DU gun owners " Have you ever felt under gunned carrying less than ten rounds in a mag

[former-republican]

with your CCW? "Or having a ten round mag or less as your home defense weapon of choice"

[NightWatcher]

1. I know you're fishing for snark, but some of us can drop an empty and load a new mag pretty fast

so, no, I havent felt under gunned, and neither should any other proficient firearm user.

Plus my 1911 only holds 7 or 8 per mag


Seriously though, I dont have a problem with only selling ten round mags. I've plenty for what I own and dont foresee any purchases of handguns in my future. When I first purchased firearms for personal use all I could get was a 10 round mag. So there is no rational defense to a proposed banning of high cap mags.

[former-republican]

6. "I know you're fishing for snark"

I'm actually not.

[NightWatcher]

23. oh, ok, then no, a ten rounder isnt a problem for most shooters

[reverend_tim]

102. The sound of loading a 12 gage shot gun was all that was necessary.

because you can hear the click click clang thru the front door/wall.

Followed by the sounds of the troublemaker running away.

Haven't had a problem at the condo since.

Found out a few days later who it was, when he got arrested for breaking and entering in the next building over.

So until the zombie's attack I am good.

[newfie11]

2. No

Have a black powder rifle that shots one shot and a revolver that shoots 5 shots. I don't carry but do have a revolver in the truck. Only used it to put a deer out of misery after hitting truck.

I live in a very rural area on a large farm. I do not carry on me but must have ccp for revolver in truck.

[Kaleva]

3. I don't even have bullets for my guns & I don't feel under gunned.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Same here....

But for one clip of 22lr, I'd have to go shopping to hunt bar or protect my outpost or target shoot or whatever it is you do with your grandfather's gun collection.

[Kaleva]

27. I have ammo but they are at another house 12 miles away.

Maybe some day I'll get them. It's always safe to keep the guns separate from the ammo but 12 miles is a little ridiculous.

[NYC_SKP]

4. The layperson doesn't seem to understand how easy it is to fabricate a high capacity magazine.

Much less how easy it will probably always be to get one on the black market.

Nonetheless, as a California resident, I see no reason to resist laws limiting magazine capacity.

Climate change will get us before the Rooskies will!

[pnwmom]

75. At least we could reduce the number of crazy layperson shooters.

Amy Bishop, for example, was stymied when she got a "click" sound instead of a bullet out of the single gun she was carrying. She only killed three people but there were more in the room. It's good, with that gun, she wasn't able to shoot 30 bullets without reloading.

[loli phabay]

5. i generally carry five fifteen round mags on my person for my glock 22

Plus another five in my vehicle. Plus ive got ten full mags for my m16a1 in my trunk. Another fifty or so for my shotgun. And yes id like to have more as id rather have too kuch ammo rather than not enough.

[Aerows]

9. What do you need it for?

I'm curious. Who and what do you gun for in your daily life that you need that much firepower on your person?

[former-republican]

14. my m16a1 in my trunk

That should have been a give away.

[Aerows]

15. If you are in the military

yes, you need it. But civilians don't need that.

[loli phabay]

20. nope not the military any more.

[Aerows]

24. You aren't a civilian

That's for damn sure, if that's what you are toting.

[ManiacJoe]

41. He is a cop.

However, I am surprised at the 5 mags on his person. From what I normally see it is one in the gun and two more on the belt.

Also surprised at both the rifle and shotgun. Usually it is one or the other with most departments transitioning to the rifle.

[Aerows]

43. He has a reason, though

And he's not a civilian.

[loli phabay]

44. i have another two mag holder on my tac vest so i use it rather than have it empty

[ManiacJoe]

45. Given your cryptic profile entries,

"cop" may not be the correct guess at your profession. What is it you do? And where? (Assuming you are allowed to answer.)

[loli phabay]

46. out here in the boonies we carry both. i can use non lethal with my shotgun

As well as breaching rounds and nothing works better than the rubber rounds to chase a bear away.

[Aerows]

48. Until you live in the boonies, you see no reason to carry a firearm

A freaking wild pig nearly attacked us after Katrina. I saw the reason to use a shotgun. The thing was huge, feral and it was a messed up situation. When you live in the sticks, you learn to respect being able to defend yourself. It doesn't make us less civilized, but it does make us wise.

[loli phabay]

16. lol kind of

[Aerows]

18. I missed the M16 LOL

And yes, you do need it.

[kestrel91316]

28. He probably lives where there are some brown people and worries about them

because, well, they're brown!

[Aerows]

29. No, I realized he carries an M-16

He's not a civilian by any means.

[former-republican]

30. You really aren't helping anything here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. What do you believe their intent is?

[former-republican]

70. Derail a thread

I started the thread to see how fellow gun owners really think about a potential mag ban.

My self personally I don't see it as that huge of a deal.

I think something is coming down the pike and if it's this.

I think most shooters can deal with it. As to the mags grand fathered .
I think that's what it's going to be.

[kestrel91316]

94. Wrong. You RWers and gun masturbaters aren't helping.

[rl6214]

96. What a juvenile post

[morningfog]

66. What a paranoid freak.

[underpants]

8. We own a bolt action shotgun with a three round clip and NO

If I can't handle someone in my house (and we did have drugged out kid on our front porch 5 years ago - handled it with a phone not a gun) with that then I wouldn't be able to handle it with 10 rounds.

[Aerows]

11. Precisely

If you can't handle it with that much, you can't handle it with more. I'm dumbfounded at people that think 20 or 30 rounds in a clip is called "self-defense". If I can't handle it with about 3, I'm doomed anyway.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. If you truly believe that railing against clips that hold "20 or 30 rounds" is a solution, you've won

because there are none.

Here's what a clip for a popular S&W revolver looks like. It holds only 6 rounds.

Some stripper clips for certain rifles hold 5 rounds. Some (which are more prone to jam) hold 10. Clips are not made to hold more than 10 because they would have a tendancy to jam even more.

Michael Moore believes that one or more drug manufacturers have knowingly distributed drugs which are related to suicides and homicides. Why aren't you railing against that?

If you don't believe that you've already won on the issue of restricting clips to holding less than 20 rounds, where's the link to show that there are clips that hold "20 or 30 rounds"?

[Aerows]

36. Revolvers have too much recoil

Let's not play around here and pretend that we don't know these things.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. 1.) You've changed the subject. 2.) You speak like someone who has never fired a revolver.

3.) You are wrong again.

[Aerows]

62. LOL

Okay. I'm delighted that you find that I am wrong and want to pick a fight for no reason, when actually, I am on your side in the necessity of guns. But go right ahead. Let's have it out, my friend.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. You've changed the subject again.

[Aerows]

80. Probably

because I don't discuss nonsense, which is what you attempted to drag me into. You just laid down a bunch of emotional assumptions.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. You initially said at #11, you were "dumbfounded at people that think 20 or 30 rounds in a clip ..."

That was nonsense.

My first response informed you that no one manufactures a clip that carries "20 or 30" rounds.

Next, you claimed at #36, "Revolvers have too much recoil". That, too, is nonsense. Inherently so.

Then, instead of posting anything in support of your positions at #11 and #36 that there are clips that hold "20 or 30 rounds" and "Revolvers have too much recoil," at #62, you said "I'm delighted that you find that I am wrong and want to pick a fight for no reason ..." That was also off the point and additional nonsense.

Now, instead of simply saying that you are now aware that there are no clips that carry "20 or 30" rounds, and you know that you have no factual basis for saying that "Revolvers have too much recoil," you say that "I don't discuss nonsense."

Maybe you protest too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

[Kaleva]

19. My bolt actions can hold up to 5 rounds

If I ever have to fire that many in a crisis, I know I'm in pretty deep shit.

[GP6971]

42. I think I would be in

deep shit if I ever had to even bring my antique, single shot, 410 shotgun out.

[Kaleva]

50. LOL! I probably would opt to run, if I could, instead of getting out a gun like that.

[GP6971]

53. That thing is probably

a 1/2 step above a Daisy BB gun

[Aerows]

58. You could bash something over the head with it

That seems useful.

[Sgent]

72. Not quite

.410 shotgun with a slug = .45 cal big ass powerful bullet.

Not much will stand up to that at a close distance (including a wandering moose or bear).

[GP6971]

87. Didn't know

That.. Thanks! Although it's locked in a safe so would never have time to get it. Too many young grandchildren around

[former9thward]

10. No.

But a ten round mag is not going to save any lives or prevent any incident. None.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I have a revolver for protection. No mag. nt

[Aerows]

17. Too much recoil.

But we get the one that suits us.

[hack89]

13. Never carried with that few

not by design but simply because most guns carry more.

[former-republican]

21. But would you feel okay with ten ?

[hack89]

31. The difference between 10 and a standard mag is meaningless

pointless but wouldn't bother me that much.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. My usual carry has an 8-round magazine.

I carry one spare. So 16 + 1 "up the pipe," total. If I need more than that, I'm probably either dead or I've high-tailed it.

Home is a different matter. My home defense handgun only holds a little more (10-round magazine, three extras on hand), but fires a more powerful round. But it's a bit big and bulky for concealed carry on a quite small person like me, so it's for the home (and the range...it's a lot more fun to shoot than the carry gun) only.

A magazine capacity restriction wouldn't effect me much much* personally...I just don't see it having the slightest measurable effect on gun-related homicide figures.

*I do have a rifle that will hold a 20-round magazine, but I have all of those I want.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. No, actually. And I carry everyday when I'm in the States. But...

I usually carry a Glock of some sort, each of which with more than 10 rounds loaded. But when I carry a small .380 or 1911 or other gun where the capacity is limited I will slip a spare mag in my pocket or something. I don't feel any more "undergunned" with 7+7+1 of my 1911 (two 7 round mags, 15 total) versus my 15+1 of my Glock (one 15 round mag). I do keep a few "extended" magazines in my glovebox for the Glock and 1911 though (30 round & 10 round respectively).

Mags can be changed in about 2 seconds (literally) so the small mag capacity is not as important as simply having more rounds loaded in another magazine on hand. This is what people advocating "hi-cap magazine" bans don't get. I firmly believe that if high-cap mags did not exist, most mass shootings would have turned out relatively the same (if not identical). Changing a mag is effortless and takes seconds.

Just to clarify, I do believe that High capacity magazines are 99% pointless for civilian ownership. I just don't think that banning them is worth the political repercussions given that it does not make a practical and significant real-world difference in semi-automatic firepower.

[loli phabay]

34. two seconds is a long time to change a mag. thougj id prefer ten thirty round mags to a three hundr

Round mag as if i get a bad mag its easy to drop it and put another in rather than having a three hundred round paper weight.

[Kaleva]

39. Then why are they so popular with some people?

Your comment:

"...given that it does not make a practical and significant real-world difference in semi-automatic firepower. "

I've always been confused by this arguement. On one hand some say the capacity of the mags doesn't make any difference because they can be changed out so quickly while on the other some of the very same people will argue against any restriction on them being able to have 20-30 round magazines. I've even seen a couple of people say they will give theirs up only if the police can't have any.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. They are better, no doubt.

No one is saying that they aren't better. They are. 30 rournds is greater than 10 or rounds... no one disputes that. A 30 round mag is easier to carry than 3 10 round mags. There is this extraattention to owning something that was previously banned... kind of like eating that (formerly) forbidden fruit. And they are easier to find and usually cheaper because of the greater supply. And that's what the military uses so it looks cool... Yeah! There are a number of reasons (mostly superficial and silly reasons) that people use the 30's. 99% o the reasons are personal preference based because no one really needs that many consecutive rounds.

But, at the end of the day if it takes 10-15 seconds to shoot off a 30 round mag accurately** versus 15-20 seconds to shoot off 3x10 round mags accurately... is it really worth the political avalanche of bullshit it costs to achieve such a change? The performance difference isn't going to drastically alter too many of these mass shootings and the logistical issues of being forced to use 10 round magazines isn't a show stopper either. So you have to ask yourself, what is the return on investment in political capital? IMO, there are more productive avenues of gun control, but some people seem fixated on nabbing that low-hanging fruit.

**When I say "accurately", I'm talking paper-plate accuracy accuracy about 2-3 shots/second with 2-3 second magazinec changes... this is pretty average for a decent practiced shooter.

[Kaleva]

67. This isn't 1994 and there wasn't a horrific mass shooting at a school that year either

Your comment:

"The performance difference isn't going to drastically alter too many of these mass shootings and the logistical issues of being forced to use 10 round magazines isn't a show stopper either."

I have been arguing for a 5 round limit on detachable magazines for long guns. Instead of a shooter having 1 30 round mag, he has to have 6 5 round mags to have the same amount of ammo.

I read in a couple of articles the shooter had a number of guns to choose from and he picked two semi-auto handguns and the bushmaster rifle with the large capacity magazines. Apparently he went for the most firepower he could handle contained in as few magazines as possible.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

89. I understand your comment and totally see where you're coming from...

but I think the idea of a 5 round rifle as a non-starter. Heck, early 1800's revolvers held more shots than that. Lewis & Clark used a 20-shot repeating Girandoni Air Rifle on their 1803 expedition. I doubt the public would accept a 5-round limit to start off with.

[kestrel91316]

26. Oh, gee, another weenie wagging thread.

[ellisonz]

33. +1

[rl6214]

97. Oh gee, another juvenile penis post

[The Straight Story]

32. Had a 13 round hand gun when I was a security officer

Funny thing is, I didn't kill anyone and I am the same person now I was then (and as when I was a deputy).

The place I was doing security work at was an abandoned apartment complex, one of our guards had been shot out and there was a body found in the dumpster the week before.

13 rounds is not much when you are all alone in a place and you have drug dealers, etc wandering about. 5 or 6 of them, you miss some shots.....

Several weeks ago here we live we had over 20 people at one house, a mini-riot. The cops took forever to show up and if those people had come down 3 doors no idea what we would have done. One friend (whose house they were at) was bitten and beaten up.

We call the cops time after time - and no one is ever arrested (no one was that night, even though we had multiple cop cars here, ambulances, etc).

I don't own a gun now, and would not have used it that night if I did unless they came down our way. But I sure as hell would liked to have had one if things had went bad for us. And have enough rounds.

If you rely only on cops/govt to protect you don't be surprised when they fail.

[Barack_America]

37. Jesus, where do you live.

Sounds worse than my neighborhoods in Philly and Detroit.

[The Straight Story]

38. In the hood in columbus :)

Our neighbor has a 14 yr daughter who got pregnant from another neighbor (he was 14 too). Her dad has been in out of prison. His 'mom' (not his real mom) takes in foster kids (for the money).

She broke up with him, he got his gang of friends, his 'mom', and went down to the other neighbor's house to attack him (for, well, no real reason).

Most were high school kids. His 'mom' kicked in neighbors' door, bit him, etc. The other kids had bats and such, neighbor's son called his friends, battle ensued.

Basically, two-three families here cause a lot of problems. They don't mess with us generally (only once). Drugs, theft ring, etc.

On top of that, many houses here are in foreclosure and empty. People come here about weekly to break in and rob them, gave up calling the cops as they have never, not ONCE, arrested anyone - make them put things back and they leave.

I don't call them anymore.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

59. C-bus does has some rough spots.

I lived in east Cleveland for a few years back in college and reside in the Akron area now.
There's areas in Cleve and C-bus I wouldn't feel safe in with a Mac-11, let alone my regular glock carry.
But, IMO, Cleve and C-bus have nothing on Cinci when it comes to some rough neighborhoods.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. This is a red herring

To me the acceptable limit should be what fits in the hand grip of the gun. 7-15 rounds in most cases is a practical maximum. Thos kind of magazine are not the real issues, the extended and snail type are.

It is possible to design handguns so they cannot accept a magazine that extends beyond the grip and that can be enforced by BATF. That would eliminate the snail drums and extended sticks. There are numerous example of this in manufacture today.

Existing non-conforming magazine should be grandfathered or bought back at retail.

[Aerows]

51. Glad to hear someone else say this

They need to be, as you say, grandfathered or bought back. It's sensible.

Jesus Christ, I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.

[Kaleva]

60. I agree with what you say about handgun magazines.

It's similiar to what I wrote to my congressman concerning gun control.

[undeterred]

49. What is this post doing in General Discussion?

[Aerows]

52. We are discussing it

It is an important issue for all of us. That's why it is here. If you are a host, kick it. If you aren't, then take part in the discussion.

[valerief]

76. I've alerted on it twice. Crickets. This has nothing to with gun laws. nt

[Aerows]

78. It does in the respect that we are *FINALLY* discussing

putting an end to massive gun clips and assault weapons. It's an uncomfortable topic, but one that needs to be had.

[Incitatus]

55. No nt

[bluerum]

56. Yes

[ileus]

61. My EDC is 6+1

Also doesn't bother me to carry a 380...

However.com for HD the more the better.

For my M&P 9c i upgraded to fullsized mags allowing 17 +1

For my p229 14 rounders instead of the AWB 10 that come with it.

For my AR's my favorite is 20 rnd pmags for hunting and general plinking, but I use 30's for it's limited HD use.

[Kaleva]

63. Why 30 round mags for your AR for HD?

Is that based on research you may have done which shows that 30 round mags are the minimum for home defense?

[loli phabay]

65. i have a m4 carbine that if needed i would go to for home defence

I have thirty round mags for it. For me its a personal choice as the chances are im going to need the firepower and i like the ability to get on target with it. Though if i wasnt so familiar and accustomed to the platform i would opt for a twelve gauge as this is probuably the best option. But i know my abilities when it comes to holding what i got with the carbine.

[Kaleva]

69. Why do you believe that chances are you'll need that much firepower?

I'm just curious as to the reasons why some people think that and how they came to that conclusion. In one report I read about guns used in home defense, it said that the situation was resolved with 0 to 1 round fired in the majority of reported cases.

[loli phabay]

73. one round may stop the threat but it may not. there may be more than one threat i dont know

Through experience i would rather be waiting with twenty nine rounds still available for the hour or so until help arrived than not have enough to win any altercation inside my home.

[Aerows]

74. If you need 29 rounds, my dear, you are in deep shit trouble

That's a fact.

[loli phabay]

79. yyuup but ive ran out of ammo before in a firefight so i like to backstop

And id rather not need thirty rounds than need them but not have them.

[Aerows]

82. I'd rather you not need 30 rounds at all

And I think if we approach things sensibly, we can get to a point where you don't need all 30.

[Kaleva]

86. Do you have spare 30 round mags on hand in case of a jam or malfunction?

[loli phabay]

106. yyup ive learned from experience.

[bossy22]

64. Nope

When i carry (which is no often) I usually carry a 5 shot pocket revolver. For me, I like something that fits easily into my pocket- less i have to worry about.

[slackmaster]

68. My EDC has been a folding lock-blade knife for the last 39 years

I feel naked if I walk out the door without one.

[Budgies Revenge]

71. No

But the gun I have currently comes standard with a 13 round magazine. I honestly don't have a problem with a 10 round limit, but I'm not sure how much good it would really do.

[sarisataka]

81. Not really

most often I carry a 5 round .38 snub with another ten rounds handy. If not that it is a full sized 9mm with 15 in the mag. I am considering just averaging it out and carry a .45 with 7 rounds.
For home there is the trusty 12 gauge.

I don't worry much about it for two reasons. First, the object is to never get into a situation where you actually need the gun. Second, if the situation insists you get involved regardless of you intentions, the will to fight and win is more important than the tool. (yes, I went there) If I have a gun, it is a gun, if a knife then it is a knife, if I'm pinned and the attacker is on me, start biting chunks out of the SOB.

[Aerows]

84. Pretty much

and eloquently stated.

[undeterred]

83. I don't have a gun and this post makes me feel overgunned.

I don't like having this post in General Discussion. It belongs in the Gun Forum or on some other messageboard.

[billh58]

88. Sounds like you're

still a Republican who is attempting to compensate for something. More and bigger bullets? A bigger gun with bigger clips? Maybe just bigger?

[Rex]

90. Why would someone feel that way?

[BainsBane]

91. This OP is obscene

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

There are 20 dead children. Statements like that in the OP are insensitive, to say the least.

[Rex]

92. No seriously, I want to hear an explanation.

Why is a 6 shot revolver or a shotgun no good for home defense? The Wild West didn't seem to need a 30 round banana clip to 'tame' it. I want an elaboration as to WHY one would feel under gunned without a large amount of ammo inside?

Can't hit shit?

Maybe they shouldn't own a gun. Especially if they are in a house with corners and their loved ones terrified. I would hope an idiot that had no idea how to use said gun, wouldn't just fire wildly when the moment came.

Jus sayin...until I hear some clarification from the OP.

Won't hold my breath.

[Lizzie Poppet]

98. For home defense?

A revolver isn't a bad choice at all, IMO. They can be reloaded quickly (via what are called "speedloaders" that hold the six rounds ready for simultaneous insertion) in the somewhat unlikely event more rounds are needed to repel a home invasion. Revolvers tend to be chambered for more powerful ammunition than semiautomatic pistols, too.

A shotgun has its disadvantages for home defense. If you actually have to shoot, it works very well indeed. A 12 gauge shotgun is one of the most powerful civilian weapons available. But if the invader surrenders (as any sane person would do if someone got the drop on them with a 12-ga), then you have the problem of a two handed weapon leaving you without a free hand to dial the phone (don't laugh...this is a real issue). In addition, the longer barrel is more difficult to keep out of the reach of an assailant in close quarters. Weapon retention is, obviously, a huge priority in these situations.

And obviously the same limitations apply to rifles. Moreover, rifles are usually much more powerful than handguns, and have much greater ability to penetrate walls,etc. They are not a good choice for urban home defense (unless you cant stand your neighbors, I suppose).

The Wild West didn't have 30 round magazines, but they did have repeater rifles that held a pretty good amount of ammo. The legendary Winchester rifle was a revolutionary weapon largely for reason of its rapid action and large capacity.

I agree with your point about being able to hit what you aim at. If someone is going to keep a firearm for personal defense, it is their responsibility to become a competent shot and safe gun handler, and to practice these skills. If they're not willing to do that, they should make another choice.

[BainsBane]

99. Riddle someone with 30 to 100 bullets

For the sake of your TV? No, that s not acceptable.

Sales of those magazines will be banned shortly after the new year as part of the assault weapons ban. It will pass the House and Senate. Most gun owners will support the ban because they don't display the level of irresponsibility and selfishness that characterizes some of the most virulent gun proponents, like the one's who talk about rising up against the govt, murdering police and anyone who disagrees with them.

[Dr_Scholl]

100. No, they won't.

You obviously don't know how these things work, so let me explain it to you.

When the original AWB was passed, the Dems controlled the House 256-177. Even with that big of a majority, it only passed by 1 vote. Keep in mind, the Democratic Party had a much firmer anti gun stance in the early 90's than it does today. And it was still that close after a year of negotiating and in some cases, arm twisting, to get that many Dems from more conservative regions to sign on.

Fast forward to today. The Republicans control the House 233-200. And they definitely won't go for any new gun laws. So in other words, every single Democrat in the House would have to vote for it (won't happen), and 34 Republicans would have to flip if they did (also won't happen). And not to mention Boehner wouldn't even let it come to a floor vote anyway.

[BainsBane]

101. 20 dead children

You don't seem to understand the world we're living in today. The tide has changed.

[Dr_Scholl]

103. Not really.

n/t

[BainsBane]

104. You may not prioritize the lives of children

But many of us do, and we will not rest until something is done to reign in the insanity of gun terrorism.

Your post is like talking about airport security on 9/10/01. Events can change people, and this one was a bridge too far. The days of private WMD stockpiles in this country must end. There are many Republicans far less reactionary on this issue than some on DU.

[Lizzie Poppet]

108. I think you may be garnering a mistaken impression of this "tide."

I understand how it could seem that way here, on a virulently anti-gun forum. I have encountered no such tide elsewhere, even here in strongly liberal Portland (and among my almost exclusively liberal circle of friends).

[BainsBane]

111. Actually this place Is more pro gun

Than anywhere else I've ever seen. Even the NRA has opted to remain silent out of what they refer to as decency. The Gun proponents on this board show no such reservations. Right now, they are more reactionary than the NRA itself. And I certainly have never encountered this degree of callous selfishness elsewhere.

I was actually thinking of the editorial boards of conservative newspapers and a number of gun owners who have publicly spoken out for gun reform. Like any human being with a conscience, they are shocked by recent events and realize that something must change.

[Lizzie Poppet]

113. Seriously?!?

The only exception I might make would be the Daily KOS. Of course, if you're classifying any objection to the extreme suggestions and and calls for silencing any remotely pro-gun poster (via the jury system... surely you've seen that shit in Meta?), then I could understand your assertion of "callous selfishness." I see it very, very differently.

[Lizzie Poppet]

107. And I talked about doing that where, precisely?

Or did you just pick a random reply in the thread to append that to?

[BainsBane]

112. Home defense

You raised that as a justifiable use for high death count magazines. I'm wondering why anyone would feel the need to put that many rounds into anyone, much less someone burgling a home. That is not defense. It is slaughter.

[Lizzie Poppet]

114. "high death count magazines"

That phrase right there tells me I'm probably wasting my time here,but I'll give it one try. I in fact made no such advocacy. I specifically stated that my home defense firearm is a handgun with a 10-round magazine. 10 rounds is the usual suggested size when people advocate magazine capacity restrictions, and it hardly qualifies as "high capacity." I mentioned my rifle as a possible reason I might be effected by a magazine ban. I didn't state that I have it for home defense (I don't; a high powered rifle is usually a terrible choice for that purpose: the ammunition can easily penetrate walls, and it takes two hands to use in a situation where you may need the other hand to use a flashlight, operate a phone, etc.).

Hopefully this clears up your misconceptions about my statements, but frankly that use of an emotionally-loaded catch phrase lowers my confidence.

[Rex]

118. My great fear here is that 1000s of people went out and bought a 'gun'.

To feel 'safe', but have no idea how to use it properly. And as a result, their kids or friends might be indirectly shot during a crisis.

[Lizzie Poppet]

119. I wholeheartedly agree.

The decision to have a firearm for personal defense MUST be accompanied by the resolve to be trained in its safe and competent use and to practice those skills regularly enough to retain them. Anything less is irresponsible. Someone unwilling to do these things should make a different personal security choice.

[flvegan]

93. No, never.

My .45 is a 6+1. My Mossberg is along those lines. I have extra clips and extra shotgun rounds.

Worst case scenario, no. Never felt that way.

[rl6214]

95. I carry a small 9mm so 10 rds is standard so no, I don't feel

Under gunned. When I go out target shooting though, I like my 30 rd mags for my ARs. I also like carrying my XD45 with a 13 rd mag if I can conceal it.

[ManiacJoe]

105. No, because less than 10 is the natural number for that gun.

My home defense gun is whatever pistol was being used for concealed carry that day.

If I am carrying a 1911-style .45, it uses single-stack 8-round magazines that fit flush with the grip. Two extra mags are on the belt, not entirely for the ammo but because the magazine is the most common point of failure for pistols.

If I am carrying one of my 9mm Beretta 92, it has a standard size mag of 15 rounds, with one extra magazine on the belt.

Artificially limiting the capacity of any magazine is silly and serves no useful purpose other than to aid the Bad Guys.

[jmg257]

109. Yes. When carrying a revolver I felt outgunned knowing there were semis out there with

much larger capacities.

Even great .357 or decent .38+p ammo made little difference knowing I could just as well be carrying a Beretta with 16rnds and a few additional 15round mags on my belt.

And when the .40s came available, I again felt under-gunned due to caliber - even though they held a few less rounds then the 9mm.

[tpsbmam]

110. Why is this in GD? This is a gun thread with mostly gun owners talking about their damn

toys of violence & death. Why is this not in the gungeon?

[dmallind]

115. If overwrought claims of all gun owners as insane criminals are allowed in GD

So should perfectly reasonable discussions of magazine capacity control be allowed on the same forum. Get rid of the shitpile of the first category before you challenge the reasonable and informed people.

For the OP nope never have. All I ever had as a CCW was an 8rd pocket 9mm. I did have some standard 10+ at home (highest was the 15+1 on the G19) in the safe but the Kahr was the accessible one even at home. Never did care for long guns (taste and lack of proficiency rather than any particular angst) so no 30+ exotica for me - and the silly extended Glock magazines must be absolute buggers for reasonable balance and aim so never tried them either.

[billh58]

120. Reasonable and informed?

From the Gungeon?...

[Ganja Ninja]

116. I don't carry.

My guns never leave the house except for when I go to the range. Other than that they're locked in a gun safe.

[MineralMan]

117. I almost never carry. I never carried once in 2012.

So, no. Even if I were carrying, the magazine holds enough rounds for any situation I might encounter, and will suffice in any situation I can imagine anywhere I would go that would make me want to carry.