Magazine capacity limits

[4th law of robotics]

13. This is one of those issues that strikes me as a tempest in a teapot

I oppose a ban on the general grounds that no link between high magazine capacity and greater death toll can actually be found (so if there's no concrete reason to ban something it should not be banned. Rather than starting with the assumption that it ought to be banned and then proving a utility for it).

100 round magazines are toys for hobbyists. Not particularly useful in the real world.

The only opposition really that I would have to banning them besides being pointless is that it would represent the creep of ever more restrictive gun control laws.

First it's 100 round mags. Ok, fine. Then, well we already banned hundred rounds, why not limit them to 6 shots like in the 1800s? Ok, well then why not make it single shot? Then, well what are you going to accomplish with a single shot weapon? That's a hobbyist toy not anything practical for self defense, so leave it locked up at your local shooting range. Then, if you can only have it at a shooting range what's the point of guns at all?

If it could be guaranteed that the antis would stop at this I wouldn't have any problem with it.

10-15 rounds per clip is just fine and entirely practical.

I suppose an analogous situation would be in defending bigoted speech. It's not that I love what they're saying or feel we couldn't survive without it. It's that I worry what will be banned next. Best to keep the war over that right on the fringes so it doesn't start causing real trouble.

Not sure if that's clear, but to sum up: I have no problem with banning 100 round magazines, I do worry that this won't be the end of it.