There's a very good reason why 10-round magazines are not sufficient for even basic self-defense [“A Medley of Responses to Mountain Xpress,” Jan. 23 Xpress and other letters]. A perfect example was posed recently by the highly publicized event of a women defending herself and her child from an intruder while her husband was on the phone supporting her.
She had a .38 caliber revolver. She emptied its six rounds striking the intruder three or four times. He was still able to flee the home and drive away, albeit for a short distance. Consequently, had he chose differently, he clearly still had the ability to affect mayhem on her and her child, and there she was with an empty weapon, clearly still at great potential risk.
So, what if there had been two or three assailants (not an unheard of situation)? Even with 10 rounds, she could have very easily been in the same situation: an empty gun in the face of a deadly threat.
This is why 9 mm pistols have 15- to 18-round capacity. It is a Hollywood myth that someone, when struck by a 9 mm bullet, is instantly rendered helpless. Consider how many rounds law enforcement [officers] tend to fire in a shooting, even when confronted by a lone assailant. Are they sadistic for firing so many rounds? No. It's because the threat isn't yet eliminated, and their lives continue to be at risk.
Consequently, I urge our elected officials to do everything in their power to block the misdirected attempt to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. None of us deserves to end up with an empty gun just when it's needed the most.
— Chuck Oliver