To me it seems so obvious that I am at al loss to explain why it is never mentioned. I am seeking the assistance of my fellow Kossacks to help me understand.
I am speaking of gun control and the notion that high capacity magazines* should be banned. That is well and good, and as long as you are allowing external magazines at all, that is a great idea. But what has me flummoxed is why isn't the conversation centered on banning external magazines altogether.
The reason for my consternation is that it seems so obvious to me that when you have magazines that can be changed in a matter 5 or 10 seconds then it is not a big issue whether it holds 10 rounds or 30 rounds. For a magazine that takes 10 seconds to load only 20 seconds is added to the time that it takes to squeeze off 30 rounds total, and just as importantly no pause in shooting of more than 10 seconds is required. This still leaves scant time for the potential victims to either escape or overwhelm the shooter.
So hunters and people who are in a position of protecting their homes would multi-round capability but those who are bent on killing as many people as they can in as short a time as possible would be hampered. (The only ones who might not find 5 or 10 rounds adequate for home defense are those whose fevered fantasies include being stormed by bands of marijuana-crazed Black Panthers toting AK47s)
But I have to be missing something, because I can't understand why no one is advocating limiting gun sales to those that are not configured to take an external magazine, ones that perhaps can load 5 or 10 rounds in an internal magazine and then, in order to continue firing each bullet must be loaded manually and individually. Then there would be time for victims to react, to either escape or attempt to overwhelm the perp, or at a minimum, drastically slow down his firing rate while waiting for first responders.
So my question to anyone who can help is why is this not an obviously better solution than limiting magazine size, and why is no one who is in a position of broad influence advocating for this standard? If it is some reason having to do with the mechanics of weaponry please explain. If it is political please try to explain why it is not at least part of the conversation on the national stage. Sure, it is obvious that the NRA would have fits, and they are a formidible roadblock to progress in this area, but should we waver and give up because the fight might be difficult?
To be entirely correct, I have heard a few people advocate for this measure but mostly on forums like DKos. I have not heard anyone with access to a national media audience ever mention this solution which seems so eminently reasonable. This is what I find frustrating every time I hear the discussion. I need someone to help me understand why the only thing being advocated seems like a half measure, when the time seems ripe to make significant changes in the gun laws and when taking the half measure would preclude adopting this better, fuller solution for years to come.
And I want to clarify. My question is not at all intended to be rhetorical. I am sincerely seeking to understand why something that seems so obvious to me appears to have been over-looked in favor of the less effective measure.
*Note to gun people. I am not up on the most precise terminology and nomenclature for guns so bear with me. If "clip" is a more appropriate term for this concept than "magazine" then please let's not quibble. I think that the idea is what matters and not the precise terminology. The same holds for any other terms like "bullets" or "rounds", etc.