Gun Control in the United States: Is it time to limit magazine capacity for police and regular citizens?

Wait, Banning firearms/magazines for the police? Who exactly is going to enforce that? I ask in all seriousness. NY just enacted sweeping gun controls without a law enforcement exemption and the police departments bucked causing the law to be quickly amended.

A lot of cops need better training. There's no getting around that. And qualifications standards for cops and armed guards need to be a lot stricter in most cases. That said, 20 out of 22 shots hitting their target is hardly spray and pray.

Have you ever watched Jerry Miculek shoot his 6-shot .45 revolver?

It seems that you've conflated military tactics with civilian magazine capacity, which doesn't make much sense to me.  I'll address the "spray and pray" aspect only. What retired USMC Lt. Colonel Jack Lewis, that you quote, is lamenting is that the USMC is the only branch of the US military that still emphasizes traditional rifle marksmanship skills to the same degree as in WWI and WWII.  In fact they still believe, and teach "every Marine, a rifleman."  That means being able to hit a man sized target with iron sights and a rack grade rifle out to 500 yards (they now allow the use of an ACOG scope in qualification).  The development of marksmanship skills in the US  has traditions going all the way back to the founding of the nation.  Captain Isaac Davis, Leader of the Acton, Ma. Militia (the unit that fired "the shot heard 'round the world") at the North bridge in Concord Ma. On 4/19/1775, was a blacksmith & gunsmith by trade who set-up a shooting range behind his shop and trained his militia on a bi-weekly basis.  The British redcoats by contrast, did not even use the "aim" command.  They were simply instructed to "present arms" and "fire!"  Many redcoats turned their heads away after presenting arms, to avoid the flash and sparks from the gunpowder in the pan getting in their eyes.  This often caused them to shoot high.  The redcoats engaged in "volley fire," which ironically was the original "spray and pray."  Many redcoats also considered aiming at a specific soldier to be ungentlemanly and even murderous. Other American Revolutionary war units were arguably, the worlds first snipers.  Specifically, Daniel Morgan's group of riflemen, yes that's right, riflemen.  They used Kentucky long rifles, not muskets and it's been reported that to qualify, you had to make a "bucket shot" from 250 yards.  The equivalent of a head shot.  Many Americans Colonists also had to hunt to survive.  So rifle marksmanship was a highly prized skill in the US that transcended both military and civilian life.  The US Colonials also made it a tactic to shoot redcoat officers first, often beyond the effective range of the Britsh Brown Bess muskets.  This proved to be a devastating tactic that caused the redcoats to turn tail and run for their lives after only a 2 minute engagement at the north bridge in Concord. Between the Revolutionary and civil wars, most Americans (northerners especially) lost the need and interest in marksmanship and the appalling lack of shooting skills of new recruits observed by Union Officers led to the creation of the NRA.  From their website; Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,".... So the NRA created standardized methods to teach rifle marksmanship. Not long after, in 1903, via an act of Congress, the Civilian Marksmanship Program was created.  It had similar goals as the NRA but was also chartered to sell surplus military rifles to civilians.  This program is still in effect today. The US Armed forces carried on these traditional marksmanship training methods through the Korean War (see training film below). Somewhere between about the end of the Korean War and the beginning of the Vietnam war, US Army marksmanship training and tactics began to change.  Most people seem to attribute this to the advent of the M-16.  The M-16 had full auto capability and fired a much smaller projectile than it's predecessors, the M1 and M14.  It also had  a forward sling mount that was integrated into the gas block (attached to the barrel).  So tactics changed to a "more lead in the air" approach and less precision shooting because: 1. M16 was a full auto capable firearm (changed to 3 shot burst with the M16A2 in 1982) 2. It used a smaller round with shorter effective range and stopping power than the M14 3. Because it fired a smaller bullet (.223 vs. .308 inch diameter and about 60% lighter), more ammo could be carried by the infantryman. 4. The barrel deflected if the sling was used for support (as had been traditionally taught), which affected the bullet's point of impact This shift in emphasis (USMC excepted) from precision position shooting (standing, seated, kneeling and prone) as you can still witness at the national shooting matches, to the "spray and pray" attitude filtered down to civilian gun owners and shooting ranges.  At my local DNR ranges for example, every shooting station is a bench and there are no accommodations for field or position shooting.  So few American gun owners (except those in competitive shooting or USMC) are trained in traditional American rifle marksmanship skills, where single shot precision is prized. Here is a US Army WWII training film on how to fire the M1 Garand.  Only a few of the finer points have really changed in 70 years:

Wikipedia's very capable team covered the North  Hollywood shooting 2/28/1997 at a Bank of America branch, which very clearly details the reason that there are some with access to weapons and a lack of mental health who pose a deadly menace to society at large.  I might also point out that they subjects had access to a prescription (legally). With little amazement on my part, I learned in researching this answer that the police had ONLY their service revolvers and a pump action shotgun. If, as  is the case in most states, the magazine size is limited, yet people  are still shooting others, there's a fundamental problem with the  approach to gun control. Put into perspective, the bad guys had access to and used firepower greater than the Law Enforcement had available then. (far as I know). A search has yielded the following info, for those who care to see what LAPD might be packing now:   A debt of gratitude to Wikipedia: Phillips and Mătăsăreanu loaded five rifles and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_magazine into the trunk of their vehicle: two converted fully automatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle rifles, a converted fully automatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle, a semi automatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK41, and converted fully automatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_International (M16) XM15 Dissipator.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#cite_note-criticalshootout-16 They filled a jam jar with gasoline and placed it in the back seat with  the intention of setting the car and weapons on fire to destroy  evidence after the robbery. Phillips wore roughly 40 lbs of equipment,  including a Type IIIA bulletproof vest and groin guard, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Integrated_Fighting_System and multiple military canteen pouches for ammunition storage, and  several pieces of home made body armor created from spare vests,  covering his shins, thighs, and forearms.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#cite_note-17 Mătăsăreanu wore only a Type IIIA bulletproof vest, but included a metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_plate to protect vital organs. Additionally, both robbers had sewn watch  faces onto the back of their gloves to check their timing inside the  bank.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#cite_note-18 Before entering, they took the barbiturate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenobarbital, prescribed to Mătăsăreanu as an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticonvulsant, to calm their nerves.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#cite_note-criticalrob13-19 Wikipedia goes on to describe the arms the police had: (They were) armed with standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92F and Beretta 92FS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm pistols and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver, while (the) officers including James Zaboravan also carried a 12-gauge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Model_37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump-action shotgun.

There are already limits on magazine sizes in most weapons. If someone is using larger magazines than is already legally allowable, then lowering the legal maximum on magazine size further will do nothing. As for the police, if it is known, through the sources you already provided, that the criminals are using higher weapons than the law allows, I don't feel it is morally justifiable to send in the police I've tasked to protect me in with systematically weaker weaponry than they should expect to see held against them.

Your reference of spray and pray doesn't add up for me.   The marines pride themselves on being riflemen and having the skill to drop a target from up to 500 yards.  They train to do this with good old fashioned iron sighted rifles.  The Marine whose quote you referenced is making that statement out of pride in his marines for being riflemen and not relying on lobbing a hale Mary butt load of lead in the general direction of an anticipated threat.   Let's see, we should probably make heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, and drunk driving illegal since they take more lives than gun accidents and violent crimes with high capacity magazines involved.  Oh wait, they already are illegal.    The undeniable fact is this, if certain magazines, guns, and weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.    There are definitely improvements that can be made in our law enforcement and the manner in which lethal force is administered.  Sending our policemen out with the knowledge that they don't have the same means to protect themselves and the citizens that the criminal has to do us harm is absurd and would clearly be negligent.   Does the average Joe need a 30 round magazine on a daily basis?  Probably not but if the right to choose to have it legally is taken away, then the criminals will already be a step ahead of any citizen who wants to protect themselves.  It's not about the capacity of the magazine or if the weapon is semi automatic, if someone is going to be violent with a weapon, they will do it no matter what.

While you point out some notable exceptions, the fact is that "spray and pray" hasn't been "imported to America"...  That's a gross and irresponsible exaggeration of the facts. The number of rounds fired in most instances by criminals has not significantly changed over time. (Which, in fairness, you note.)  Nor have the numbers increased when private citizens legitimately defend themselves. The arguments to limit magazine capacity are based on the theory that one would limit deaths in mass shootings.  But there is no evidence that this would be the case.  The worst mass shooting in US history (VA tech) was accomplished with low cap mags, and the simple fact is that it's not that hard to change magazines.  Indeed, a detailed look at what happened at Sandy Hook shows that shooting would have likely turned out the same way had Lanza been armed with a double barrel shotgun and a revolver.  The simple fact is, you don't need sophisticated weapons to kill unarmed children at point blank range.... But those very same weapons come in handy when the situation isn't typical.  Not all criminals operate by themselves, or using typical patterns, and there are times that you need more rounds. Are they the exception?  Yes.  But you are arguing about removing that potential to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Further, such magazines are distinctly protected under federal law by US v. Miller. (Not that Congress or the Executive cares about the Constitution or the courts.)

What are you trying to achieve by limiting magazine capacity?  Crime reduction?  Guess what, it doesn't work. Clinton signed the AWB in 1994.  For 10 years, there was a nationwide 10 round limit on all magazines.  Crime did not disappear or even decrease.  You know what did happen?  The black market for regular non-limited magazines went through the roof.  A normal $15 magazine all of a sudden went for $50-75 overnight.  Unscruplous gun dealers took extra magazines which came with guns and sold them separately for more money.  It just transferred money from the honest citizen to gun dealers.  That's all that it did. When the AWB sunseted in 2004, crime did not magically explode through the roof.  The streets did not run red with blood with the flood of legal magazines without the 10 round limit, causing normal people to go crazy and kill each other at the drop of a hat. Okay, Virginia Tech.  One of the worst active shooter incidents in recent memory.  The shooter had a bag full of 10 round Glock magazines.  Those were limited.  Didn't really slow him down one bit.  He just kept changing magazines as he went along. Last thing, who decides the limit?  It's pretty arbitrary.  You decide I only need ten.  Another guy says why can't you get by with 9.  Maybe someone more generous says 12.  Who decides the limit?  That is a real issue, by the way, CA still has a 10 round limit, New York is 7, New Jersey is 15.  True capacities of some pistol magazines can be 17-19 rounds, while rifles are generally 30 round affairs, going up to 40, 60, or even 100 round capacity.  So, who decides how much to limit the guns?  How about a percentage, so it's more fair to those with bigger capacities?  After all, how is it fair that I have to give up 20 rounds from a 30 round rifle magazine in CA, while Bob only gave up 5 rounds from a 15 round handgun magazine, or George giving up 2 rounds from a 17 round handgun magazine in New Jersey?