why does a civilian need a 30 round mag?

Originally Posted by W.E.C

this is a short and to the point answer:

(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressors.

About a week ago, I was listening to Mark Levin's program on WRKO, and a retired LEO called in. He related a story about a firefight he and several other officers were involved in ( I forget where it was), going up against a bank robber wearing protective Kevlar. He claims more than 200 rounds were shot at the perp, and he was only hit twice. The cops finally took him down, but the LEO said "you'll never know how many rounds you'll need until it's over."

Even Levin was impressed by that nugget of wisdom.

Ask the woman in Georgia that put five .38s into the home intruder while she was hiding with her kids in a crawl space, and he still walked out of the house and tried to drive away.

I'm working on a FAQ:

Q: Why do you need a 30 round magazine?
A: When you choose something to keep your family safe you use what offers the most protection. When it comes to protecting my family I don’t make compromises.

Q: Do you really need a 30 round magazine for protection?
A: It would be more accurate to say that it is best to use what was intended by the firearm manufacturer. Many of the magazines modified to meet the current 10 round restrictions in Massachusetts cause malfunctions. The proposed 7 round limit is further complicated since most magazines aren’t offered in a 7 round capacity—it’s effectively a disarmament clause.

nevahmind

Because that is the standard capacity for that firearm. It is how it was designed. It is not "high capacity".

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

I fail to see why the rantings of people attempting to violate the rights of Americans have any weight.