• donuts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t really care what they call it, but nobody (other than mass shooters) needs to be walking around with 11+ bullets loaded. The common arguments against gun control–hunting, self defense, collecting, target shooting–are all totally unaffected by limiting the capacity of magazines.

    If I had my way, people would be limited to low capacity mags and bolt action rifles. This is the sensible and legal middle ground between banning everything and banning nothing.

    Now maybe you think the limit should be 15 instead of 10, or something, but those 5 extra rounds are potentially 5 more lives taken or ruined (not counting the ripple effects on family and community) in a mass shooting scenario. To me, that’s incredibly difficult to justify.

    • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      nobody (other than mass shooters) needs to be walking around with 11+ bullets loaded

      I’ll be ok with these laws when they apply to the police as well, but that’s not how this or any other bill has been written so far.

      • trafficnab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Police and military please, either citizens can handle more than 10 round magazines or they can’t, the state shouldn’t have a monopoly on them

      • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        So three dudes are able to completely outgun 2 cops that roll up to your domestic disturbance?