There are times I just can't quite understand the position some people take on some things. After all, the position I take makes perfect sense to me. Still, I'm sure they feel the same way, that their position makes sense to them while mine remains inexplicable. What I've come to accept as true is that two (or more) people can look at the same data and come to widely differing conclusions, even mutually exclusive ones. I accept that. Really, I do.
What I have a hard time understanding is people who lack experience with something speaking with authority as though they do. For instance, I ride motorcycles. I've ridden for years and I ride reasonably well (I say "reasonably well" because motorcycling is incredibly intolerant of hubris). It annoys me to no end to hear someone who doesn't ride at all discuss the habits and failings of motorcycles and riders while presenting any number of "facts" to support his or her position. Likewise, I grow annoyed with those who state there exists no "need" for a 30 round magazine for hunting or self-defense in the absence of personal experience. Instead, they sometimes present would be facts as though there is no alternative to their particular point of view. Ignoring the fundamental problems with law abiding members of a free society having to demonstrate need to exercise a basic civil liberty, it astounds me that someone who doesn't hunt, or who has been spared the necessity of protecting self and/or family from harm, would presume to decide how many rounds are needed. Depending on what is being hunted, 30 rounds might be perfectly appropriate (prairie dogs in Wyoming come to mind). And in the case of personal defense, I should like to point out that there is no such thing as a reasonable limit on magazine capacity! If someone (or 3 someones) enters my house at 3am how many rounds to I need? The answer is simple. As many as it takes to stop him (or them). I've seen people miss repeatedly at the range while shooting at a stationary target that isn't returning fire. They've had time to control their breathing, assume a good stance, assure good hand positioning and line up a perfect sight picture...and still miss! I've seen trained military people miss in a firefight. Not to mention, a wounded person can still kill you if not sufficiently incapacitated. Now, think of your nightmarish encounter this way. It's 3 am and you've been startled awake by the sound of something (someone?) coming through your front door/living room window. Your spouse is in bed beside you and your kids are down the hall in their rooms. How fast can you get to your home defense weapon while your spouse dials 911? Are your hands shaking? What about your heart rate and breathing? Are they both so hard and fast as to make your aim less accurate than normal? How's your vision in your darkened house? Where are they? Can you hear them? Could there be more than you've already counted? Are any of them headed your way...or toward your kids?
So, how many rounds do you want? 7? Really? I'm a trained, experienced shooter and while I'm not as accurate as I once was (eyes aren't what they once were and I drink way too much coffee these days), I'm more accurate than most people I see at the range. I've been shot at and I've returned fire and I want more than 7 rounds. In a pistol 15 is nice. In a rifle that will hold them, I'll take 20-30, thank you. In a shotgun...a long tube magazine with 8 will have to do. This is not to denigrate the utility of the shotgun in self defense. The sound of a round being chambered in a 12 gauge pump shotgun has been know to induce PIES (Profound Intestinal Emptying Syndrome). What I do not want, what I will not accept, is the idea that I should be limited to almost enough to protect myself and those who look to me for protection. No. Not gonna happen.