Activist Makes STUPIDEST Magazine Capacity Limit Argument Ever

16
1112

Rational people don’t take gun control advocates seriously. They just don’t.

Why do I say that? Because anyone who looks at the statistics in context without defaulting to a knee jerk reaction about the issue very quickly comes to the conclusion that guns aren’t the problem (and neither are magazines, specifics types of sights, bump stocks, etc.). The tool has never been the issue. The issue is the human heart.

But gun control advocates don’t seem to think deeply about subjects like this or about the long-term consequences of their policies, and, so, they often make arguments for gun control that are downright silly.

Advertisement

One gun control advocate (who, bizarrely, still gets media attention) may have just made the single stupidest argument for limiting magazine capacity that you may ever hear. Alex Nitzberg writes,

Gun control activist David Hogg has suggested that 10 rounds per magazine should be sufficient for gun owners.

“If you need more than 10 rounds to hit something you need more range time or you need glasses, not a larger magazine. Hell, if you’re that bad of a shot you’re safer with a baseball bat because a gun will probably be turned on you. Especially if you are shooting a rifle and you can’t hit what you are aiming for in 10 rounds you need to check your sights, check your eye dominance, and/or improve trigger pull. 30 round mags are for two two [sic] things, war and people who don’t know how to shoot,” Hogg tweeted.

Now, to be fair to Hogg, he’s right that, if you’re on a range, most of which only allow shooting from a standing and still position, and you’re missing a ton of shots, then, yes, you need to check your eyes, check your sights, and spend more time on the range to work on your accuracy. On top of those three things, most of all, you probably need some training with someone who can help you to figure out why you’re shooting low left consistently, for example (you can find out about fixing that particular problem here).

What Hogg is talking about in his examples, though, isn’t a gunfight or a self-protection situation. Those situations involve a lot of movement on both sides. They don’t happen with both people standing still or, necessarily, standing.

So, his argument that you don’t need a non-California compliant (in other words, limited capacity) magazine may only make sense on the gun range (and in that case, magazine capacity limitations only mean having to pause to reload more often. They have nothing to do with protecting yourself from an attacker).

There should be no magazine capacity limitations because, in the real world, if you’re being attacked, you don’t know how many people are involved, and all of them are moving, and if you have to take the time to reload, that may be the pause in which you get shot.

That’s the real world, and to argue for magazine capacity limits on just shot accuracy in a low-stress, stationary, non-violent encounter situation is just dishonest. Or, as may be the case with Hogg, stupid.

Advertisement

16 COMMENTS

  1. Tell this little BITCH he needs to grow some balls! Because you are acting like a little bitch! Fuck off and die!

  2. The original posting by Boss Hawg included a paper target that she claims she shot at 20 yards to prove his point about accuracy with an AR. The spread at 20 yards was so big I doubt you could cover it with a large coffee can lid. He’s a firearms expert of the same pedigree that Greta Thornberg is regarding climatology.

    • I was thinking the same thing about the Greta Clown as I read this essay. Both experts in their field……….

  3. I wish I could remember who the idiot woman was, but she was testifying before Congress I believe. She said magazine size should be limited because once the magazine was empty it was done. She had no idea that you could then reload the magazine. I think she was a member of Congress, too. These are the people that ignorant people keep electing.

  4. That is absolutely đŸ’¯ percent correct!!! Higgs argument IS stupid. His goal is to take guns out of the hands of legal law abiding citizens so that only criminals and the government, oops ( one and the same) have guns. Not safe for anyone!

    • No worries, the Hogg morons don’t even know which end to aim. You’ll be fine with 10, but 25 is still better.

  5. Our stupid legislature in Washington led by one of the dumbest Governors ever lowered our limits to 10 too. We are turning into California North. There are many groups fighting and hopefully it gets overturned. These guys that think some crazy deranged idiot is going to obey the laws about their magazine size are as deranged as the shooters are. If you are shooting unarmed people and you take 2-3 secs to switch mags with practice it is far safer than the shots someone can shoot at you. These guys are so stupid they should never hold office.

  6. Kalifornia’s magazine law limiting mags to 10 rounds is about to be challenged in court as unconstitutional, and will most likely go all the way to the
    Supreme Court. We have watched our state trying to make criminals out of every gun owner in Kalifornia, it’s an never ending merry-go-round. First the legislature bans Bump-Stocks, then they ban those awful and scary features that makes the AR-15 such a deadly weapon of war: bayonet lug, pistol grip,
    adjustable stock, you know, all the stuff that makes it an over powered, deadly weapon of war. And after you have met all those requirements they then decided that we can reload the mags to quickly, so they then came up with the bullet button, we thought that they were done, but noooooo, not them. Now, because someone showed them how easy it is to get around the bb issue, they decided that they needed to come up with something to slow down reloads, and vwallya, the “you must break the weapon open with the rear detent pin b4 you can remove empty mag and insert a new one. But let’s be straight up here, their main goal here is to eventually ban all guns. So now their next unconstitutional move is to tax every gun that you own, and this is not an small tax, from what I’ve heard there pushing for several hundred dollars per gun, maybe even as much as $1,000 per gun and it’s every year, forever. I know that there are people out there that collect guns and may have a hundred guns or more, just imagine having to pay Kali $100,000 a year just to keep your collection? I pray that the SCOTUS keeps delivering rulings that are in line with the Constitution. And make no mistake, our governor wants to be president and impose this insanity on the whole country. Good luck out there, G-d Bless and stay vigilant.

  7. I’m 1 bullet per person. I don’t need a lot to kill my target. One shot one kill thats me. But a boat load, sure I can make an exception:) Just keep creepy Joe and the rest of his coehorts at bay while I do my job:) I have a habit to carry several bullets in my fanny pack, that it just suits me just fine when it comes to head shots:) one shot one kill:) OOPS I 4got they’er reading this:) The bastared:)

  8. THESE Democrats and their stooges have no idea of anything, it´s all feel good moments with no thought behind it.IN FACT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD BE CANCELED OUT OF THE U.S.A.POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.

  9. The Hogg moron again? I though the had ridden off into the sunset with his $$.
    Idiot, and self-professed expert of all-things-guns. One of “the survivors”, ….. I am a survivor too, and like him, I was not there.

Comments are closed.