Cambridge Hero’s Actions, Compared to Criminal Shootings, Shows Mag Restriction Stupidity

As Cam noted on Tuesday, the hero on a bridge in Cambridge, Massachusetts, nearly exhausted the capacity of his magazine while trying to stop a shooter with a gun he couldn’t legally possess. State law kept his magazine to no more than the mandated 10-round limit, and he fired all eight rounds in his handgun.

Sure, he could have had a couple more rounds legally, but he didn’t. Sure, he could have hypothetically reloaded, but many people don’t carry spare magazines while carrying because it’s more weight, another thing to conceal, and just a pain in the butt unless you need them, and most people never will, even in self-defense situations.

He expended every round he had in his weapon as a maniac was trying to kill innocent people, one who had a lot more rounds than the legal limit in Massachusetts.

But, we’re told, we need that magazine capacity to prevent deaths. 

However, I’m going to explain why that argument is absolute nonsense.

Cam already delved into how the magazine limit inhibited the good guy here, so I won’t rehash that.

Instead, I’m going back a couple of weeks to a time when I looked at all of these hardware bans that anti-gunners keep trying to push. Among the things I looked at were the magazine restrictions, and I found something interesting.

No, I didn’t address “high-capacity magazines,” but primarily because they’re the default magazine for most handguns and rifles, which would skew the numbers. However, a study found that the average number of gunshots per gunshot fatality is fewer than four rounds, which means that magazine restrictions don’t seem to be the answer, either.

In other words, while there are bound to be some outliers where dozens of rounds are fired before someone gets shot and killed, most of them are actually the result of just a few shots.

While those are undoubtedly tragic, what we can see is that there’s no appreciable benefit to a magazine ban in preventing so-called gun deaths. Even in mass shootings, which are often cited as the reason magazine limits are needed, it’s actually irrelevant because the bad guys are coming looking for a fight, have the opportunity to bring a lot of magazines, and can reload without concern since there’s little concern about armed good guys in the gun-free zones targeted by would-be mass killers.

So here we have a clear example of how a magazine limit caused a problem for the good guy with a gun, and can contrast that with the mountains of data that show such limits do nothing to actually save lives. Most bad guys don’t need them to cause havoc, good guys get jammed up over nothing, and we’re left shaking our heads.

In a just world, this would be enough to overturn every magazine limit in the country, even by people who are convinced they’re constitutional. We’ve mentioned for years that they just inhibit good guys, but now we’ve got a clear example and data showing how little they could accomplish even if they were followed to the letter by everyone.

Unfortunately for all, this is Massachusetts instead.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.