Cars provide much needed services.
Why do you accept 288 gunshot victims every day in the USA??????
Reloading ammo magazines doesn't serve any useful purpose. They only allow 1 crazy to rapidly shoot 600+ people for no reason.
What do you think constitutes a "useful purpose"? Is simple convenience not a useful purpose? Do you think that reloading can never be an issue when defending oneself or others?
Of course the argument trying to link car deaths and gun deaths is specious. It gets trotted out far too often.
Please show empirical evidence where 15 round capacity was not sufficient defending oneself or others.
Where did you get the number 15 from? Why is that the amount you've decided is sufficient?
And why does anyone need to provide empirical evidence of the number of bullets necessary for self defense? But you've decided on this number 15.....what if someone has a pistol which uses 10 round magazines, are they allowed to reload?
Also, can you provide empirical evidence of one crazy person rapidly shooting 600+ people for no reason by reloading a weapon holding 15 rounds?
If you want to have a 15 round capacity instead of 10 rounds, then buy one that holds 15. Lifetime experience with guns proves there is no need for 15 rounds or high speed mass reloading. You have ZERO experience. We don't need WMD's for self defense. 1 Vegas shooter fired 1,500 unanswered rounds killing & wounding about 600 people thanks to rapid reloading magazines. He only stopped because he was tired, not because of armed police or citizens. If you ever feel the need to shoot 6 or more people, then you are the problem, not them. So why allow a person WMD terror capacity.
Your personal experience is not enough to determine how a Constitutionally protected right can be regulated. Do you think one person's anecdotal evidence should be enough to determine how rights are limited for all people?
The Las Vegas shooter did not use a semi-automatic pistol and hit hundreds of people because he was able to reload 15 round magazines. Trying to conflate the two things is disingenuous.
Saying that the ability to reload using a magazine constitutes a WMD is also disingenuous, and ridiculous. It cheapens the phrase. "He used a weapon of mass destruction!" "Did he have a nuke? A biological weapon?" "He had a Glock and a spare magazine." Do you see how those things do not fit together?
What is this tripe about needing to shoot 6 or more people? Are you trying to say that the number of bullets in a gun should be equal to the number of people someone is going to fire those bullets at? I've read a number of reports about police getting in shooting incidents where they fire quite a large number of rounds, but the majority do not hit. If police officers often cannot hit their targets in stressful situations, what makes you think the average person who is trying to defend themselves, in fear for their life, is going to be more accurate?
I understand wanting legislation to prevent mass shootings. I understand banning bump stocks; I understand wanting to limit magazine size; I understand background checks; I understand mental health requirements. You, however, seem to be taking far too extreme a position to be realistic.