Who Needs a "High Capacity" Firearm?

[DRob]

I'm "Pro Choice". I have guns with the dangerous hi-caps as well as guns that are one-timers.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Yes, they're "high-capacity" when compared to 1911 mags. Also, 30-round mags for an AR are "hi-cap" given the original design was only a 20-round mag.

The semantics does become important when one discusses firearms capable of 15+ rounds in the mag. For example, my Glock 30SF holds just 8, though most people would probably think that, being a Glock, it should hold at least a dozen!

For those in the know, the terms aren't important. For people trying to put their own spin on a story, the terms become VERY important, as "hi-cap" sounds scary to the uninformed.

Sorry, man. There is no such thing as "high capacity" magazines. They're all standard.

 

[BugI02]

Before berating me, I do understand the OPs reason for posting. That said, what matters to me is I WANT high cap mags; I do not need to demonstrate NEED. I don't NEED a 106 year old Brazilian main battle rifle either but I surely did want one (or more).

 

[david890]

Sorry, man. There is no such thing as "high capacity" magazines. They're all standard.

The 10-round factory mags for my Glock 30SF are "standard", as is the 32-round mag that I own. However, I suspect most people consider the latter to be "high-capacity".

If a website like Glock Factory Magazines makes a distinction between "factory" (standard) and "hi-capacity", there must be a reason.

Using your reasoning, there's really no such thing as an "assault rifle"; it's just a "rifle". However, I suspect a LEO responding to an armed gunman call might like to know if s/he is facing someone with a single-shot Rossi .22LR or a full-auto AK-47! Is it wrong to even discuss "semi-auto rifles" versus "full-auto rifles", given that both are "rifles"???

/knee-biter.

 

[david890]

Dude, I know you're tryin, but I'm just messing with ya. I would have used purple for sarcasm but with 46 posts, I wasn't sure you would have got it. 17 round mags are STANDARD CAPACITY for a G17/G34 and 30 round mags are STANDARD CAPACITY for an AR/M4. "High capacity" is nothing but a term invented by some liberal to strike fear in the hearts of the uneducated.

Glock makes "factory" mags capable of holding 30+ rounds! Does that mean Glock intended for those to be "standard" magazines?

As noted, the issue is one of semantics, wherein different words convey different meanings. I'll buy your assertion that EVERY mag made by Glock is "standard", but I'll continue to make the distinction between those of low-capacity and those of high-capacity.

Should I use purple to denote my statement that the "standard" mag for the ORIGINAL AR-15/M-16 was 20-rounds? 30-round mags are certainly "standard" for the M4, but not for in the original design. The same is true for the 15- and 30-round mags for the M-1 Carbine, in the rifle, with the 15-rnd mag, was adopted by the Army in late 1941 (delivered May, 1942). 30-round "hi-capacity" mags did not appear until 1944, when the select-fire M2 came onto the scene.

So, imagine telling some buck private in 1944 to go get a case of "standard" mags for your M2. Would you really want the 15-rounders or the 30-rounders if you anticipate a lot of full-auto shooting? I suspect you'd tell that young man to either a) get a case of "hi-cap" mags, or b) get a case of 30-round mags (so that there's NO chance of misunderstanding)? I'd wager AT LEAST the former, but most likely the latter.

If you want to call ALL mags "standard", be my guest. Just don't expect everyone else to buy into your logic/semantics.



/Quantity of posts does not necessarily correlate with quality of posts.

 

[Arthur Dent]

The 10-round factory mags for my Glock 30SF are "standard", as is the 32-round mag that I own. However, I suspect most people consider the latter to be "high-capacity".

If a website like Glock Factory Magazines makes a distinction between "factory" (standard) and "hi-capacity", there must be a reason.

Using your reasoning, there's really no such thing as an "assault rifle"; it's just a "rifle". However, I suspect a LEO responding to an armed gunman call might like to know if s/he is facing someone with a single-shot Rossi .22LR or a full-auto AK-47! Is it wrong to even discuss "semi-auto rifles" versus "full-auto rifles", given that both are "rifles"???

/knee-biter.

You are correct. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. That terminology was made up by the anti-gun folks to put guns in a negative light. If I take an aluminum softball bat and use it to clobber someone does that suddenly make all aluminum softball bats "assault bats"? No. They are still softball bats. People get stabbed and I have yet to hear of anything referred to as an "assault knife." Same thing with punching or kicking someone. We don't refer to our limbs as assault hands or assault legs, do we? Even in light of the fact that those are used more often than any other weapon. Cars are used more often to commit violence than rifles yet nobody drives an "assault car." Putting assault in front of anything is merely to promote an agenda that is counter to our freedoms.

As for any LEO responding to an armed gunman call he isn't going to know the weapon involved anyway until after the smoke has cleared. Most people don't know a Glock from an Uzi so when they call in they are going to say the first thing that pops into their head. The safety of police isn't my concern, the safety of myself and my family is. If I feel a SAW is what's needed to defend my home then I should be able to purchase one without jumping through hoops to get it. The amount of ammo I carry or have in a magazine is what I consider to be standard. Who is the authority to tell me what is high capacity and what is standard? If the weapon is made to hold it then it is standard.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Glock makes "factory" mags capable of holding 30+ rounds! Does that mean Glock intended for those to be "standard" magazines?

As noted, the issue is one of semantics, wherein different words convey different meanings. I'll buy your assertion that EVERY mag made by Glock is "standard", but I'll continue to make the distinction between those of low-capacity and those of high-capacity.

Should I use purple to denote my statement that the "standard" mag for the ORIGINAL AR-15/M-16 was 20-rounds? 30-round mags are certainly "standard" for the M4, but not for in the original design. The same is true for the 15- and 30-round mags for the M-1 Carbine, in the rifle, with the 15-rnd mag, was adopted by the Army in late 1941 (delivered May, 1942). 30-round "hi-capacity" mags did not appear until 1944, when the select-fire M2 came onto the scene.

So, imagine telling some buck private in 1944 to go get a case of "standard" mags for your M2. Would you really want the 15-rounders or the 30-rounders if you anticipate a lot of full-auto shooting? I suspect you'd tell that young man to either a) get a case of "hi-cap" mags, or b) get a case of 30-round mags (so that there's NO chance of misunderstanding)? I'd wager AT LEAST the former, but most likely the latter.

If you want to call ALL mags "standard", be my guest. Just don't expect everyone else to buy into your logic/semantics.



/Quantity of posts does not necessarily correlate with quality of posts.

The Ruger P95, which is what I carry, was made originally with fifteen round magazines. But for the Kalifornia crowd they made ten round magazines. Does that suddenly make my fifteen round magazines high capacity?

 

[david890]

The amount of ammo I carry or have in a magazine is what I consider to be standard. Who is the authority to tell me what is high capacity and what is standard? If the weapon is made to hold it then it is standard.

So, if I mount a 1,000 gallon gas tank in the back of my pickup, does that make it a "standard" gas tank or a "hi-capacity" gas tank? Perhaps for YOU the answer is "standard", but for almost everyone else, it's "hi-cap".

Once again, the issue is semantics. We have grammar that is comparative ("better") and superlative ("best") for a reason; they give a richness to the language that would otherwise be lacking. We differentiate between "standard" and "hi-cap" based on CAPACITY of the magazine, and the "authority" for the use of those terms comes from all of us; our shared experience creates the language we use.

Does that suddenly make my fifteen round magazine high capacity?

No, it does not. It makes the 10-round mag a "lo-capacity" mag to differentiate from the "standard" 15-round model.



/Did you misplace your towel???

 

[handgun]

I think people should be able to buy what they can afford and what they want. Not really sure what the meaning of this original post is all about.

 

[Arthur Dent]

So, if I mount a 1,000 gallon gas tank in the back of my pickup, does that make it a "standard" gas tank or a "hi-capacity" gas tank? Perhaps for YOU the answer is "standard", but for almost everyone else, it's "hi-cap".

Once again, the issue is semantics. We have grammar that is comparative ("better") and superlative ("best") for a reason; they give a richness to the language that would otherwise be lacking. We differentiate between "standard" and "hi-cap" based on CAPACITY of the magazine, and the "authority" for the use of those terms comes from all of us; our shared experience creates the language we use.



No, it does not. It makes the 10-round mag a "lo-capacity" mag to differentiate from the "standard" 15-round model.



/Did you misplace your towel???

Yes, it makes it a standard gas tank. If it fits and it works it's bloody well standard. Just like if I had a beta mag for my 1911. It fits, it's available, it works. It's standard. Caving into the "high capacity" description just gives the antis more room to work.

Their idea of compromise is us giving up our rights. It's like me asking for your house and your car. Let's compromise and you just give me your car.

 

[youngda9]

Glock makes "factory" mags capable of holding 30+ rounds! Does that mean Glock intended for those to be "standard" magazines?

As noted, the issue is one of semantics, wherein different words convey different meanings. I'll buy your assertion that EVERY mag made by Glock is "standard", but I'll continue to make the distinction between those of low-capacity and those of high-capacity.

Should I use purple to denote my statement that the "standard" mag for the ORIGINAL AR-15/M-16 was 20-rounds? 30-round mags are certainly "standard" for the M4, but not for in the original design. The same is true for the 15- and 30-round mags for the M-1 Carbine, in the rifle, with the 15-rnd mag, was adopted by the Army in late 1941 (delivered May, 1942). 30-round "hi-capacity" mags did not appear until 1944, when the select-fire M2 came onto the scene.

So, imagine telling some buck private in 1944 to go get a case of "standard" mags for your M2. Would you really want the 15-rounders or the 30-rounders if you anticipate a lot of full-auto shooting? I suspect you'd tell that young man to either a) get a case of "hi-cap" mags, or b) get a case of 30-round mags (so that there's NO chance of misunderstanding)? I'd wager AT LEAST the former, but most likely the latter.

If you want to call ALL mags "standard", be my guest. Just don't expect everyone else to buy into your logic/semantics.



/Quantity of posts does not necessarily correlate with quality of posts.

BINGO, great display of logic which has not been refuted (Arthur just deflected to his question, LOL)...and that last line is pure GOLD.

 

[david890]

Yes, it makes it a standard gas tank. If it fits and it works it's bloody well standard.

It seems clear to me you do not grasp the concept of an "adjective". If something, "...fits and works it's bloody well standard", then explain to me what you would describe as "non-standard". If a 1911 mag that holds 8 rounds is "standard-issue", then wouldn't a double-stack mag holding 15 be "non-standard issue"? If I wished to impart to someone else exactly how it qualifies as "non-standard-issue", wouldn't "high capacity" make sense?

Also, please indicate where it is written that you have a "right" to a 100-round drum magazine for your AR-15. California, and any other state, is within their right to restrict magazine capacity. If you don't like it, move out of California. Should the US outlaw hi-cap mags, feel free to leave the country.

The last from me on this topic, as you clearly won't give up your "everything is standard" nonsense.

 

[SteveM4A1]

It seems clear to me you do not grasp the concept of an "adjective". If something, "...fits and works it's bloody well standard", then explain to me what you would describe as "non-standard". If a 1911 mag that holds 8 rounds is "standard-issue", then wouldn't a double-stack mag holding 15 be "non-standard issue"? If I wished to impart to someone else exactly how it qualifies as "non-standard-issue", wouldn't "high capacity" make sense?

Also, please indicate where it is written that you have a "right" to a 100-round drum magazine for your AR-15. California, and any other state, is within their right to restrict magazine capacity. If you don't like it, move out of California. Should the US outlaw hi-cap mags, feel free to leave the country.

The last from me on this topic, as you clearly won't give up your "everything is standard" nonsense.

Please read the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Or does it only mean muskets?

 

[Arthur Dent]

It seems clear to me you do not grasp the concept of an "adjective". If something, "...fits and works it's bloody well standard", then explain to me what you would describe as "non-standard". If a 1911 mag that holds 8 rounds is "standard-issue", then wouldn't a double-stack mag holding 15 be "non-standard issue"? If I wished to impart to someone else exactly how it qualifies as "non-standard-issue", wouldn't "high capacity" make sense?

Also, please indicate where it is written that you have a "right" to a 100-round drum magazine for your AR-15. California, and any other state, is within their right to restrict magazine capacity. If you don't like it, move out of California. Should the US outlaw hi-cap mags, feel free to leave the country.

The last from me on this topic, as you clearly won't give up your "everything is standard" nonsense.

If you like restrictions move to Kalifornia.

 

[actaeon277]

The state doesn't have the "right" to do anything. They have powers, and they are granted those by the governed, us.
so why should we leave?

 

[remington870]

I've tried to have intelligent conversations with people about high capacity mags, and just about firearms in general, and all they say is that we arent important. To them, police, military,and politician's bodyguards deserve the mags because their lives are worth guarding. Ours arent. Its really sad these people have that mentality.

 

[actaeon277]

I've tried to have intelligent conversations with people about high capacity mags, and just about firearms in general, and all they say is that we arent important. To them, police, military,and politician's bodyguards deserve the mags because their lives are worth guarding. Ours arent. Its really sad these people have that mentality.

Ask them why they "need" 15 gallon gas tanks, big engine, ability to go over 20 mph, etc. on their car.