Sharp as a Marble - More proof magazine size is a red herring

<< And the winner is | Home | Metacarpus, meet the external squama frontalis >>

More proof magazine size is a red herring

Gun Myths

Two guys, one with a “hi-cap” and one with an 8 rounder. Total time difference between hitting all the targets? 2 seconds.

posted @ 1/14/2011 1:38:21 PM

Comments

Evan says:

on 1/14/2011 4:50:45 PM

I think the ability to swap mags quickly is also a slight red herring itself. Sure, someone with some practice can get very fast at doing reloads and being nearly as fast as or even faster than someone with a large cap mag can. But can they do it in a highly intense situation? I dunno. Perhaps the instigator of the attack isn't stressed at all, but I have to believe that they are in most of these cases.

I think the better counter argument to the large cap mag banners is that, for them to be right, we have to believe that the people being shot at felt it was too noisy to fight back, that it would better to do nothing than to fight back until it got quiet I suppose playing dead/possum is a possibility. But rather than assume people so deliberately chose to do nothing in light of the chaos, to give up, might it make more sense that simply took 33-rounds-being-fired worth of time to people to get their bearings and figure out how to react. And that that the timing of the mag-changing lull simply coincided with that reaction time.

In short, big-mag/small-mag, doesn't matter. People's awareness and response time is the critical factor, something no legislator can do a damned thing about.

DirtCrashr says:

on 1/14/2011 5:42:39 PM

Even Bloomberg thinks hi-caps are necessary and save lives, at least for Cops.

deadcenter says:

on 1/15/2011 10:03:08 PM

It is a red herring. They don't care about hi-cap v. low-cap, they're goal is the no-cap magazine. As LawDog said in his fluffy cake analogy, they are looking to compromise with the gun owners giving up something while they give up nothing and claim victory.

With the magazine issue, today's compromise could be reducing the max size of a magazine to one that is fully retained in the grip of the pistol. Tomorrow they would then start on reducing the rounds in those magazines until they the reached their magic number of 0. Because, if you can't carry bullets in the gun, what's the point of carrying one at all.

Incrementalism. The goal is no private gun ownership, the magazine capacity issue is the distraction.

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links