by I came across this infographic on Facebook this morning. It is from the American Preppers Network. It examines how long it would take to get off 100 shots with various sizes of magazines assuming 3 seconds per change and 1 second per shot. Of course, both changes and aimed shots could be made in less time with practice but it is a starting point.
Use this link to view the videos mentioned in the infographic.
They did not think this through very well, you only need three mag changes to get to the fourth mag for a total of 109 seconds, four mag changes to get to the fifth mag for a total of 112 seconds, ect. Unless they don't plan on having a mag in place to begin with…
We have to be better at getting the right terms out there. Especially getting them to the talking heads on our side ( they are making lots of mistakes). Otherwise hyperbole wins the day. “Standard capacity” is the winning term. They are proposing “reduced capacity”. “Reduced capacity magazines” diminish a persons ability to defend themselves. 10 is a random # made up out of thin air.
If we meet them on the terms they set, talking about “ high caps don’t save that much time” we lose because nobody ( other that shooters) wants to follow that. We, as proponents for the preservation of the 2nd, have to make sure our arguments are not just convincing to us, but to lay people as well.
“Standard capacity” is what a pistol was designed for. It’s what a rifle was designed for. Artificially limiting that capacity harms a persons right to self defense as codified in Heller. Spread this rationale around. Copy parts of this if you like. John Ryan
@Anon: I like that term – "reduced capacity".
Call the 30rd mags "soldier issue" mags.
That enters right into the hands of the gun grabbers, who say civilians don't need military weapons. I think I prefer standard capacity.
While true and worth pointing out, focussing on how mag capacity doesnt change total firepower ignores another line of attack.
The anti's will frequently respond by noting the AZ shooter was taken down during a mag change/jam. Thus they say earlier mag changes will allow victims an opportunity to intervene.
Which is obscene. Their argument is, thus, that they are doing teachers a -favor- by only requiring them to hide and watch 10 kids get shot, rather than 30, before they try to take on an armed man empty handed.
They claim that is more "reasonable" and "safe" than allowing teachers who choose to carry to -effectively- intervene immediately when a situation arises.
We need to point out their position is not only ignorant and useless, it is also obscenely immoral.
Thanks for such an interesting article here. I was searching for something like that for quite a long time and at last I have found it here.
Firearms Accessories in Australia