Is a magazine ban useful?

I see someone did a video similar to the one I was thinking about doing.  I like the rebuttal to Stephen King's little attack on guns, in which he states:

"If you can't kill a home invader with ten shots, you need to go back to the local shooting range."  - Stephen King, GUNS 2013

So apparently Stephen holds civilians to a MUCH higher standard than the NY Police department.  - Well that makes sense, so do I.  But to assume your going to get the job in 10 rounds under any circumstance is .. ah ... STUPID.

What's good about the video?   Some interesting facts about how often NY cops miss ( looks like about 85% of the time).  The person running the tests is a Sheriff.   The tests show that reloads don't slow you down enough to make a lot of difference (assuming you have the magazines handy).  Using an advanced and less experienced shooter was good.

What's bad about the video?  Jim fires 30 rounds from two 15 round magazines, then from three 10 rounders then from fix 6 rounders.  It's pretty obvious that Jim is not firing as fast from the 15 rounders as he is from the others which is why he got a faster time with the 10 rounders. Slanting the test is a BAD idea.  He either should have been shooting at full speed though out, or working on timed fire (try to average 1 shot per second) etc.   This way it looks like the video is TRYING to deceive.

If shown to a person who owns a gun but because of the media was siding with the magazine banners - I suspect it would change their mind.   If the person is already a gun grabber, this is just going to make them feel even more strongly that all guns should be banned.

Getting them to actually understand that magazine restrictions are pointless is - well, pointless - they don't want us to have ANY magazines - or the guns to use them.