Blowing holes in hi-cap magazine myth

[Dave Workman]

New video destroys myth about large capacity magazines

A newly-produced video, funded by ArmaLite and supervised by Boone County, Ind. Sheriff Ken Campbell, demolishes the myth surrounding so-called “high capacity magazines” that banning these devices will prevent the rare mass shooting events that currently fuel the gun prohibition movement.

<broken link removed>


In less than 30 seconds, with mag changes and all!

Less time than the OK Corral

Read More

 

[BSG 75]

The problem with that video is that it is a dual-edged sword. The antis could use it to argue that limiting magazines to 10 or even 6 rounds does not significantly reduce the ability for a law-abiding citizens to fire the same amount of rounds in about the same amount of time, and therefore there is no justification for "high capacity" magazines. The video clearly shows that a law-abiding person just needs to carry more of the smaller magazines and reload more frequently, and therefore the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is not harmed by restricting magazine capacity.

 

[mancat]

Yes. Showing that restricted size and standard size magazines can feed ammunition at roughly the same rates, could potentially lead to a push for bullet-button type devices, or a complete ban on removable magazine firearms.

I had the "ban assault weapons" talk with a friend of mine. When I finally convinced him that so-called assault weapons were only used in a statistical fraction of crimes, and that handguns were the top offender in gun-related crimes, he just adjusted his position to "welp, you've convinced me, I guess we need to ban ALL guns then." These people don't think you you and I do, at all.

Also, I can't be the only one that found it painful to watch that girl shoot. Can't quite put my finger on what it was, but she was incredibly jerky and looked like she was going to drop the pistol at any second.

 

[Kable]

Yes. Showing that restricted size and standard size magazines can feed ammunition at roughly the same rates, could potentially lead to a push for bullet-button type devices, or a complete ban on removable magazine firearms.

I had the "ban assault weapons" talk with a friend of mine. When I finally convinced him that so-called assault weapons were only used in a statistical fraction of crimes, and that handguns were the top offender in gun-related crimes, he just adjusted his position to "welp, you've convinced me, I guess we need to ban ALL guns then." These people don't think you you and I do, at all.

Also, I can't be the only one that found it painful to watch that girl shoot. Can't quite put my finger on what it was, but she was incredibly jerky and looked like she was going to drop the pistol at any second.

Yes I believe she was attempting to count the rounds a couple times she did not fire all the rounds in the magazine however like they demonstrated near the end you could just have a bag full of revolvers and accomplish the same thing. As for the double edged sword comment above this one I would simply argue that law abiding citizens don't get to choose when they will need to defend themselves so they may not always have access to multiple magazines but the bad guy knows when and where he will do his damage so he would always be prepared

 

[Blaylocke]

Loved this vid, although I didn't like that Jim intentionally sandbagged his hicap times. He fired faster, intentionally, with the 10 rounders just to disprove. The fact still remains, the amount of time lost to reloads is minimal, not to mention, your average 1st grader isn't going to run up and tackle some nutcase in the first place.

 

[slimmer13]

I had the "ban assault weapons" talk with a friend of mine. When I finally convinced him that so-called assault weapons were only used in a statistical fraction of crimes, and that handguns were the top offender in gun-related crimes, he just adjusted his position to "welp, you've convinced me, I guess we need to ban ALL guns then." These people don't think you you and I do, at all.

Careful who you call "friend".

 

[Mutoman]

Ha ha, yeah, Jim is quite a bit quicker on the trigger when he is shooting lower capacity mags! What a boondoggle. Furthermore, I think you could add at least another second for each mag given that in a fire fight you are not likely to have all your mags lined up on a barrel; you would likely have to access a mag pouch for each mag.

I would like to see someone less biased do this experiment. Plus it definitely needs more control mechanisms (leave Jim home).

 

[mancat]

yep, heard that one before. I appreciate that some people on the web can be so hardcore as to just drop friends who they don't agree with. unfortunately the world doesn't always work that way. I'm working on bringing him around.

 

[kumabear17]

None of these so called laws to ban semiautomatic rifles, standard capacity magazines or to restrict handguns are meant to be anything more then "feel good" legislation to appease the sheeple in this Country that something is being done to fight crime. The fact, people who have studied the facts and figures, which show there is no effect doesn't matter to these people. The Liberal Left simply wants to disarm citizens in order to gain better "People Control". The sheeple are to uneducated to want to learn any facts and just want MSNBC types to tell them what to do - and oh yea throw in a cell phone or two. Hence we have Obama as President and people like Murray and Cantwell keep getting elected. We can fight them and we can win, but it will be a long battle with all the misinformation that is out there. I say, noy one more inch....

 

[Ralgha]

The problem with that video is that it is a dual-edged sword. The antis could use it to argue that limiting magazines to 10 or even 6 rounds does not significantly reduce the ability for a law-abiding citizens to fire the same amount of rounds in about the same amount of time, and therefore there is no justification for "high capacity" magazines. The video clearly shows that a law-abiding person just needs to carry more of the smaller magazines and reload more frequently, and therefore the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is not harmed by restricting magazine capacity.

You can counter with the argument that a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed gun for self-defense does not have the luxury of carrying 2, 3, 4, 5+ magazines to reload with because their gun is not the primary reason that they're out and about. The criminal, on the other hand, is out and about to use their gun, so they could bring a wheelbarrow full of extra magazines, it's why they're there.

 

[Asp]

You can counter with the argument that a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed gun for self-defense does not have the luxury of carrying 2, 3, 4, 5+ magazines to reload with because their gun is not the primary reason that they're out and about. The criminal, on the other hand, is out and about to use their gun, so they could bring a wheelbarrow full of extra magazines, it's why they're there.

Are you kidding me?

 

[mjbskwim]

Using the quick mag change to dispel the "hi cap" myth is kinda stupid.
I believe it has the opposite effect on the argument.
Can't believe someone would use this.
Hey look my gun is just as dangerous with smaller mags!

The argument for hicaps should be that some criminals don't stop with a few rounds. There was a thread on here last year about a shooting that showed the cops shot a guy 23? times with hand guns (40s&w) and did not kill the guy. They needed a AR to stop him.
Now if he has a couple buddies,then how good will those 7 rounds look?

Lets use common sense and look at it from an anti's view point before we put out arguments.Not feed their fire

 

[Mutoman]

Are you kidding me?

Yes, I think he was kidding you. Just you though. For the rest of us he was sincere.

 

[Ralgha]

Are you kidding me?

My point is, Bad Guy will roll up to wherever he wants to bust caps with as many spare magazines as he desires, because that's why he is there and he was planning for it. Joe CCW was not planning to get in a gunfight that day and so has zero, or one, perhaps even two spares, but that's probably it. Bad guy is not hindered by the magazine limit at all, Joe is greatly hindered by it by virtue of not having the luxury of toting around a rolling suitcase of spare magazines.

 

[Kable]

My point is, Bad Guy will roll up to wherever he wants to bust caps with as many spare magazines as he desires, because that's why he is there and he was planning for it. Joe CCW was not planning to get in a gunfight that day and so has zero, or one, perhaps even two spares, but that's probably it. Bad guy is not hindered by the magazine limit at all, Joe is greatly hindered by it by virtue of not having the luxury of toting around a rolling suitcase of spare magazines.

What is this bad guy shenanigans you speak of, you don't need that many rounds to kill a dear and that's the only reason anyone needs a gun if you encounter a bad guy just run away or wet yourself if you think they intend on raping you... /sarcasm

 

[BigStick]

The video is interesting, but the argument has all sorts of problems. The big picture is that they don't care if this will actually prevent crime. It's not about crime to them, it's about restricting and eventually banning guns all together. This is just the small step that they think they can get passed. Just ask Britain how it works. One bite at a time is how they are trying to eat the elephant.

 

[hermannr]

Yes. Showing that restricted size and standard size magazines can feed ammunition at roughly the same rates, could potentially lead to a push for bullet-button type devices, or a complete ban on removable magazine firearms.

I had the "ban assault weapons" talk with a friend of mine. When I finally convinced him that so-called assault weapons were only used in a statistical fraction of crimes, and that handguns were the top offender in gun-related crimes, he just adjusted his position to "welp, you've convinced me, I guess we need to ban ALL guns then." These people don't think you you and I do, at all.

Also, I can't be the only one that found it painful to watch that girl shoot. Can't quite put my finger on what it was, but she was incredibly jerky and looked like she was going to drop the pistol at any second.

You need to change your arguments and stop talking about guns involved in crime, and start talking about guns used to PREVENT crime from happening in the first place.

 

[locobob]

I think some of you guys are trying to read too much into this test. This test simply demonstrates that magazine capacity doesn't make a big difference in a mass shooting scenario - therefore magazine capacity limitations are not an effective crime control measure.

 

[deen_ad]

I think some of you guys are trying to read too much into this test. This test simply demonstrates that magazine capacity doesn't make a big difference in a mass shooting scenario - therefore magazine capacity limitations are not an effective crime control measure.

Which means the gun grabbing nuts will say "we didn't go far enough" so "now we need to control ALL gun/magazine/ammo ownership".

 

[Mutoman]

I think some of you guys are trying to read too much into this test. This test simply demonstrates that magazine capacity doesn't make a big difference in a mass shooting scenario - therefore magazine capacity limitations are not an effective crime control measure.

It does work for us (preaching to the choir). However, if we are going to convince the anti crowd we have to realize that some are going to be familiar with more concise, analytical testing of theory. Obviously, if most of us were on the other side of this argument we would be able to shoot holes (with our proverbial non-guns) in this circus video.