One thing I love about Tom Givens is his incredible depth of knowledge. His expertise in matters of personal safety and firearms is unparalleled. Because of this, he’s able to get you thinking about things in different ways.

For example, in the recent Instructor Certification course I took with him, Tom discussed “high-capacity” magazines in guns.

When people hear “high-capacity magazines” (or more commonly, “high-capacity assault clips” *sigh*), they think about how it gives you the ability to shoot more. According to Tom, that’s not what they are for. And when you think about it, that really isn’t what they provide. They don’t really enable you to “shoot more” because there are many other ways to accomplish “shoot more”.

But what capacity allows you to do that really nothing else allows?

To reload less.

Practical

Let’s look at the practical side of it. Credit to Tom Givens for presenting this logic.

A “split” is the time between shots. So if someone is shooting 0.20 second splits, that means there was 0.20 seconds of time between the end of the first shot and the beginning of the second. So you can think of it that if someone shoots 0.20 second splits, they are capable of firing 2 shots in 0.20 seconds, if you will.

I’m going to simplify the math here, because it makes discussion easier. But the point still gets across.

If someone then has 5 rounds, which is typical of many revolvers, that means the shooter could empty the revolver in 1 second.

That’s not very long, is it?

10 rounds? 2 seconds.

15 rounds? 3 seconds.

According to data from self-defense gunfights (private citizens, FBI, DEA), the typical gunfight lasts 3 seconds.

So let that sink in.

If the fight is only going to last 3 seconds, after 5 rounds you’re out of the fight — but the fight is still going on. Of course, that’s if your fight is a typical one; would really suck if your fight was atypical and went longer.

If you’ve now lost use of a very important tool, do you think you have gained advantage or lost advantage? What are you going to do to make up that advantage? because I’m sure you don’t want to lose the fight (and possibly your life).

Oh sure, you could reload, but even the fastest reload takes time. And it doesn’t matter the technique, be it a speed reload or drawing a backup, it still eats precious time.

So if you don’t have to reload? All the better. It can keep you in the fight longer, which hopefully will be long enough to end the fight and you to prevail.

Of course, this is then argument against those small guns, those low-capcacity guns. Yes, sometimes we have to carry them. But if you have a choice, take the Glock 17 over the Kahr PM9.

Political

I wish I didn’t have to write about the political nature of this, but some people only view “high-capacity assault clips” as a way to inflict more death and violence upon the innocent children of the world.

If that were the case, why would police want guns that can hold lots of ammo?

Why would police have moved away from 6-shot revolvers to 17-shot Glocks?

Why do you think police would want more ammo?

Of course, because they might be caught in a prolonged gun battle. But also because having to reload less allows them to end attacks quickly.

Why would this be any different for private citizens?

Or for gun-banning politicians and their well-armed bodyguards…..

Here’s the rub. If you look at most mass shooting incidents, they are not 3-second affairs. The killer has many guns, and a lot of time. They are slow, methodical, often speak to their victims before shooting them. They have all the time in the world to reek their mayhem and destruction upon the world. Lowering capacity will not stop or dissuade them in any regard.

So why do it?

We don’t consider it rational in any other arena to undergo activities that have no demonstrable ability to achieve desired goals, so why is it considered acceptable to implement ineffective solutions in this arena? And if you tell me “if it saves just one life, then it’s worth it”, I can present to you now 60 students of Tom Givens’ that had their lives saved because they had their gun. So there’s 60 lives, and so by your logic it’s 60-times worth it to have guns and concealed carry.

The only thing restricting capacity does is harm innocent law-abiding citizens. Are these the people you wish to abridge? Well, some might argue that yes, that’s precisely who “gun control advocates” want to injure.

But I say this… if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander — and all of society. So, police should also be subject to the same restrictions. Our military should be subject to the same restrictions. Your bodyguards should be subject to the same restrictions. If you are unwilling to enact the restrictions for them, why is that? And why should this class of citizens be more privileged? If we don’t like the 1% having all the privilege, why are you giving up the power to them?

Why is it OK for them to be protected, but it’s not OK for me and my children to be protected by the same measure and standard? Why are we considered less, and why are you advocating for us to be treated as lessers?

Please… someone that wishes to enact such restrictions. Please, answer my questions and convince me of your stance. Convince me what you say is right, just, true, and factually and rationally the right choice. Please show me the data and convince me that capacity restrictions will achieve your desired goals of “won’t someone think of the children”. Please. I seek truth and am willing to change my mind if the right and logical facts are presented to me — it’s how I became a gun-owner in the first place, because until about 5 years ago I wasn’t. But that’s why I changed my mind in the first place – because I finally stopped and listened to reason, facts, and logic — not emotion, not misconceptions and ignorance.

And when you’re done trying to convince me… please look my children in the eye and tell them the same.