Random thought of the day

I wonder what the response would be if you asked an advocate for a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds how they arrived at that number.

Is that some sort of optimal capacity for maximum public safety? If not then what is that number? If so then where is the data that demonstrates it is optimal?

9 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. The data will be in the same folder that says why a machine gun made after 1986 is too dangerous for civilians.

  2. I think they picked it because it’s a nice round number, and bigger than the magazine capacity of most non-scary-looking hunting rifles and shotguns. That way they can try to position themselves as “not trying to ban or take away your guns” and “respecting the rights of sportsmen–er, sportspersons”. In some countries (France) the limit is 3 rounds (1 in the chamber plus 2 in the magazine), so they can claim to be “less restrictive”. This fact is supposed to be taken to mean that 10 rounds is “enough” for anyone not planning to commit mass murder. Similarly, this apparently makes it “reasonable” and a “compromise” when they don’t ban smaller ones.

    It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to sound good so as to convince–er, dupe enough people into joining their cause so that they can ramrod their agenda into law.

  3. They know that they can pass a law with a limit of 10. There’s no more or less thought put into it. Once they have 10, they can go for five, then three, then one, then none.

  4. Publius and Phelps,

    Well… Yeah! Of course.

    But getting them admit that to would be a huge win for us. Just asking them that and have them stammer out a response would get thinking peoples brains working and help shut down those trying to infringe our rights.

  5. Yep I call it “The Numbers Game”, and whenever its being played one must call bullshit and dismiss the law.

    My favorite example is the S&W4006, which just by serendipity happened to be designed to fit an 11 round Magazine. When the AWB came about S&W could no longer make 11 round 4006 magazines for civilian use, but instead 10 round magazines. What does that extra round do to constitute a crime now? Yep, bullshit, scrap the law.

    How about the .50 Caliber Restriction? .50s are banned in some states, but a 0.499″ Would be OK, right? How about the federal Restriction? I belive a 0.53″ Bore gun would need an NFA tax stamp. If I wildcatted all three bullets into a .50 BMG case, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between them without a Micrometer. And of course this isn’t even getting in muzzle energy. In California a Guide gun in .50 Action Express is illegal, but a rifle in .460 Weatherby Magnum is 100% ok…. Bullshit! Scrap the law.

    What happens if I chop 1/4″ off a 16″ Rifle? Or an 18″ Shotgun? Why do shotguns need those extra 2″? Why is a 10″ .223 Carbine something that needs federal permission, but a .223 pistol with a 10″ tube 100% OK? Why is there a difference between a .223 Pistol made as a pistol, vs. a .223 Pistol that was once assembled as a full-length rifle, even if all the parts are interchangeable? Bullshit Scrap the law!

    Why in some states am I allowed to carry a pistol openly, but if I drape my coat over it and hide it, I need a permit that is hidden in the back of my wallet???

    I could play this game all day!

  6. A friend of mine was on the local Fox affiliate last night debating Minnesota’s head gun ninny. He asked, and her response was “You have to draw the line somewhere.” The official reason is that it’s an arbitrary number that makes someone feel warm and fuzzy.

  7. Stop beating around the bush. I think we ALL know the truth: They pick ’10’ because the average anti-gunner can’t count any higher without removing their shoes.

  8. I like this idea–if you’re going to restrict something, you need data to restrict it!

    The other day, I told an anti-gunner that, if he wanted to ban guns, he had the burden to prove it would benefit society. He said that such a claim was stupid, and he reversed the tables: He claimed that he should be able to ban guns, and it was my burden otherwise.

    My response to that? Let’s apply that reasoning to all rights! Let’s ban speech, religion, habeas corpus, et. all, and put the burden on people who want to speak, worship God (or not), know why they are being arrested, etc, to prove that these rights will benefit society!

    I don’t recall if he responded to that, although I think the idea might of gotten lost in the chaos in that thread; he may have talked about it on his blog elsewhere though, but I wasn’t keeping up with that.

    In any case, if you’re going to ban anything, I want to see good, hard data as to why it would be a good idea.

  9. It’s a compromise number.

    They compromised between what they wanted (0), and what Bill Ruger told them they should set the limit at (15).

    Since there were too many liberals whose military experience involved the Garand, they knew that the number to define a Self-motivated Evil Assault Rifle had to be higher than 8 anyway.

    Just like a previous attempt to declare that anything that holds more the 5 rounds to be an “assault weapon” fell flat on its face (in NY, ISTR) when cops pointed out that included the guns THEY all carried at the time, and frequently bought on their own dime.

Comments are closed.