Quick Question. Not a gun owner myself, don’t trust myself with one. Might get pissed at a family and play a cowboy dance off. But anyways, how many rounds in your average magazine? I’m sure it varies but give me a run down.

Next, a reflection question, what’s the difference between 1 30 round magazine and 3 10 round magazines? (Please note: I think that Obama is a pinhead on wanting to ban assault rifles and magazine clips.) I am asking to prove a point, that magazine limitations will do ZERO to stop a killing spree. Therefore I think it is not only an infringement on personal liberty, it is a waste of time and money during a period in American History when we have little of either.


So the only thing stopping you from possibly killing someone is a gun? sounds like you are trying to make the liberals point for them


dude i come from the south all my friends have guns. and may you have an arsenal to rival rambo’s. but i thought it was a personal choice. i dont have one. my choice.


and for the record: i said cowboy dance off. remember western films where you shoot at the feet of someone “DANCE, BOY, DANCE!”


My point was that I assume you can control yourself from throwing knifes and swinging blunt objects you own at family members but if you had a gun you couldnt resist shooting at them? of course its your choice but your reasoning is exactly why the liberals want to ban guns


FL…if you are talking about pistols…it varies from a few bullets…for concealable/lightweight models to around 20 for larger pistols as standard…though you can buy up to a 33 round mag for a Glock17 & some other models.
As to the difference between 10 & 30…in rifles or pistols it is largely a matter of convenience on the range for target practice and you don’t have to carry several separate magazines. In terms of live fire…it takes perhaps 2-3 seconds to eject, insert and charge for a new magazine. I think that anyone who thinks that a 10 round mag limit will prove less deadly is nuts. It is simply a feel good measure. More importantly… it would be a victory for the left and an intrusion on our rights.

WE should be pushing for LESS restrictive gun laws than we have now in MANY places that make it nearly impossible to own, buy and bear arms for our own defense. Hope that helps a bit.


Meant it kinda as a joke


I agree 100%. I think its an infringement and as u said a feel good measure. wont stop anything. would inconvenience a shooter for a half a second. I’m add that it will be $1 billion waste of time as well.


Well, I suppose the question you’re asking is whether during the time of the reload for the 10rd clip then can someone escape? Is even one life saved worth the ban? I don’t know, but that’s the actual question.


It does vary widely. I’ve personally owned rifle magazines that have varied in capacity from 3 (in a bolt-action hunting rifle) to 35 (in a Ruger Mini-14 that I used to have). Most combat-style semi-auto rifles have at least 20-round mags, and most high-capacity combat semi-auto pistols have at least a dozen.

There is a real advantage to the high-capacity mags for combat purposes, or else they wouldn’t use them in the military and police. I will say that the laws against high-capacity magazines accomplish little, because as has been noted by many others, criminals don’t obey the law. There’s no high-technology required to make bootleg magazines; alternatively, there are plenty still available on the market.

On the contrary; he exercises his own self-control by not purchasing a firearm, rather than depending on the government to prohibit him from buying one. Same way with me and alcohol; I wouldn’t trust myself to know when to put the bottle down if I started (I’ve been a teetotaler all my life), but I rely on myself not to pick it up in the first place.

I’ll submit that the real question is whether or not the American people will become more and more acclimated to gun restrictions, and ultimately end up with the government disarming them. Then count the number of children who die in the purges to follow, as they did in the Nazi purges, the Stalin purges, the Mao purges, and a number of lesser purges in other nations. Count that against the number of children who have died in school and other shootings and in gun accidents over the same period of time on a per capita basis.




I just get to the meat of the question you asked. The number of rounds can vary widely. The reasoning for the arbitrarily chosen number is ludacris. They act as if changing a magazine takes hours. Look at it like this. Say a crazy person takes a rifle with (1) 30 round magazine and proceed to kill 30 people with the 30 rounds. The average shooting lasts less than a minute. For arguments sake, lets say that it last one minute exactly. Lets also say that the instant the first round is fired, 911 receives the call and the cops are dispatched. The average response time for the police is like around 10 minutes. So in effect what happens is, the shooter kills 30 people in 60 seconds and the cops are 9 minutes too late.

Now lets say the shooter has (3) 10 round magazines and again proceeds to kill those 30 people. Even the most inept firearms operator can change a magazine in roughly 3 seconds. In what happens now is that the shooter takes 66 seconds to kill 30 people and the cops are now only 8 min 54 seconds late. Makes no difference what-so-ever.

Will it gives someone a chance to escape? Who knows. But I doubt it. That will all come down to where the shooter is in relation to where the victims are and what the enviroment is where the shooting is taking place. Will is give someone a chance to maybe tackle or overtake the shooter? Maybe. But that comes down to whether any of the victims is close enough, smart enough, alert enough, crazy enough or heroic enough to risk their life for the betterment of every other victim. Maybe someone will try it. Maybe they will succeed. Maybe they won’t. But when it comes to self-preservation, it may make more sense to stay hidden behind cover than blindly rush a shooter.

What it comes down to is that the magazine of any arbitrarily chosen capacity ban is not a solution to any problem at all. Its just a feel good (if you can even call it that) gesture to look like politicians care.


They are banning guns based on their looks. That is enough for me to know they are not serious in their attempt to “save lives”.