Who is it who are being mugged, robbed, houses broken in to, raped? Is it the police? No, it is the citizen. They are the ones who face danger 99/100 times. The police arrive after the fact and have the benefit of backup. When danger is knocking down your door 10 rounds isn't going to cut it.
Actually the whole point is that the examples they used and based their numbers off of are very unlikely to be the same type as a civilian faces.
Show me stats in comparable circumstances.
Cops hit x% of the time in a shootout.
Cops hit x% of the time when someones is running away (at a distance).
Cops hit x% of the time when someone is within x feet and trying to physically attack them.
The last one is the one is what 99/100 will actually matter to a civilian.
So yes context matters.
The video showed how magazine restrictions will have no effect on gun violence. I don't need to prove why civilians need more than 10 rounds, you need to prove why civilians don't need more than 10 rounds.
No it didn't. It was a clearly skewed test with subjective statistics.
1. Since you tried to prove civilians need them you have to put the responsibility on yourself to prove it. You have yet to do that.
2. If a single innocent person was killed by a gunman because of an extended clip (bullets 11-15) then that is proof enough. Just to be extreme.
A single video with an agenda proof does not make.
Anyway since there is little point in arguing in circles I will say this since it is the main point for me.
If the stats are in their proper context and it shows that what is being said in the video is true and applicable then you have a good starting point.
You then have to weigh the benefits vs the drawbacks (defence vs murder) with all the external factors.
If high capacity are truly needed for personal defence then they are needed for personal defence.