazine capacities at least equal or superior to those I might face.
I gave my wife a PMR-30 a while back. She had never really had much experience with firearms but we went to the range and she enjoyed it so much that she wanted to use it as a self defense weapon in the bedroom. I asked her if she wanted a revolver instead and she said she would rather have 30 bullets then 6 to male sure a bad guy went down if he entered the house.
Because I can miss.
It’s not a matter of necessity. While there are numerous documented cases of low capacity shootings being ineffective to protect ones life and neutralize the threat, the bigger issue here is using the reasoning of “need” in the argument. Coming to terms with the notion that someone else is attempting to dictate what liberties other law abiding citizens deserve isn’t that easy for me. It isn’t the government’s, or anyone else’s for that matter, job to tell me what I “need”. I can decide that for myself.
And when we start down this line of reasoning, you can find a lot of things that we don’t “need”.
Red meat is bad for you, you don’t “need” that. People don’t “need” to smoke or drink alcohol. We don’t “need” cars that are capable of speeds over 30 MPH. We don’t “need” smartphones or unrestricted access to the internet. We don’t “need” the freedom to choose our religion or speak in dissent on government policies. We don’t “need” due process. Most of the freedoms afforded to us by the constitution aren’t technically “needed”.
Necessity wasn’t the basis for our country. The founding principle of America was to cripple the government into never being in the position to be able to tell the people what they “need”.
Long, drawn out arguments are pointless and Americans need to stop falling for this leftarded tactic.
The only answer needed is “The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and walk away.