No, but magazine capacity tends to.
edit: my point is that you can do a lot more damage with a rifle with a big magazine than you can with a handgun. I can't tell if I'm confused reading the replies, or replies are confused reading my comment.
No, but magazine capacity tends to.
edit: my point is that you can do a lot more damage with a rifle with a big magazine than you can with a handgun. I can't tell if I'm confused reading the replies, or replies are confused reading my comment.
This is absolutely false. Compare a .22 round to 10mm. You can probably be shot by .22 ten times or more and walk away. A 10mm round will stop an elephant on bath salts. Both can be shot from handguns.
In California you will have the same number of rounds in your 9mm Glock 17 (10) as you will in your .45 ACP Glock 21 (10).
In any case you are only limited by how many rounds you can carry, modern semiautomatic pistols can be reloaded in two seconds.
But generally you are right - the larger rounds like 10mm and .500 will smash whatever they hit while .22 and other smaller calibers are likely to only make the intended target very angry.
The only .45's with a capacity of 6 are subcompacts
The article mentions trials and future rollouts in a number of other places.
> where mag capacity is limited to 10
Isn't the whole idea behind these scanners to catch people who aren't following the law?
> The only .45's with a capacity of 6 are subcompacts
You're right, the 1911 holds a whopping _seven_.
Magazine capacity is significant, but slight by comparison to handgun vs. rifle, especially in the context of mass shooting and terrorism. Magazine capacity is most significant when it comes to gun vs. gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
"75-80% of rounds fired by trained police in lethal force encounters miss their intended target"
"Out of 16 rounds, expect 12-13 to miss"