If someone can give me one plausible reason for a high capacity clip other then generating a wall of bullets, I will change my opinion on this topic. However, I have yet to see a hunter (or any body else) have any reason to have a high capacity clip outside of the nefarious. Yes, the right is probably correct in saying this probably won't prevent many shootings. In my opinion, however, there are no negative side effects and several benefits, like preventing the few shootings that used them. Also, the Constitution was not written with high capacity, semi-automatic guns in mind. Have you ever thought about the rate of fire on a musket? Rather pathetic. Sure, your kids DO need guns for defense, but not high-capacity clips.
Whatever side of the gun debate you are on, it doesn't make sense to discount the impact of high-capacity magazines in recent shootings. Mass shootings themselves wouldn't disappear, but the ability of a shooter to fire multiple rounds without the impediment of reloading only increases the body count in these tragedies. Gun violence will continue without high-capacity magazines, but it would be greatly reduced.
Some kinds of guns are just designed to be killing machines, and when unstable people get their hands on those weapons, they can kill lots of people very efficiently. There are no legitimate uses of a gun that require a high-capacity magazine outside of war or invasion, so they enable mass shootings.
Although shootings would still be possible without high-capacity magazines, they would certainly be more difficult. If these magazines were not used, shooters would not be able to conduct these mass shootings as easily. It wouldn't put an end to the problem, but banning high-capacity magazines would decrease the frequency and likeliness of these mass shootings occurring.
You don't need a 30+ round magazine for hunting or self-defense. The purpose is clear: to massacre more people in a shorter amount of time. It serves no practical purpose other than to benefit mass shooters' killing sprees. Even if an extended mag is easy to manufacture, that doesn't justify the reasoning that extended mags should remain legal to carry in the public.
One thing we know about mass shooters is they obsess over previous mass shootings- they study and analyze and research. And they brag about being able to do it better. They are motivated by their perceived notoriety they will achieve afterward. If we can put a limit on the amount of ammo rounds and capacity they can use they will be less motivated- because in the end these guys are cowards and would be deterred by the possibility of their rampage being thwarted prematurely.
Newtown had 155 bullets fired, or over 5 magazines full of 223 or 5.56 ammo. 5 7-round magazines of, say, 30-06 could kill 35 people. Some deranged lunatic could potentially take their AWB legal 30-06, burst into a defenseless gun-free zone, block off the exits, and leisurely pick off their prey in the minutes it would take for the police to arrive.
People think high-capacity magazines are the ones that hold 30 rounds, you're wrong. 30 round mags have been around since the 50's and if you look up high-capacity mags they are the ones that hold more than 30 rounds. The people who call a 30 round mag high-cap mags are obviously stupid. A high-cap mag holds like 50 rounds or more. High-cap mags do not make school shootings more possible, a man on the same day of the Newtown shooting had killed the same amount of kids in China with a KNIFE. You can make car bombs which are more devastating. So don't blame guns for peoples mental health problems.
The idea that "high-capacity" magazines (a term of which is arbitrarily defined) make such shootings possible, or even demonstrably augments the effectiveness of a killer in mass shootings, is not supported by any actual body of evidence or basic intuition. The idea may seem logical on the outset, but should seem ridiculous to anyone who has actually had any real experience with firearms. The difference between a shooter having a 30-rd capacity mag, and two 15-rd capacity mags amounts to little more than a few seconds—even less if you are a skilled shooter. Mass shooters can easily compensate for "lower" capacity mags by simply carrying more of them. Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre, the single largest school shooting in the United States, carried nineteen 10-rd capacity mags, and fifteen 15-rd capacity mags. Arbitrary mag capacity limits would not have been effective in deterring his massacre.
There is further a lack of evidence demonstrating increased survivability in mass shootings where the shooter is limited to 10-rd mags.
No, high capacity magazines are not the reason for school shootings nor do they make them possible. People with severe mental issues make school shootings possible. Yes, they usually use guns and high capacity magazines but that does not mean it is the only cause of them. A person intent on killing that many people on that way will find a way to do it, regardless of whether they have access to these high powered rifles.
What exactly is the definition of 'high-capacity'? Is it 30 rounds, 20, or anything over 10? The average reload time for the average individual is not that long, perhaps 5 seconds. All that is done by limiting magazine size is increase the need to reload, which would be a negligible aid to those being fired upon at best.
Besides all of that a magazine is extremely simple to manufacture (a spring wrapped in sheet metal) and there are tens (if not hundreds) of millions of them i circulation. Anyone intent on shooting up a crowded area will just acquire one quite easily.
In the end it is the choices that we as human beings make to utilize these TOOLS (Remember these are all tools). We cannot control the choices the next person in front, behind or beside us make. People need to understand if someone has the intent to kill they are going to do it, if they intend to break into a car or house they will do it. These are not issues with high capacity magazines, the issue is with all of us and the choices that we make as human beings.
A person does not need a high-capacity magazine to commit a mass shooting. It only takes a second or two for even an inexperienced gunman to reload. So even if all high-capacity magazines were to suddenly disappear, mass shootings would not. If someone wants to kill a large number of people, they will do it, even without high-capacity magazines. The problem is not the weapon or the magazine, it is the evil person that wants to destroy.
Many do not seem to realize that even at 10 rounds per mag five mags equals 50 rounds available.
While mags are being changed a round can still be in the chamber and the firearm ready to fire so that the often repeated reason that the shooter could be jumped during a reload forgets that the firearm may well still be able to be fired.
Mag capacity has no effect upon the deranged mind of a mass killer they simply make do with whatever is available.
Only the law abiding are affected by such legislation as their 2nd Amendment rights are infringed.
A bullet that's ends it's life in a Wall or in any other inanimate object is irrelevant. It was and is harmless. So unless every round fired hits flesh it is not a factor. That's why AR- 15's were converted for three round bursts in Vietnam. Because spray and pray wasn't working the ammo to downed enemy ration was laughable.
First of all the liberals on the other side don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip. I've listened to the brainwashing media and all I hear is "YOU DON'T NEED 20 SHOTS TO KILL A DEER" That's true. But who hunts deers with a combat rifle? Oh and this whole "Too easy to get your hands on" thing is not true, For a law abiding citizen such as myself. Now you might wonder "What would you use it for then"? Simple, a group of invaders in my house, a country invasion, Or a government movement to take guns by force. I wont go down easy.