Goofball thinks limiting magazine capacity would "save lives"

Zachary Kurpias thinks limiting magazine & revolver capacity to 4 rounds would save lives. There are more holes in his argument than the last target I used at the gun range.

We can reduce the level of fear in America.

Start with yourself, since you appear to have a severe case of hoplophobia. It would make much more sense for you to fear the criminal rather than his gun. To reduce your fear of criminals you should support legislation that puts criminals where they belong, behind bars, and I don't mean for 6 months followed by 5 years of probation. Even better, get yourself some self defense training and good tools to have for your own defense. Guns are the best tool for the task because guns are used on average every 13 seconds to prevent crime, 98% of the time without even needing to fire a single shot (from The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995). It makes sense because when they look down the barrel of an armed "victim" & possible death, most criminals would much rather either go to jail or run away to live to find a new victim another day.

There are pistols on the market that will give the shooter 19 shots before reloading. Recharging the weapon only requires pressing a button, dropping the used clip and inserting a fresh clip holding another 19 rounds. That can be done in less time then it takes to read this sentence.

First of all it is called a magazine, not a clip. If you want to attack guns at least learn the proper terminology. Secondly, as you mentioned, exchanging magazines can be done very rapidly with only a small amount of practice, so there is little difference between swapping out ten 5 round magazines, five 10 round magazines, & four 12 round magazines. Depending on the level of experience there might be as little as 5 to 10 seconds added to the total time to account for the required magazine exchanges with roughly the same number of shots fired down range, so limits on magazine size would not reduce the lethality of criminal activity with guns even if it were possible to get rid of larger magazines.

JOE CITIZEN should be able to perform a one-for-one free exchange of their clips, magazines, ammo tubes or revolver cylinders, at any gun store in the United States. Law-abiding citizens who agree to practice responsible gun ownership should not be charged or penalized for making this sacrifice.

The devices that are turned in should be given to certified law enforcement officers in the public and private sectors. Let those who have taken on the liability and responsibility to protect us have the firepower they need to perform their mission.

Actually the Supreme Court has found that law enforcement is not responsible nor liable for the safety of individual citizens. They are tasked with providing as much safety as possible for the public at large, but are not able to guarantee the safety of individual citizens. Often their task is to gather evidence at the crime scene after the criminal has already completed the crime, and they will then try to determine who the criminal was & then attempt to find him. If the criminal is later caught, the Prosecutor will attempt to use gathered evidence to prosecute & place the criminal in jail for a period of time, but that is of little benefit to the victims who were left in the wake of the criminal's path, nor to future victims waiting to be victimized during the upcoming parole period.

I have questions to ask concerning this ammunition capacity issue. Why do we, average citizens, need weapons that will fire six to 50 bullets before reloading? What kind of hunters are we that can’t drop a bear, or other vicious animal, with four rounds? What kind of self-defense problem do we have to face that our weapon of choice can have the capability to kill 10 to 20 human beings? . . .

I am of the opinion that the number of rounds a weapon can fire before reloading should be four. This is regardless of the type of weapon.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor does it specify what is "needed" in the way of arms & what is not. It simply states that the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not state that only the right to bear weapons with magazines that only hold 4 or less rounds shall not be infringed. Aside from that, if you were to ever find yourself in a situation of being under attack by one or more criminals you would probably rather be in a situation of having more rounds than you need than to be in a situation where you run out.

If you disagree, feel free to arm yourself with only 4 rounds, after all, we do live in a mostly free country. As for me, I like to have 1 in the barrel, 15 in the magazine, and a spare 15 round magazine as a backup with me at all times where I'm legally allowed, plus some extra spare magazines in my car & in my home. I hope to never need to use my gun for defense of myself & my family, much less to need all 31+ rounds. However, if the need ever does arise, the need would be great, and I'd rather be prepared with extra backup rounds than to be found lacking in a moment of great need.