Is It Reasonable?
As many know, I am a strong believer and supporter of the words found in the 2nd Amendment, in particular “Shall Not Be Infringed”. I will concede that these words were written in a different society at a completely different time… but so was the 1st amendment, the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th, and so on and so forth.
We consistently hear the anti-gun lobby talk about reasonable restrictions. The issue here is that they don’t have the slightest clue as to how firearms work or what laws are already on the books. In order to have a discussion on what is or isn’t reasonable for any subject, subject matter experts (SME) are required. Without them being involved in the discussion, nothing reasonable can come out of said discussions.
For no other topic do we rely as much on the opinions on non-experts as we do with firearms. Think about it… when was the last time the government sought the opinion of a plumber on if the D.o.D’s budget was sound in logic?
Today I’ll be going over if magazine restrictions such as capacity restrictions, mag safeties, and more are reasonable. If you’re in the know, you might already get that this is going to be a relatively short one.
Right off the bat, let’s use some real life instances of self-defense to keep in the back of our minds while talking about magazine restrictions. Remember, police officers encounter the same threats the civilians can encounter on a daily basis.
Case Number 1: Sergeant Timothy Gramin
Sergeant Gramin typically carried 47rds of .45ACP for his primary handgun; a Glock 21. He now carries 145 rounds of ammunition while on duty due to his encounter with a determined attacker. 14 shots onto his attacker and they showed no signs of slowing down; he ended up using more ammunition but this is where I’ll stop.
Case Number 2: Home Owner Shoots 4 Burglars
The name of the defender isn’t given in this article, or at least not one I could find. The home owner woke up at 1 in the morning to not one, not two, but four individuals breaking into his home. While keeping in mind what happened in Case #1, let’s think about if all 4 of these individuals were as determined.
In many of the states that are suggesting or adopting magazine (or ammunition feeding devices in general) restrictions, they are wanting to or are implementing a 10rd capacity limit. In the strictest state of the union (California) there are additional restrictions.
Some of these states are also trying to require by law something that is called a “magazine disconnect safety”. A disconnect safety essentially makes it impossible for a firearm to fire without the magazine being in the firearm in question.
Are magazine capacity restrictions reasonable?
Before we get to answering this question, there are certain definitions that have to be laid out. There is also a lot of misinformation that gets spread by the media and politicians that has to be corrected by defining certain vernacular.
High Capacity/Large Capacity Magazines: If you aren’t a hobbyist like I am, you probably associate “high capacity” with anything that holds above 10 rounds of ammunition; that’s okay. You’ve been lead to believe that.
“High Capacity” is anything above the intended capacity of a firearm. With this being the case, “high capacity” is subjective to the platform being discussed… meaning there are multiple definitions.
A Glock 19 was designed to hold 15 rounds of ammunition in a standard magazine. Ergo, 15 rounds is the standard capacity… not “high capacity”. A magazine for the Glock 19 that holds 10 rounds is a “low capacity” magazine. Anything above 15 rounds is technically “high capacity”.
The Colt M1911 was designed to hold 7 rounds of ammunition in the magazine. The extended 10rd magazines for the Colt M1911 are technically “high capacity” magazines because 10rds is more than the intended capacity. The standard capacity as you probably guessed would be 7 rounds.
The same definitions go for every weapon system ever designed. Whether it’s the AR-15/M4/M16, the AK47, or the Mossberb MVP. “High capacity” is a subjective term that gets thrown around by the ignorant (typically) to describe any ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds.
Sorry guys, but the 40rd and the 60rd magazines for the AR-15? They’re technically high capacity magazines.
So, are they reasonable?
Alright, hold your horses. We’re getting there, albeit a little slower than we would in a video. Before I answer, I want to bring up more incidents that have happened. In order to fully understand my answer, you need to see these stories.
This year (2019) we had the New Zealand Mosque Attack where 49 people died. The shooter used standard capacity (30rd) magazines for the rifles he was using. These magazines are illegal and heavily restricted in the country of New Zealand.
Back in 2015 in France, you had the Paris Attacks where 137 people were killed and hundreds more were injured. The weapons used and in turn the magazines were also outlawed in France.
Now let’s come back to the United States so someone can’t say “Well, that’s over there”.
In April 2018 you had the YouTube headquarters shooting. The person legally purchased the firearm in California; where there are tons and tons of regulations… and still committed a shooting. Fortunately there were no casualties.
In December 2015, we had the San Bernardino Attack in California. The shooters had also legally purchased the firearms (from all of the sources I’m seeing) and had modified the rifles to bypass California rifle laws. 14 people died.
There are more stories across the world that you can find, there are more stories even in the restricted states here at home. The question you need to ask yourself… Did the bans change anything? Did they actually help? Did it actually stop or coerce those that were determined from doing anything?
Did the capacity limits do anything to benefit law abiding citizens? Did it help them protect themselves?
Here’s my answers:
1. No, they didn’t. 2. There’s no statistical evidence saying they did. 3. Obviously not. 4. No, it prohibited their ability to exercise their rights as humans. 5. Not in the slightest.
My answer is, no. Magazine capacity bans are not reasonable. There is no rationale supporting them, there is no evidence supporting them, and the only support given in favor has been anecdotal at best.
Are any of the associated restrictions or regulations reasonable?
That’s going to be a negative for me, Ghost Rider.
Magazine disconnect safeties have a certain appeal to a very select group of individuals, but it should be a decision made by the owner. Not forced on the owner by the government.
My big issue: Imagine having to draw your firearm in self-defense and not having the magazine in all the way for whatever reason. The time it takes you to fix this as the issue could be the end of your life.
Banning or restricting detachable magazines is just silly. There is no supporting evidence showing this to have an affect on crime rates. There is also no supporting evidence showing that criminals are affected by this law…if anything there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Restricting detachable magazines only affects those who try to abide by the law and hurt their ability to efficiently defend themselves.
I believe the magazine capacity restrictions aren’t reasonable. They have no affect on deterring crime, they do not affect the amount of bloodshed that happens at these mass shootings, and they only truly affect those trying to abide by the law.
If you don’t agree with my conclusion, you may be saying something along the lines of “I don’t need more than 1 round for self-defense”. Well… I’ve listed actual incidents that have happened that show how wrong that thought line is. Beyond that, I would reckon you might only have 100 rounds through your carry gun.
If you were saying something like that, please, do yourself a favor. Go take a self-defense course to gain some perspective. As someone who has been jumped in the past, I can guarantee you that 10 rounds wouldn’t have been enough.
Other “Is It Reasonable?” segments: