A couple of comments on reload times: 1. Yes, if you practice, practice, practice, you can switch magazines in a semi-automatic quickly. But it does take a couple of seconds - and as most cops will tell you, those couple of seconds can be crucial in taking out someone who is shooting at you. Also, if you're simply going for speed, it's VERY possible that the magazine will not seat properly which makes jams / misfeeds much more likely.
And I'd like to reiterate - as a combat vet - that there is a huge difference between doing tricks in front of a camera and changing out magazines in the middle of a firefight. This is (IMHO) one of the reasons why "rampage shooters" tend to choose gun-free zones as their targets: when your enemy isn't shooting back at you, it's a lot easier to reload.
2. Revolver speedloaders do exist. They require even more practice to use effectively. When you reload a revolver, you have to eject the brass from the cylinder before you can put new rounds in place.
...and in the end, magazine capacity *does* matter. Three ten round magazines versus one thirty round magazine means lower rate of fire with pauses and opportunities to screw it up.
Is that a limitation worth imposing? Perhaps, but to dismiss it as of no effect is to blithely disregard facts on the ground. There's a whole lot of that going on in the shitstorm that passes for public debate. On both sides.
I'm not inclined to dismiss magazine size out of hand (maybe after more research and debate, maybe not then either, depending on what I learn), but there is this:
On the other hand, for the exact same reasons people say it won't help, magazine size limits seems like one of the least onerous restrictions we could apply (the biggest problem with it is setting size smaller than the standard size magazine for many guns, which means either grandfathering enough magazines to make the restriction pointless or forcing a whole lot of legal owners to get the magazines they already have modified to meet the restriction).
And I can see one possible significant benefit! In police shootings, it seems like officers tend to empty their whole magazine (and I've head that patterns of testimony and cross examination have the effect of encouraging exactly that). Thus, it seems we'd all be safer if the police had smaller magazines (and if they ever actually need more bullets than that, well, changing magazines is pretty quick, as we've determined above, right?). Note that this only works if the police are subject to the same restrictions on magazine size as everybody else, which I would support.
About speedloaders requiring practice ... If I recall correctly, the one time I handled a speedloader, I took more time figuring out how to use it than it would've taken me to load the revolver by hand. I think I wound up handing the gun to its owner and letting her load it for me.
(no subject)
1. Yes, if you practice, practice, practice, you can switch magazines in a semi-automatic quickly. But it does take a couple of seconds - and as most cops will tell you, those couple of seconds can be crucial in taking out someone who is shooting at you. Also, if you're simply going for speed, it's VERY possible that the magazine will not seat properly which makes jams / misfeeds much more likely.
And I'd like to reiterate - as a combat vet - that there is a huge difference between doing tricks in front of a camera and changing out magazines in the middle of a firefight. This is (IMHO) one of the reasons why "rampage shooters" tend to choose gun-free zones as their targets: when your enemy isn't shooting back at you, it's a lot easier to reload.
2. Revolver speedloaders do exist. They require even more practice to use effectively. When you reload a revolver, you have to eject the brass from the cylinder before you can put new rounds in place.
(no subject)
Is that a limitation worth imposing? Perhaps, but to dismiss it as of no effect is to blithely disregard facts on the ground. There's a whole lot of that going on in the shitstorm that passes for public debate. On both sides.
(no subject)
On the other hand, for the exact same reasons people say it won't help, magazine size limits seems like one of the least onerous restrictions we could apply (the biggest problem with it is setting size smaller than the standard size magazine for many guns, which means either grandfathering enough magazines to make the restriction pointless or forcing a whole lot of legal owners to get the magazines they already have modified to meet the restriction).
And I can see one possible significant benefit! In police shootings, it seems like officers tend to empty their whole magazine (and I've head that patterns of testimony and cross examination have the effect of encouraging exactly that). Thus, it seems we'd all be safer if the police had smaller magazines (and if they ever actually need more bullets than that, well, changing magazines is pretty quick, as we've determined above, right?). Note that this only works if the police are subject to the same restrictions on magazine size as everybody else, which I would support.
(no subject)