General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The semantics of gun control... [View all]benEzra
(12,148 posts)Definitions matter.
If the anti-abortion lobby introduces a bill to ban "late term abortions" and defines a late-term abortion as anything after 10 weeks' gestation, then pointing out the bait-and-switch does indeed deal in semantics. It is also true.
The gun control lobby isn't trying to ban 31-round magazines; they are trying to ban 11-round magazines, or even 8-round magazines (e.g. the NY SAFE Act as passed). Unfortunately for that approach, the very first Winchesters ever made (since 1866) had 15-round magazines, as did their predecessor, the Henry carbine of 1860-1861. That's why the compliance rate with New York's magazine and rifle-handgrip ban is estimated at 5%, and the compliance rate with Sunnyvale's magazine ban was zero; it's like setting the national speed limit on the Interstates to 35 mph.
A couple of years ago, I guesstimated the number of over-10-round magazines in U.S. homes at around a third of a billion, owned by around 50 million people. I don't know how many are sold a year, but it is probably in the many tens of millions, so that number may be half a billion now. You'd likely double that number if you want a 7-round limit. That would make the "war on magazines" much bigger than the "war on drugs".
As to the "saving lives" aspect, the head of Americans for Gun Safety a couple years ago stated that the most dangerous bullets in a magazine are the first 10, not numbers 11 and up. Rifles are used in only ~270 murders/year out of ~12,000; of those, magazine capacity is almost always irrelevant for offensive use if the shooter plans their tactics around reloads; the rate of aimed fire between a 10- or 15-round magazine and a 30-round magazine is not that different. Capacity matters a lot more for defensive use than offensive.