Quote Originally Posted by Jayjami View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

That has been a concern, yes. Look at California where they banned guns with magazines over 10 rounds (lol). Then it was brought to court, and three situations were discussed -- two where women ran out of shots (after 10) and were killed by intruders, and one where a woman scared off 3 intruders in a firefight with them, where her 13th and 14th shots were what finally made them run off. That law was temporarily suspended.

But yeah, you can't give the left any concessions with gun control or they will parlay it into increasingly restrictive measures.
Two points. If you’re firing off ten rounds in a closed environment, you’re more a a danger to yourself with that gun than the intruder. A conservative, literal reading of the second amendment would never prohibit a state from banning assault rifles.
Not true. Once you start firing at the bad guys in your house, they assume their choices are to either run away or kill you. At that point, you want infinite rounds, no matter how closed the environment.

Mumbles is right, kinda (I can't believe I'm saying this). Limiting handguns to 10 rounds is just performative, and accomplishes nothing. They're attempting to lessen the number of rounds for spree killings, but what they don't understand is that the spree killer will prepare and bring several guns to do his murdering. So when handgun #1 runs out of ammo, he reaches into his bag and grabs #2, and tosses the first one aside. The homeowner with a single handgun is a different story. They're frantically trying to dial 911 with one hand while firing with the other. They aren't necessarily very good shots, especially with their nerves in this life-or-death situation.

More rake may not be better, but in a self defense situation with a handgun, more rounds are definitely better.