Category Research

Politicians adore the term, “high capacity magazine,” in references to guns. President Biden has made it a favorite when advocating for “gun control” and he blames the ills of weapon-related deaths on such accessories. It is important, however, that despite the rhetoric, people understand what this term means, and how it is being misused.

“High capacity” would logically refer to something excessive from the norm. Generally, politicians advocating for bans of such items claim this includes any firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (some states, such as Colorado, have set this limit at 15 rounds). One should ask, is this appropriate? The clear answer is no. More than 10 rounds of ammunition does not logically mean these magazines are “high capacity.”

In the 1960s, the introduction of civilian M16 variants came standard with a 20-round magazine. It was only a few short years later the United States Army set a standard of 30-round magazines accompanying said rifles. In 1980, NATO–through STAGNAG–adopted the 30-round magazine as a standard, as well. Thus, for roughly 60 years, magazines of more than 20 rounds have been normal in the world’s most popular rifles, and for over 40 years, the 30 round standard has been the norm.

Regarding pistols, the most famous of all is the Glock 17, designed by Gaston Glock. That pistol, introduced in 1982 and having since become a stalwart in both civilian and law enforcement circles, has 17 rounds and has since its inception. That is over 40 years of a 17 round capacity, with more than five million of these models sold (most other full size Glocks also carry similar amounts of ammunition, meaning more than 10 million exist).

Additionally, the Beretta M9/92SF, made famous by its use in the United States Army, has also come standard with 15-round magazines since the model’s adoption in 1990.

Under any consideration, there is no fair basis for referring to magazines with over 10 rounds of capacity as “high capacity.” It is irrational, and irresponsible, for politicians to adopt such terms. One could find it reasonable to refer to pistol magazines of more than 17 rounds, and rifle magazines over 30 rounds, as “high capacity,” but below those numbers is nothing more than made up political hyperbole.

On 2/28/23, King5 in Seattle posted an article titled Seattle City Council discusses policing policies, including 911 dispatch procedures (https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/public-safety/city-council-discusses-policing-policies/281-ec9b1a1c-b8e2-4fbb-9681-d3f952eb1c7c). The heart of the article is in reference to the city’s co-responder program. Essentially, co-responder programs involve the use of mental health professionals (and other resources) that can potential respond to 911 calls in place of, or along with, police. Ultimately the goal is to reduce law enforcement involvement in scenarios where law enforcement is not the appropriate resource to bring the incident to a satisfactory conclusion. The question in cities around America is whether or not these programs actually work, or if they work to the degree that their budget requirements would demand.

To be sure, the need for mental health resources isn’t limited to the United States. Mental illness is an issue everywhere around the globe and the need for the most humane and appropriate response is as pertinent in America as it is in Britain, Bahrain, or anywhere else. Clearly, however, different cultures and justice systems take the need for differential responses with varied levels of importance. Most Western nations, fortunately, see this as an area that needs investment and exploration.

Fortunately, exceptional numbers of studies have looked at co-response programs and their effectiveness. One of the best meta-analysis (a look at trends from numerous studies rather than just one) published looked at studies from the United Kingdom (https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-018-1836-2). In short, it was noted that co-response programs may reduce the number of people taken into custody by police. But few other constants exist.

Limitations with co-responder programs are significant. Foremost, very few co-responder programs work without police, which is against the intent of the program. Few mental health professionals will enter situations that are uncertain or blatantly unsafe. Generally by the time the police are involved, this is the type of situation the public is looking at. So if people want to remove police from the situation entirely, the co-responder model won’t work. You can’t expect MHPs to put themselves at risk.

Additionally, few co-responder programs are fully staffed. Funding is limited for these roles and people best able to serve in these positions are worthy of pay higher than the average available in co-response roles, so they tend to be employed elsewhere. Without fully staffed programs, true understanding is impossible to ascertain.

Ultimately, when you hear someone tell you that co-responders work, or that they don’t work, know they’re speaking from opinion, not fact.