Talk:High-capacity magazine

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Title Misleading; Should be titled "High-Capacity Magazine Debate"

This doesn't seem to include anything about high capacity magazines other than the debate over if this is a valid definition/category or not. Also, the reference to how high capacity mags are generally defined as above 10 rounds was in the context of legislation, not research on popular opinion, which is evidenced by the fact that the reference only cites laws passed limiting magazine size, some of which are larger than 10 rounds. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0039.htm

The reference in question. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. This article should be titled "High-capacity magazine debate" no more than the "Assault weapon" article should be titled "Assault weapon debate." Debates about the terms are only part of the discussion about the topics of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Also, on my talk page, you said that only two laws in the provided source mention "something other than ten rounds."[1] That is untrue. In the source given five (federal, California, Massachusetts, New York, and D.C.) say capacities "more than 10 rounds." There are, without a doubt, high- or large-capacity magazines. Is there a single definition for these? No. Is there ever likely to be? Who knows? Kinda like speed limits. Some people would argue that there shouldn't be speed limits. Others might argue about what is speeding (as in unsafe driving speeds). But the fact remains that there are speed limits, no matter who says what about what those limits are or should be.

FWIW: I've been working on some other things, but I do plan on getting back to developing this stub. Lightbreather (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Just realized Eleutheria listed this on the Third opinion page.[2] Lightbreather (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I attempted to resolve this yesterday, and I started a discussion on Eleutheria's talk page:[3] A little less than an hour later, E. posted this on my talk page:[4] When it became clear that E. wasn't working toward a compromise, but rather insisting on his/her preferred wording, I warned him/her:[5] Later, E. started the 3O, which is linked to in my last post on this page. Lightbreather (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Confused

Yes, I did say that two pieces of legislation cited in the source say "something other than ten rounds" as a limit. Specifically New Jersey at 15 and Maryland at 20, 2 out of the 7. So, even ~30% of legislation doesn't agree. How is this helping your argument?

Then you state "Is there a single definition for these? No. Is there ever likely to be? Who knows?" Again, how is this helping your argument that the source you provide is talking about general consensus?

Also, all you have to do is look at this talk page to see that I started discussion first. I posted a questions about this and another subject within one minute after I made the first edit.

And how am I the one "insisting on my wording" when you didn't change the wording of yours at all to account for what I was talking about? Adding "although legal definitions vary" doesn't do anything to account for the fact that the source you link to provides no support for the assumption that a high capacity magazine is "generally considered" to be ten rounds.

I fail to see how you have been more compromising, engaging, or open to discussion, especially considering after your third revert all you did was post a 3RR warning on my talk page instead of putting a full answer to why you did it. [[6]] Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph one, I must have misunderstood you. Paragraph two, did I say the source is talking about general consensus? What it (the source) says is that the term high-capacity magazine "generally refers to gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition." Paragraph three, you started a discussion before me titled "Title Misleading..." That's a different topic. Paragraphs four and five, I disagree with.

I will read everything all over again, maybe something will look different to me. In the meantime, I am starting a new discussion - here - on the disputed point, because it doesn't really seem to be about the title of this article.

Also, you might want to review Technical and format standards on the Talk page guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence

Yesterday, this edit was made - [7] - that changed this sentence:

High-capacity or large-capacity magazines are generally considered to be those capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

To this:

High-capacity or large-capacity magazines are sometimes defined in legislation to be those capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

I think that misrepresented the WP:V, WP:RS, but because of the other editor's concerns, I made a compromise edit - [8] - which changed the sentence to:

High-capacity or large-capacity magazines are generally considered to be those capable of holding more than 10 rounds, although legal definitions vary.

The sentence after it sources the NRA for WP:BALASPS (that some do not generally consider magazines over 10 rounds to be high-capacity). I will ponder it again and perhaps tweak it some more.

In the meantime, I am posting this here because the other editor and I have been moving our discussion around from place to place and it's getting confusing. Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article seems to focus mostly on pro gun-control references. These types of magazines are also called standard capacity magazines, yet there is no treatment of this in the article. High-capacity magazine is a scare tactic, much like assault weapon, and gun show loophole. All these terms exist primarily only in the eyes of the gun-control proponents. Some serious work is needed on this article, to achieve a Neutral Point of View. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Image

File:SIGSauerP226.JPG

File:7.62x39mm Clips.jpg

The File:SIGSauerP226.JPG image isn't appropriate for this article. It doesn't show a so-called high-capacity magazine, it shows a run of the mill, every day type handgun magazine. But I believe it would be possible to find an appropriate image for the article. For example, File:7.62x39mm Clips.jpg might be a candidate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What about an image of a Beta C-Mag? That's definitely high-capacity. The 7.62x39 image only has one truly "high-capacity" magazine, and that one is non-detachable so it's a bad example. And some places set the limit at 20 or 30, so we should pick one that is always defined as "high-capacity" whenever that term is defined. Otherwise we could post an image of an Ishapore 2A1 rifle magazine and call that "high-capacity." Heck, we could post a 6-round rifle magazine and be defined as "high-capacity" in NYC. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the one I suggested isn't good either, for the reasons you've given. I wonder if we can find an appropriately licensed image of a detachable 30-round magazine. That would be okay, wouldn't it? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Still not a fan for two reasons. First, there have been high-capacity magazine bans that allowed 30-round magazines. Second, 30 rounds is the standard capacity for many firearms (AR- and AK-pattern rifles spring to mind). We want something that is both "high-capacity" across all jurisdictions that have defined them, and "high capacity" in that they are a higher capacity than normal magazines for that firearm. A Beta-C mag would be a good example of both. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I added an image of a Beta-C mag. Felsic2 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Exclude famous uses of high-capacity magazines

I don't see any consensus to censor mentions of famous uses of high-capacity magazines. Felsic2 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet, with no discussion, such material gets reverted again and again. Felsic2 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's undue coatracking to throw incidents in which HCMs were used unless that source is about HCMs. As a neutral example, a source describing Brad Pitt's vacation to Rome is probably worth including in the "Brad Pitt's 2015 vacation to Rome" article, but may not be worth mentioning in the Brad Pitt article. It is almost certainly undue for the Rome article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Bradd Pitt or Rome. This article is about HCMs, as you call them. What do you think we should say about them? Only the NRA and JFPO views on their definition or value? Not about their use? Felsic2 (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We should say what reliable sources say, with focus on weight and neutrality. The NRA and JPFO viewpoints should be balanced out, with appropriate weight, attribution, etc. I'll do some more research on gun control groups' take on it, and expand the article later. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The more information on this topic the better. Felsic2 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The JFPO material us about the use of HCMs. Their use has been a topic in this article since it was first written. Felsic2 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Term or object

Is this article about a term or about an object? If it's about a term then almost all material is off-topic, and there's little reason for the article to exist. I don't see any discussion of why we'd write about the term rather than the object. Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, the issue is that the term has several different meanings. We could end up talking about magazines over 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 rounds, depending on jurisdiction. We could also end up just talking about magazines over standard capacity (such as the Beta-C). We need to make it clear that there are multiple definitions. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We can say that people draw the line in various ways. But that's a separate issue from saying that the topic of this article is a term rather than an object. If it's about a term, then we can only discuss lexicology. I can't think of any good reason for restricting the topic in that way. Felsic2 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is really a legal term of art. The reason is that there is no fixed meaning when looking at such a magazine, unless one knows the jurisdiction in which one is talking about. "High capacity magazine" is a legal term without a fixed meaning, unless the jurisdiction is also known. This difference needs to be made. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

...although the number of rounds varies among different jurisdictions and for different kinds of firearms. Says it right there, in the first sentence. Felsic2 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we mirror the assault weapon article lead? That one appears to be something most of us can live with. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, because this article is not about a term, it's about an object. If you want to go through all firearms topics and change them into articles about nomenclature, then we can talk. Felsic2 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead of Assault Weapon does not reflect the content of that article. Either the article or the lead should be changed. Felsic2 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The JFPO material, which has been in this article for a long time,[9] is only about the use of HCMs, not about then terminology. Felsic2 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"HCM" is not just an object and a legal term. It's also a commercial term.[10] Felsic2 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliability

The reliability of HCMs keeps coming up in articles about them. We oughta include some material on that. Felsic2 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That really belongs in the drum magazine article instead. A 10-round AR-15 magazine is perfectly reliable. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno - I saw articles talking about the issue, and not just about drum magazines. I remember seeing a whole bunch about how the greater weight of a loaded large magazine can affect the latch. If I can find those again I'll add them. If not, not. Felsic2 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, we're running into issues with the scope of the article - are we talking about 6-round magazines, 11-round magazines, or 100-round magazines? I think the reliability issues would be better addressed in their respective articles or sections (e.g. drum magazine, helical magazine, or coffin magazine). We need to avoid implying that a 15-round handgun magazine is somehow less reliable than the same design pinned to 10 rounds. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can manage to make that clear. Felsic2 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• "all military magazines undergo reliability tests, before becoming approved"[11]

This comment says that the U.S. military never approves or purchases or considers magazines which turn out to be unreliable. If only that were true. Felsic2 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[12] According to this site, unreliable large capacity magazines caused on gun to fail tests. I'm not imagining it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

moved

This material was original research. [13] I summarised the sourced better here: [14] Felsic2 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletions

Material keeps getting deleted without any discussion. If we don't want to mention the manufacturers of arms, then we can delete a lot of material form a lot of articles. What's the policy or guideline here? Felsic2 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• The first question should be: What does it contribute to the article? There are a ton of manufacturers, some notable, some not. Does the fact that Magpul makes hi caps for AR's really help us understand the concept of high capactiy magazines? Why are we picking certain ones and essentially advertising for them? Second question: What is a high capacity magazine? This article acknowledges that the term isn't agreed on by everyone. Third, everything you're adding is specific to AR's. Why? Are we going to list everyone who makes hicap pistol mags? Shotgun? All rifle platforms? If the list isn't going to be all inclusive, or at least try to be, why are we picking a couple of favorite companies making products for a favorite platform? There's a good start. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm listing the companies that come up when I search on the topic. Do you have a better idea?

Since the topic is a commercial product, the manufacturers of the product are relevant. The FN FAL is not an AR-15, is it? Speaking of AR-15, there's a list of manufacturers there. AR-15#AR-15_and_variant_manufacturers How does that list improve that article? Let's be consistent. Felsic2 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• First, what is done at the AR article isn't applicable here. In that article, they're dealing with a specific type of product (the AR). This covers a very, very broad range. Second, I've started a discussion over there because it doesn't really appear to be helping that article. Second, what does the FN FAL have to do with this? Third, why did you ignore the other questions? Fourth, listing companies that come up in a Google search show us who paid the most. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You'd know what the FN FAL has to do with the discussion if you read what you deleted.

I'm not picking from Google ads, but from articles in reliable sources that Google finds.

This article isn't just about the concept, it is about the reality. The actual products are made by actual companies.

The difference between a generic rifle, the AR-15, and a generic type of magazine seems pretty small. See Flash suppressor. Should we delete manufacturers there? How about other firearms accessory articles which mention manufacturers?

If I missed a question please repeat it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• The point is that you're cherry picking, whether it was mostly AR or all AR. I didn't say you picked from Google ads, but Google results are influenced by SEO, which is often paid for. No, the difference between the AR specifically and magazines in general isn't small at all. Maybe we should be deleting them at flash suppressor. I might look into it. Thanks to you, I started reviewing several companies listed at the AR article and nominated several for deletion. What questions haven't you answered? Which definition of hi cap are we going with? Are we including all types? How the fact that Magpul makes hi caps for AR's really help us understand the concept of high capactiy magazines? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think of "cherry picking" as referring to the practice of picking out certain information which helps one's case while excluding similar information from the same source. I don't think I've done that either consciously or unconsciously. Can you suggest a more objective research tool than Google to use for finding sources?

I don't think it's our job to define "hi cap". It's whatever people say it is. A common definition seems to be "more than average." So, if a semi-automotic pistol usually has a 10-round magazine, then a 17-round magazine would be high capacity. If a carbine is sold with a 30-round magazine, then a 50-rround magazine might be regarded as high capacity. Further, if someone sells something labeled as "high capacity", then that is presumably a correct label.

I think we should include all types of high capacity magazines.

Again, if we don't think that including the details of individual products or the names of manufacturers is useful information then let's leave that out of all articles. If a gun is a gun, how does it help us to know that Smith & Wesson or Glock are gun manufacturers? That's a debate which needs to be decided on a Wikipedia-wide basis, not here. Thanks for raising it on another talk page - but it goes beyond that too. Felsic2 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• So first, how can you include manufacturers of high capcity magazines if we don't know what a high capacity magazine is? Of course we have to define it. WP:LSC says we need a criteria. Your "criteria" isn't a criteria at all. A Glock 17 sold in California will have a 10 round magazine while the same one sold in Texas, Florida or most states has a standard 17 round. Which is "higher than average"? If you sold a 15 round magazine to a Glock 17 owner in California, it would be "high capacity to him, but still below the normal capacity for the owners in most states. Second, do you have any idea how long the list will be if we include all types of magazines? Too long for this article and should probably spin off to a stand alone. Third, I'm not here to discuss what is helpful in other articles. I may or may not end up there. WP:OTHERCONTENT reminds us that this is usually an argument to avoid. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Working up from the bottom:

• WP:OTHERCONTENT When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether such organization of material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. Other editors may argue that a certain type of information isn't included because of inherent violations of core policies; see WP:ATTACK for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate.

I don't think it's a violation of WP:NOR, or any other policy, to assume that something sold as a "high capacity magazine" is, in fact, a high capacity magazine. Further, when the same people are editing two different articles withint the same field, then I don't think it's inappropriate to expect similar material to be treated in similar ways. That's not the same as saying that if we have lots of Pokemon articles then we need to have lots of gun articles too.

There is indeed an ambiguity in the term. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the topic at all.

All types of magazine should be covered in Wikipedia, if they are subject of signifciant coverage in reliable sources. Note that I was not simply listing magazines - I was summarizing what reliable sources said about them. This is a short article so concerns about it gettig too long seem premature. YOur oiginal concern was "why is this single manufacturer given such consideration". So you didn't like having a single manufacturer or magazine mentioned, and you also seem to be concerned about having many manufacturers mentioned. Could you tell me when and how you think it is appropriate to mention specific products or manufacturers in articles on generic products? Felsic2 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Since I didn't dismiss the concern "solely by pointing at the essay", my use isn't inappropriate by any means. Once again "high capacity" is ambiguous and the same magazine may be high cap in one location and not in another. Once again, a list requires criteria for inclusion. And simply because I first mentioned a specific concern doesn't mean it was my sole concern. No, I'm not going to comment on other articles here. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's what looks like a reliable source for a definition: "The term high capacity ammunition magazines (sometimes called large capacity magazines or high capacity ammunition feeding devices) generally refers to gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition." [15] Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Much of that is based on the federal law that sunset in 2004 and is no longer law. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this article isn't about laws, it's about high capacity magazines. The research piece repeatedly gives the definition as "more than 10 rounds". Is there a better definition available? Felsic2 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. It's primarily based on a law that no longer exists. A few other states copied that. The law no longer exists. It's like taking a 1972 Pan Am advertisement and saying it represents global air travel. Except that it was 44 years ago and Pan Am no longer exists. Or looking at the 1985 crime rate in NYC and saying that's what the crime rate today is. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where it says it's based on any particular law. It's the best available definition. If you can find a better one then we can use that instead. Felsic2 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• The federal law, from 1994, is listed first. Check the dates all the rest of those state definitions are passed and you'll see. The article also notes that the definition isn't accepted by everyone. In any case, I still see no reason to add a manufacturers section. You've really not addressed that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I still don't get how any of that invalidates it as a source.

I also don't get why this source was deleted: [16] Can you tell me why it is "unhelpful"? The title is "DR Exclusive!: SureFire MAG5-60 and MAG5-100 High Capacity Magazine (HCM) “Quad-Stack” AR Rifle Magazines: 60-Round/Shot and 100-Round/Shot AR (AR-15/M16) 5.56mm NATO Box Magazines for Significantly-Increased Firepower during Infantry Combat and Tactical Engagements of All Sorts". That sounds relevant to me. Felsic2 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Aside from the source being questionable, it never says "legal" or "commercial" or really tries to define the term. It's really not a good example of anything besides a product review. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Las Vegas mass shooting yet...

Well, it seems that high-capacity magazines were used in the Las Vegas mass murder, but nobody has included it. An actualization of the article is in order. Amclaussen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm opinion pieces and blogs". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I support deletion. The statement from this section "The assumption that reducing magazine size will lead to safety is also challenged by the realities of defensive use of firearms" is inaccurate and often quoted from a 2013 CDC study which can be looked at here: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1. Point being, the study concludes the number of defensive uses of guns is highly disputed, it could be as high as 3 million, could be as low as 108,000, but there simply isn't a lot of accurate data on the matter. The study also concludes that the defensive benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide.

--Stono rebellion (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be looked at; spot checking the sources, they look questionable. For example, I removed the statement by NRA-ILA which was vague and unhelpful diff:

• As a legal and commercial term, it has various definitions. The National Rifle Association (NRA) defines high-capacity magazine as "[an] inexact, non-technical term indicating a magazine holding more rounds than might be considered 'average.'"

References

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit (2)

The edit summary "A lot of undue attention on this use. There is probably a way to add a brief version, but that version should be determined on the talk page. This is the second time it's being removed" [17] did not quite make sense. The first removal was by an IP, who complained of this content as "irrelevant to the topic and was politically charged" [18]. I restored the material and would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Merely being sourced doesn't mean it gets added. It doesn't matter who removed it or if you liked his reason, it was the second removal. Aside from the fact that it's not well written, it lacks focus. The title claims "use in mass shootings", then it goes into legislation, failed attempts at legislation, listings on the Glock website and a number of other bunny trails. The whole section smacks of making a point. Again, 2 editors have removed it. Please discuss before restoring it again. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The material as was is poorly written and lacks any purpose. It was a text list of what HC magazines where used in some crimes. The controversy around HC magazines and mass shootings is something that, I feel, has sufficient weight for inclusion but it should not be a list of which crimes used which magazine. Instead it should focus on the arguments for and against legality, arguments related to impact on crime etc. We should include some statement of "X crimes used HC mags" but we should also make sure the reader understands what percentage of firearms come with "high cap" magazines (my guess is the majority of non-compact pistols in states where they are legal). Anyway, a big problem with the removed text, and this is true in many firearms related articles, is the material doesn't inform, it tries to manipulate or shade opinion. Per NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Springee (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Springee, I'm looking at this edit by K.e.coffman, reverted by Niteshift36. I don't get the objection, and Niteshift's "bunny trails" is BS (sorry Niteshift). If you want to object to anything there it's the throwing around of polls. The rest is pretty much factual and I don't see the shade being thrown. That stuff in the first paragraph, "Half of mass shootings...", is it not factual? And you don't want a list of shootings (why not? these magazines aren't living people), but it's precisely the accumulation of these shootings that causes the controversy you signaled, no? And aren't the factoids relevant? One murderer's magazine jams, FBI agent comments, etc. The only part I don't understand is the "The Virginia state panel..." sentence, which lacks secondary sourcing anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Poll about high-capacity magazine ban

I think the information from the polls should be removed from this article. It is a politically charged poll, and has very little relevance to this particular article. I can understand it being in the High-capacity magazine ban article but not here. Afootpluto (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Another problem with articles and or sources with poll data is that much of the data is fabricated or biased. I'm removing it but if anyone has a problem with that, let me know. GreyPage - ᚷᚱᛖᚤᛈᚨᚷᛖ (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Article needs a bit of work

1: Some frivolous CN tags that are trivially verifiable. Removing in good faith. Some very non-frivolous CN tags are attached to statements that are both tenuous and hard to find sources for.

2: Terrible separation between technical use of term and legal/colloquial use of term, starting in the lede. Will require some re-writing. Both definitions are used interchangeably in the same paragraph without clarification. Just using quotations to indicate non-technical use of the term is too close to scare quotes. Segregation of sections based on usage would avoid this.

3: Some editors apparently wish to include info on notable crimes committed with high-capacity magazines. This is actually supported explicitly by WikiProject:Firearms. It can be done in a way that is inclusive of both technical and legal definitions of the term -- the Giffords event and the Las Vegas event are both notable and both occurred with a non-contentious definition of high-capacity magazines.

4: Picture for high-capacity pistol magazine does not really exist. The CZ picture is not strictly accurate by the technical definition -- it was the best I could find.

This terminology is in the news more as time goes on and deserves a better article. ExtremeSquared (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Just did a bit of reformatting and citation maintenance. Left poorly worded and uncited material mostly intact. Will take a look at that later. The lede could use better citations too. This is definitely an article where scare quotes could be a problem. ExtremeSquared (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

California law

It may be worth noting that the original court case asked if the ban was constitutional since it made illegal the magazines already in possession, not just restricted/prohibited future sales. This new ruling goes further as it appears to challenge the notion of a magazine capacity limit itself. [[19]]. This may be a point for someone who is better informed than I to work on. I had assumed the 9th Circuit just upheld the lower court finding based on the fact that it required owners to surrender something they already owned. Springee (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

High capacity is not more than one round

This edit should be taken back out. The cited reference does not say that a high-capacity magazine holds more than one round. It says that an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm, meaning that it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. Those are two totally different things. Pinging @Dellant: who made this edit, but other editors are encouraged to post here too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks and no one has said anything about this, so I'm going to go ahead and put the article back the way it was. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the revert was reasonable. I do think the old lead has an issue with the claim 'more than the standard magazine'. Over 10 rounds is often the definition in laws. However, for many firearms the standard magazine is over 10 rounds. Much like the assault weapon term, high capacity is often an arbitrary value and defined by locally applicable law. It would probably be helpful to note that it's a term with both legal and social understandings. Springee (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the lead covers what you're saying, in my opinion. Let's take magazines for a Glock 17 handgun as an example. For that gun, a magazine holding 17 rounds is standard. But you can buy a magazine for it that holds, for example, 32 rounds, and that extends past the bottom of the gun butt. In this case, the 17-round magazine is standard, and therefore holds the usual number of rounds, and the 32-round magazine is high capacity, because it holds more than that. That's what the first paragraph of the lead is talking about. But, say this Glock 17 handgun is in California. By the laws of that state, any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds is defined as high-capacity That's what the second paragraph of the lead is talking about. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)