Washington is again looking at a ban on so-called "High Capacity" magazines. In truth, this would effect almost as standard capacity magazines as well, except a few .45s.
Common augment to make here is that a criminal is just as dangerous with a 10rd weapon as he is with a 17.
Does anyone else think that pointing out how a 10 round magazine is just as effective as a 17 round magazine, might actually make the wrong argument?
Using normal logic, one would say: “there’s no reason to ban standard magazines, since magazine size makes little difference.”
Using the lefts logic, though, one could say: “there’s no reason to NOT ban these magazines, since a handgun is just as effective with the reduced capacity magazine. By banning them, we’re not effecting a citizens right to defense, nor violating the constitution (as if they cared, anyway), and there’s a chance we might save a life or two in these violent rampages on our city streets.”
Perhaps we should focus more on the differences that DO exist: a one armed man who wants to defend himself will be better off with a standard magazine. A homeowner who awakes to a window breaking and grabs a handgun from the nightstand, but doesn’t have a second magazine ready would be better served by a standard magazine.
A criminal setting out to commit a crime would have the time to prepare extra magazines, and could bring as much firepower as he wants to a fight. A citizen acting defensively doesn’t have the same benefit.
To me, this seems like the better argument to make.