Good intentions often lead to bad laws

When Connecticut first passed new restrictions limiting magazine capacity for guns, I was able to demonstrate in just over a minute why in at least one aspect it was hastily planned.  It just now occurred to me that it’s even worse than I had first thought.

Limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds is ineffective if there is no limit on the number of guns one can carry on their person.  If it’s too dangerous for me to carry a handgun with 13, or 15, or 17 rounds, doesn’t it follow that carrying two handguns with 10 rounds each equally dangerous, if not more so?  Two guns allows me to shoot in multiple directions at multiple targets simultaneously.

Am I missing something, or do capacity limits not accomplish what they are intended to?


  1. It’s not a bad law per se, but it is irrelevant. The issue with gun violence won’t be solved by limiting capacity in magazines/clips. There are millions of 10+ rd magazines already out there. The criminals and criminally insane will get their hands on them. Also there is no mechanism from keeping another crazy from simply having 5 10 rd magazines.

  2. The idea, I gather, is that the time it takes to reload is a chance for victims to get away. I’ve seen people reload a clip in the blink of an eye, so I write this law off as yet another example of government satisfying their insatiable appetite for “action,” without regard for effectiveness.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: