Fewer bullets in a magazine means fewer people can get shot with it, the end. Beyond that bare bones agreement on the most basic aspect of this though, no. If guns are still available, limiting how many times one can be shot won't make much of a difference. The loons that use these to shoot up a place have some NRA clown making sure they leave the store with a fistful of guns because AMERICA, they're still going to do damage.
The most important factor is how quickly the shooters are confronted and stopped. Most high capacity guns are hard to conceal, making it hard for the shooter to approach would-be victims without raising alarm.
More gun training and less "gun free" zones is the answer. Why have armed guards in public libraries and not in schools?
You can't kill 26 people in less than 5 minutes without a multiple bullet magazine no matter how fast you are able to pull the trigger. The idea that it doesn't make a difference is ridiculous. Why anybody would need a rapid fire weapon to hunt or defend their property is asinine.
The left claims that it takes a second to change the magazine, why would you need to have more than X rounds? When in a high pressure situation, people have adrenaline running through their vanes and shake, regardless of how much training a person has. A recent study shows that, on average, in active shooter situations police officers hit their target 30% of the time. In a ten round magazine that is only three people. Most of the time it takes more than three bullets to bring a criminal down. Because the body is acting on instinct in a scenario such as this, the body has to coordinate using a finger to release the magazine, grab a new one, put it in, and pull the slide back to release it and put a new round in. When the body is shaking from adrenaline, it is difficult to align the magazine properly when inserting in the gun. When a law abiding citizen is having to struggle with this, the active shooter can take advantage of this. Also, if an active shooter is going to commit mass murder, why would they follow another law limiting magazines? A criminal will find a way to get possession of a high capacity magazine, no matter the cost. If the criminal will have one, anyways, why should an innocent bystander not be able to have the same grounds to have a fighting chance?
It wouldn't be that hard and if I'm going to shoot people ill go to one of the other places that sell larger ones and smuggle them in. Fifty words is not needed to dismiss this law as an absolute waste of tax dollars and the stripping of citizens rights.
Putting in a 30 round clip would take about as much time as it would take to use a stripper clip to fill up a 10 round magazine. As much as those who want to ban guns and magazines they don't very much about time it takes to use stripper clip and put in a 30 round magazine.
So you limit magazine size (crimp it) to only 10 or 7 like in New York and call it "one of the greatest achievements in prevent crime and gun control." Okay I am no a criminal but if I was one here is what I would of done now to commit henious acts to easily void that idiotic law.
1) buy custom sized magazines and pouches. Magazines that are of smaller size are EVEN EASIER to fit and store on your body. To reload a semi automatic weapon, it only takes about 2 to 5 seonds with untrained hands or about 4 seconds if someone practiced for a few hours. An average combat load for US soldier is about 12 magazines. That is 30x12 = 360 rounds (I carried by far more during my deployment to Iraq. Still on average I carried about 600 rounds at the ready and ran for more to the supply at the back of my Humvee when low on ammo, or took prepacked extra rounds from my assault pack.) Now imagine a criminal stuffing small 10 or even 7 round plastic miniature magazines into the pockets like chocolate chips. Those are a lot easier to store on your self than ordinary magazines. Beta C magazines like Aurora shooter use are highly avoided and disregarded by seasoned veterans because they tend to jam and in fact that is what happened in the movie theatre, forcing that lunatic to pull out his .40 caliber pistol and start shooting people.
This is infact actually making criminals more efficient than they supposed to be. Now a criminal before shooting spree will simply learn how to reload his miniature sized plastic magazines and continue on the rampage. Nothing have changed except Liberals such as Mayor Bloomberg, Frank Lautenberg, Diane Fenstein and that ugly dude named Rosie O'Donel finally got the false sense of security... except not for themselves but for innocent disarmed law abiding sitizens.
So... have this law limited or stopped another gun crime? Not at all. The only thing it did is make criminals laugh at it.
so called "High capacity magazines" will still be bought by criminals off the black market. Or the criminals will bring more lower capacity magazines and just reload. Reloading takes 2 seconds. AND in the mean time, the law abiding citizens will be having to defend themselves with lower capacity magazines. Holding less rounds per magazine doesn't make the gun less dangerous, it just makes it just a tad slower. If you get shot from a 5 round magazine it will be the same as getting shot from a 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazine. It will just take the shooter a few seconds longer
Limiting the amount of bullets in a magazine will not make a difference. There is no way that cops will go around counting gun magazines and there are already plenty of guns out there that probably have more magazine lots than what the new limit would be set at. This would have no effect at all.