Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[Brain357]

Well, hi-cap mags in an AR, perhaps…

I realize that with as many mass shootings as we have here that they can be confused. As I stated, the shooter was stopped in the TUCSON shooting when he tried to reload:

"Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury."
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the shootings where US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Yes our situation is so dire that even a representative is not safe.

Clearly a magazine can even be dropped during a reload. But having to reload doesn't slow down a shooter right?

That's what happens when you trust Wikipedia...you get bad information.

A woman tried to grab the gun from Loughner as he reloaded. Two others grabbed him as the second magazine jammed, Dupnick said.


The woman, who was later identified as Patricia Maisch, was wounded while "trying to get the gun away from him," Dupnik said Sunday morning. Later, authorities said Maisch was uninjured.


FBI Director: Loughner is suspect in Giffords shooting rampage


​

Loughner reloaded, when he tried to fire the gun was jammed.


Likely a double feed...the longer the magazine, the stronger the spring has to be.


It has to be strong enough to extend and push that last round into the chamber.


That immense pressure has a side effect of pushing the first two rounds out of the magazine at the same time (called a double feed) and jamming the weapon.


So, yeah, Loughner's 30 round magazine likely saved many lives...had he had a standard magazine, there would have been no double feed and the shooting would have continued.

​

From your link:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

So him having to reload led to him being tackled, saving lives. While you at least got the right shooting this time you fail again.

 

[Geaux4it]

Why is it any American would need or want this freedom to quickly and easily become a mass shooter?

Because by far the overwhelming majority of owners with standard capacity magazines do not commit crimes or become mass shooters.

Stating otherwise, is an Illogical comment that does nothing to support your argument

-Geaux

So there really is no logical reason? You said it was an acceptable risk. If there is risk then there must be reward. What is the reward?

I just gave you the reason. What is so hard to comprehend? Risk? Not every reaction to action is positive.The risk of future mass shootings from the minority does not constitute violation of law abiding citizens of the majority

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm pretty sure Aurora guys weapon jammed as a direct result of his highcap magazine as well.

Away from these rituals, new details emerged about the suspect, James Holmes, 24. Authorities said the gunman might have killed more if his assault rifle had not jammed.

Colorado shooting spree could have been worse; shooter's gun jammed -The Washington Post.
​

There you go, highcap magazines save lives.

Well, hi-cap mags in an AR, perhaps…

I realize that with as many mass shootings as we have here that they can be confused. As I stated, the shooter was stopped in the TUCSON shooting when he tried to reload:

"Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury."
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the shootings where US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Yes our situation is so dire that even a representative is not safe.

Clearly a magazine can even be dropped during a reload. But having to reload doesn't slow down a shooter right?

No one’s disagreeing with or disputing the facts of this particular case.

The disagreement concerns your attempt to use an incidental, anecdotal event to justify a comprehensive magazine ban, where there is no tangible evidence such a ban would work as intended, thus justifying the restriction of a civil right.

 

[Brain357]

Because by far the overwhelming majority of owners with standard capacity magazines do not commit crimes or become mass shooters.

Stating otherwise, is an Illogical comment that does nothing to support your argument

-Geaux

So there really is no logical reason? You said it was an acceptable risk. If there is risk then there must be reward. What is the reward?

I just gave you the reason. What is so hard to comprehend? Risk? Not every reaction to action is positive.The risk of future mass shootings from the minority does not constitute violation of law abiding citizens of the majority

-Geaux

Sorry but to me your giving no reason. Nobodies life is being made better by this freedom. It's not bringing any happiness to the world. But that is an acceptable risk? That is more important that saving priceless innocent lives? Continue to disagree with me if you will, but I hope you can understand why this is insane to me.

 

[Brain357]

Well, hi-cap mags in an AR, perhaps…

I realize that with as many mass shootings as we have here that they can be confused. As I stated, the shooter was stopped in the TUCSON shooting when he tried to reload:

"Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury."
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the shootings where US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Yes our situation is so dire that even a representative is not safe.

Clearly a magazine can even be dropped during a reload. But having to reload doesn't slow down a shooter right?

No one’s disagreeing with or disputing the facts of this particular case.

The disagreement concerns your attempt to use an incidental, anecdotal event to justify a comprehensive magazine ban, where there is no tangible evidence such a ban would work as intended, thus justifying the restriction of a civil right.

Someone has been trying to disagree with the facts actually, but I'm glad you don't.

I have given several examples of someone being stopped when they reload. Is there a certain number that you want? Physics support that reloading will slow down a shooter and give victims more time to get away or stop the shooter. What evidence do you want? Examples of it occurring and physics are pretty solid.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm pretty sure Aurora guys weapon jammed as a direct result of his highcap magazine as well.

Away from these rituals, new details emerged about the suspect, James Holmes, 24. Authorities said the gunman might have killed more if his assault rifle had not jammed.

Colorado shooting spree could have been worse; shooter's gun jammed -The Washington Post.
​

There you go, highcap magazines save lives.

Well, hi-cap mags in an AR, perhaps…

Interesting that he jammed. Yet some people are saying anyone with sheet metal an a pliers can make a magazine that works flawlessly. I think it's clear thats not believable.

Large mags tend to tie up due to spring pressure. If it's strong enough to feed the first round, it's TOO strong to feed the last one.

But you keep pounding that straw man, dude!

 

[Brain357]

Well, hi-cap mags in an AR, perhaps…

Interesting that he jammed. Yet some people are saying anyone with sheet metal an a pliers can make a magazine that works flawlessly. I think it's clear thats not believable.

Large mags tend to tie up due to spring pressure. If it's strong enough to feed the first round, it's TOO strong to feed the last one.

But you keep pounding that straw man, dude!

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

 

[Missourian]

Interesting that he jammed. Yet some people are saying anyone with sheet metal an a pliers can make a magazine that works flawlessly. I think it's clear thats not believable.

Large mags tend to tie up due to spring pressure. If it's strong enough to feed the first round, it's TOO strong to feed the last one.

But you keep pounding that straw man, dude!

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

What you aren't understanding is that is you reduce the magazine size, you are only putting legal gun owners at disadvantage, and the bad guys will simply find a way to do things differently to avoid the inconvenience of having a smaller magazine.

They will simply trade distance for time.

Loughner had a specific target...he was three feet away from Giffords when he shot her.

If he was sane, and he only had 10 round magazines, he would say remain 25 feet away.

Trading distance for the time to reload.

It's just a flawed concept.

Do you know how Glock made such major inroads into the firearm market, eating up the distance between Glocks and the number one handgun in the U.S., the Colt 1911?

The Colt holds a maximum of 9 rounds, the Glock holds 16 to 19.

Americans want high capacity magazines, just like they want alcohol and fast cars.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Interesting that he jammed. Yet some people are saying anyone with sheet metal an a pliers can make a magazine that works flawlessly. I think it's clear thats not believable.

Large mags tend to tie up due to spring pressure. If it's strong enough to feed the first round, it's TOO strong to feed the last one.

But you keep pounding that straw man, dude!

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

A 30-round RIFLE magazine is not "large", it's standard. A 30-round PISTOL magazine IS large! Do you or do you not know the difference between a handgun and an AR-15? God and goddess, THINK! I promise it won't hurt!

 

[Brain357]

Large mags tend to tie up due to spring pressure. If it's strong enough to feed the first round, it's TOO strong to feed the last one.

But you keep pounding that straw man, dude!

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

What you aren't understanding is that is you reduce the magazine size, you are only putting legal gun owners at disadvantage, and the bad guys will simply find a way to do things differently to avoid the inconvenience of having a smaller magazine.

They will simply trade distance for time.

Loughner had a specific target...he was three feet away from Giffords when he shot her.

If he was sane, and he only had 10 round magazines, he would say remain 25 feet away.

Trading distance for the time to reload.

It's just a flawed concept.

Do you know how Glock made such major inroads into the firearm market, eating up the distance between Glocks and the number one handgun in the U.S., the Colt 1911?

The Colt holds a maximum of 9 rounds, the Glock holds 16 to 19.

Americans want high capacity magazines, just like they want alcohol and fast cars.

Pro gun people have been telling me that you can reload so fast that magazine size doesn't matter. Now your telling me that gun owners with smaller magazines would be at some disadvantage? So your supporting me that smaller magazines would slow a shooter? That said another pro gunner posted an article that said only 3-4 shots are fired in an altercation. So I don't see the disadvantage.

I hope that every mass shooter is insane. Don't you have to be?

 

[Brain357]

Large mags tend to tie up due to spring pressure. If it's strong enough to feed the first round, it's TOO strong to feed the last one.

But you keep pounding that straw man, dude!

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

A 30-round RIFLE magazine is not "large", it's standard. A 30-round PISTOL magazine IS large! Do you or do you not know the difference between a handgun and an AR-15? God and goddess, THINK! I promise it won't hurt!

Ok so you repeated yourself 3 times how easy it was to make magazines. Then you admitted well you couldn't actually do it. And your telling me to think?

So now your saying that it's easy to make a 30 round rifle magazine, but not easy to make a 30 round pistol magazine? And your saying that the magazine works differently when used with a rifle than with a pistol? Really? I think you need to think before you post.

 

[Missourian]

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

What you aren't understanding is that is you reduce the magazine size, you are only putting legal gun owners at disadvantage, and the bad guys will simply find a way to do things differently to avoid the inconvenience of having a smaller magazine.

They will simply trade distance for time.

Loughner had a specific target...he was three feet away from Giffords when he shot her.

If he was sane, and he only had 10 round magazines, he would say remain 25 feet away.

Trading distance for the time to reload.

It's just a flawed concept.

Do you know how Glock made such major inroads into the firearm market, eating up the distance between Glocks and the number one handgun in the U.S., the Colt 1911?

The Colt holds a maximum of 9 rounds, the Glock holds 16 to 19.

Americans want high capacity magazines, just like they want alcohol and fast cars.

Pro gun people have been telling me that you can reload so fast that magazine size doesn't matter. Now your telling me that gun owners with smaller magazines would be at some disadvantage? So your supporting me that smaller magazines would slow a shooter? That said another pro gunner posted an article that said only 3-4 shots are fired in an altercation. So I don't see the disadvantage.

I hope that every mass shooter is insane. Don't you have to be?

I can reload extremely quickly. I have training, and I practice.

I hunt with a single shot...you need to be fast.

And I don't own a handgun that takes a highcap magazine...I don't need it.

My wife on the other hand practices shooting, but not reloading or trigger pull or anything like that.

I want her to have as many rounds as possible loaded if/when she needs it.

And she does...her gun takes 18 rounds...she specifically shopped for a handgun that gave her the larger amount.

I have one handgun that is not a .22, and it holds a maximum of nine rounds...I load it with 7...not a big fan of one in the chamber, and keeping a magazine loaded to capacity is long term is hard on the spring.

There are times where I may be out of town for up to three weeks at a go.

I want my wife to have an AR-15 with a thirty round magazine, and a 9mm with 18 rounds to back that up...

You want to mess around with that, you are going to have a fight on your hands...

 

[Missourian]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2UT4YHSwC4]Women Fastest-Growing Group of US Gun Owners - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Brain357]

What you aren't understanding is that is you reduce the magazine size, you are only putting legal gun owners at disadvantage, and the bad guys will simply find a way to do things differently to avoid the inconvenience of having a smaller magazine.

They will simply trade distance for time.

Loughner had a specific target...he was three feet away from Giffords when he shot her.

If he was sane, and he only had 10 round magazines, he would say remain 25 feet away.

Trading distance for the time to reload.

It's just a flawed concept.

Do you know how Glock made such major inroads into the firearm market, eating up the distance between Glocks and the number one handgun in the U.S., the Colt 1911?

The Colt holds a maximum of 9 rounds, the Glock holds 16 to 19.

Americans want high capacity magazines, just like they want alcohol and fast cars.

Pro gun people have been telling me that you can reload so fast that magazine size doesn't matter. Now your telling me that gun owners with smaller magazines would be at some disadvantage? So your supporting me that smaller magazines would slow a shooter? That said another pro gunner posted an article that said only 3-4 shots are fired in an altercation. So I don't see the disadvantage.

I hope that every mass shooter is insane. Don't you have to be?

I can reload extremely quickly. I have training, and I practice.

I hunt with a single shot...you need to be fast.

And I don't own a handgun that takes a highcap magazine...I don't need it.

My wife on the other hand practices shooting, but not reloading or trigger pull or anything like that.

I want her to have as many rounds as possible loaded if/when she needs it.

And she does...her gun takes 18 rounds...she specifically shopped for a handgun that gave her the larger amount.

I have one handgun that is not a .22, and it holds a maximum of nine rounds...I load it with 7...not a big fan of one in the chamber, and keeping a magazine loaded to capacity is long term is hard on the spring.

There are times where I may be out of town for up to three weeks at a go.

I want my wife to have an AR-15 with a thirty round magazine, and a 9mm with 18 rounds to back that up...

You want to mess around with that, you are going to have a fight on your hands...

I don't think you being paranoid is a very good reason to not save lives. Quoted from:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/HighCapMag.pdf
"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

Your wife will never need over 10 rounds for defense. I've never heard of a single incident where someone had to fire more than 10 rounds in defense. Most of the time no shots need to be fired.

Sorry but women are just as deadly as men when it comes to guns. A bullet from a woman's gun will kill just the same as a bullet from a man's.

 

[Missourian]

Pro gun people have been telling me that you can reload so fast that magazine size doesn't matter. Now your telling me that gun owners with smaller magazines would be at some disadvantage? So your supporting me that smaller magazines would slow a shooter? That said another pro gunner posted an article that said only 3-4 shots are fired in an altercation. So I don't see the disadvantage.

I hope that every mass shooter is insane. Don't you have to be?

I can reload extremely quickly. I have training, and I practice.

I hunt with a single shot...you need to be fast.

And I don't own a handgun that takes a highcap magazine...I don't need it.

My wife on the other hand practices shooting, but not reloading or trigger pull or anything like that.

I want her to have as many rounds as possible loaded if/when she needs it.

And she does...her gun takes 18 rounds...she specifically shopped for a handgun that gave her the larger amount.

I have one handgun that is not a .22, and it holds a maximum of nine rounds...I load it with 7...not a big fan of one in the chamber, and keeping a magazine loaded to capacity is long term is hard on the spring.

There are times where I may be out of town for up to three weeks at a go.

I want my wife to have an AR-15 with a thirty round magazine, and a 9mm with 18 rounds to back that up...

You want to mess around with that, you are going to have a fight on your hands...

I don't think you being paranoid is a very good reason to not save lives. Quoted from:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/HighCapMag.pdf
"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

Your wife will never need over 10 rounds for defense. I've never heard of a single incident where someone had to fire more than 10 rounds in defense. Most of the time no shots need to be fired.

Sorry but women are just as deadly as men when it comes to guns. A bullet from a woman's gun will kill just the same as a bullet from a man's.

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

 

[Brain357]

I can reload extremely quickly. I have training, and I practice.

I hunt with a single shot...you need to be fast.

And I don't own a handgun that takes a highcap magazine...I don't need it.

My wife on the other hand practices shooting, but not reloading or trigger pull or anything like that.

I want her to have as many rounds as possible loaded if/when she needs it.

And she does...her gun takes 18 rounds...she specifically shopped for a handgun that gave her the larger amount.

I have one handgun that is not a .22, and it holds a maximum of nine rounds...I load it with 7...not a big fan of one in the chamber, and keeping a magazine loaded to capacity is long term is hard on the spring.

There are times where I may be out of town for up to three weeks at a go.

I want my wife to have an AR-15 with a thirty round magazine, and a 9mm with 18 rounds to back that up...

You want to mess around with that, you are going to have a fight on your hands...

I don't think you being paranoid is a very good reason to not save lives. Quoted from:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/HighCapMag.pdf
"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

Your wife will never need over 10 rounds for defense. I've never heard of a single incident where someone had to fire more than 10 rounds in defense. Most of the time no shots need to be fired.

Sorry but women are just as deadly as men when it comes to guns. A bullet from a woman's gun will kill just the same as a bullet from a man's.

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't think you being paranoid is a very good reason to not save lives. Quoted from:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/HighCapMag.pdf
"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

Your wife will never need over 10 rounds for defense. I've never heard of a single incident where someone had to fire more than 10 rounds in defense. Most of the time no shots need to be fired.

Sorry but women are just as deadly as men when it comes to guns. A bullet from a woman's gun will kill just the same as a bullet from a man's.

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The size of a magazine is irrelevant.

It's a red herring you control freaks like to fixate on; a feel good measure at best.

Anyone can fire 30 rounds with three ten round magazines almost as fast as with one 30 round magazine.

 

[Brain357]

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The size of a magazine is irrelevant.

It's a red herring you control freaks like to fixate on; a feel good measure at best.

Anyone can fire 30 rounds with three ten round magazines almost as fast as with one 30 round magazine.

Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The size of a magazine is irrelevant.

It's a red herring you control freaks like to fixate on; a feel good measure at best.

Anyone can fire 30 rounds with three ten round magazines almost as fast as with one 30 round magazine.

Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

 

[Brain357]

The size of a magazine is irrelevant.

It's a red herring you control freaks like to fixate on; a feel good measure at best.

Anyone can fire 30 rounds with three ten round magazines almost as fast as with one 30 round magazine.

Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

Like I said:
Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

You can keep repeating how easy and fast it is to reload, but that is your opinion. The FACT is that shooters have been stopped while they try to reload.

How do you tape two pistol magazines together?