If the argument is that high capacity magazines make it easier for mass murderers to kill a bunch of people in a very short amount of time, they'll tell you how they can reload smaller capacity magazines "so fast that it doesn't make any difference".

However, when it comes to "self defense", they'll argue that they need the added firepower to take care of a "multitude of attackers without reloading".

So which is it? (Not that I expect any gun nuts to give an honest answer).

It speaks volumes!

mind evidently.

keep people from getting into your home in the first place. Secure doors and windows along with alarms are a much better and safer way to protect you and your family.
Just google "cheap home security".

for those concerned about home safety.

that make it impossible to break windows. 3 inch screws in hinges and all door parts. A safe room to retreat to is some one breaks in. Fake signs warning of alarm systems. Of course motion lights are a must.

The break in you stop saves a lot on cleaning up blood and for lawyers and shrinks.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Actually, higher magazine capacity just increases the odds of being shot with your own gun

--Bill Ruger, of Sturm, Ruger & Co.

The old man is probably rolling over in his grave, as the firm now makes ARs and 25-round magazines for squirrel guns.

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Ruger#Controversy

people still boycott the firm today, even though he's been dead more than a decade and the firm now makes "evil black rifles," big magazines for consumers, and concealable handguns (all were opposed by the old man).

He gets more hate than Smith and Wesson, which made a deal with the Clinton administration to build locks into their guns (now "creatively" called "Hillary Holes&quot .

Not feeling well and sore from shoveling snow from the day before, I spent quite a bit of time yesterday checking out a number of other forums (pro-gun and survivalist) for info on why some gun owners feel it necessary to have high capacity magazines. While there were references made on the 3-3-3 rule which is supposedly based on FBI data that states that a majority of gun fights take place at a distance of 3 feet, are over in 3 seconds and 3 shots are fired, and a few posted that most gun owners will never actually need to fire their gun in a home or self defense situation, I didn't see any post that provided evidence backed up by data or studies that showed that there was a legitimate need for high capacity magazines for home and self defense. Just personal opinions such as one can never have too many guns or too much ammo and arguments based on hypothetical situations rather actual events.

The hypothetical situations being where an individual faces an attack by a large number of well armed bad guys at one time or a series of smaller attacks over a period of time during a natural or man made disaster. But none of this was based on actual events other then in one forum it was mentioned there had been a member who lived in NO during Katrina and used his gun on a number of occasions to ward off looters. It was not made clear in the posts I read as to what type of gun this member supposedly had.

Actual situations that could have been referenced but weren't are those cases where an heavily armed individual in a home or building faces off against the police or a swat team. This would be similar to a hypothetical scenario where a homeowner is confronted by a well armed gang. But I'm unaware of any actual case where the situation turned out well for the individual. He was either killed by the police, surrendered or toke his own life. This despite being heavily armed himself and having a large amount of ammunition.