And I can guarantee you any capable shooter could take out as many people as he did with a 10 round magazine. Hell, it wouldn't be difficult with a pump shotgun or bolt action or a revolver.
Magazine limits only limit one's own defense. It had zero effect on crime or shootings the last time we had one. That's the reason it sunset, because it had zero impact and only hurt law abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves.
Magazine limits only limits defense but not offense? You're right at the onset of any mass shooting you're fearless. The MAN.
But please, people scatter. Others try to fight back. Others fight. With every minute the situation becomes more dire for the shooter. Maybe the first mag he reloads is flawless. As innocent bystanders flee and the premises become more vacated, don't you think there's a bit of eeriness? At that point it's a ticking time bomb before the cops show up. You think the shooter is just as confident 3 minutes in? 5 minutes in? 10 minutes in? At a certain point he's trying hard to look for targets while making sure he's not about to get popped yet and he has a time to put a bullet in his head.
You honestly think magazine limits have ZERO effect on how much damage a shooter can do? It has an effect.
Once again I'm not arguing for magazine bans, but let's not be idiotic and deny that magazine size has no arguments.
I've never been in a shootout, but even at the range when I'm emptying a 10 round magazine, after the first few, I start conserving. I make sure that every shot counts and that I don't just expend another round at my paper target. If I always shot with 30 round magazines, I might not give a crap the first few rounds and just shoot a couple off. That's why I use the example of the Sandy Hook shooter who put 5-6 rounds on average into each body. You think he would've done that with a 7 round magazine? He would've been much more conservative with his magazines. If you gave him 3 hours to do damage, it might've been the same, but given that mass shootings are time limited, it's not the same thing.
I'm not here arguing for or against gun controls. Just against stupidass arugments. Like the whole cars versus guns argument. Spirited debate is good, but unsound arguments are terrible.
It's a much better self defense for women than you know.
They're low recoil, light and generally pretty short. AR-15s are a superior choice for women over shotguns, other long rifles and even most handguns for these reasons.
I really like shooting the AR-15, but I really can't see how I would use this in home defense over a pistol. Maybe shooting down the stairwell I could see myself doing, but hallways and corners? I don't know.
And last time I checked there aren't droves of people in line for AR-15s for home defense.