How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron.


PDA






Justin
December 23, 2012, 04:39 PM
In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, there have been calls for reinstating a federal ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.

Arguing for the right to own these magazines is something that can be problematic, as even many gun owners see no issue with restricting access to them.

Furthermore, I've seen a lot of pro-gun folks try to make a case for these magazines, and come off as either insensitive, buffoonish, or just downright stupid, and it makes me cringe every time I watch it happen.

So, in the interest of preserving our second amendment rights, here are my thoughts on arguing against bans on >10 round magazines.

**Know Who You're Debating**

Most of the people reacting to Sandy Hook (and other rampage shootings) are not gun people. For the most part, they aren't anti-gun people, either. They are, however, completely ignorant about guns and how they work, and have a general level of fear associated with guns and people who own them.

What they're looking for is an answer to the question of "how do we stop rampage shootings" and they're grabbing at the first straw, gun control, that seems like a good idea. You have to convince them that gun control is not the answer.

**Arguments That Don't Work, and Why**

*• It's my right to own them because 2nd Amendment.*
-This argument is true, however it makes you look stupid and selfish. After all, to the people you're speaking to, you come off sounding like you put your right to own a dangerous product above the safety of their kids.

*•I own them because I can.*
-Again, this is a stupidly weak argument, and a tautology on top.

*•I own them because I may need them for self-defense.*
-Remember, the people you're talking to have not spent any time at all studying personal defense, much less defense with a firearm. By and large, most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate. Furthermore, statistically speaking, for the vast, vast majority of defensive encounters, they're right. The number of self-defense incidents where capacity of the defender's gun was what won the day are, in truth, vanishingly small. As a result, most people, who've spent no time reading up on the current state of self-defense will dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic with delusions of having to fend off an army.

*•I own them because we may need them in case of invasion/the US government turns on its own people/The Revolution/Wolverines!*
-Most people in this country live comfortable lives, and they rarely pay attention to historical precedent. As a result, they don't believe that things could come down to a situation where things go all Warsaw Ghetto, and even if they *do* entertain the notion that such a thing could happen here, they cannot and will not consider the idea of actually picking up a gun and fighting against an existential threat. Any argument that follows the revolutionary line of reasoning will be dismissed out of hand as paranoid fantasizing. You will be painted as a lunatic preparing for an event that will never happen. The assumption is that you're so delusional that you are putting your right to a revolution that will never come up against the protection of children.

*•I own them because it makes it easier for me at the shooting range or because having them reduces amount of time I have to waste loading magazines.*
-Again, this argument makes you look completely unsympathetic. After all, if a ban on magazines would reduce these shootings, then who cares if it means you're slightly inconvenienced during a range trip?

*•I own them because I compete in USPSA/3 Gun/some other form of competition.*
-This argument can help to counter the "you don't need a high capacity magazine to hunt" or "why would anyone have these things?" and pointing out that you're involved in a competitive sport may confer some legitimacy, but it's still a weak argument, because you sound like you're putting the enjoyment of a game above the safety of kids.

**Arguments That Should Work, With Explanation**

The best way to voice your opposition to a magazine ban isn't by asserting your rights. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the 2nd Amendment, rights-based or possession-based arguments are not going to sway someone who is on the fence about the 2nd Amendment, and/or already believes that no reasonable person owns such an item.

The best way to make the case in favor of >10 round magazines is from a policy perspective. As gun owners we should all be actively engaging in the public discussion over these items, and offering our unique knowledge to help guide policy in a direction that will actually be effective at stopping these sorts of shootings from happening in the future.

***The best arguments against a ban on these magazines is to point out that such a ban SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.*** It's thoroughly terrible policy that will absolutely not stop the next rampage killer from taking out as many victims as his tortured mental state demands.

Here's a breakdown of the arguments that are bound to be the most effective, at least with people who aren't being completely emotional about the situation.

*•The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban*
-The US had a ban on these magazines that lasted for ten years, and during that time, there was not one trustworthy study that showed the ban had any effect whatsoever on rates of violent crime, regardless of the type.

*•The technology is already "in the wild."*
-With the exception of the ten years during the federal assault weapon ban >10 round magazines have been sold with hundreds of millions of new guns, and available on the market to anyone who cares to purchase them. These magazines are mechanically simple (about as complex as a well-constructed travel mug), small, and completely untraceable. Any attempt to regulate these magazines will essentially be DOA because there are already so many of them in private hands.

*•Consider the implications of enforcing a ban*
-Everyone wants to get behind the idea of a ban without putting any thought into actual enforcement costs. Ask them to explain how they would enforce a ban.
Would they be willing to ok warrantless searches to find these magazines?
Would they be willing to arrest, try, convict, and imprison for ten years anyone found to possess one?
How much would it cost to imprison all of these millions of people?
Would we have to construct new prisons for them?
Would it really be worth it?

(The nice thing about this line of reasoning is that it's an extremely easy litmus test to see if you're dealing with someone who's halfway rational or not. No rational person would actually agree that locking up tens of millions of people who've harmed no one would be a good idea. And if the person says they're ok with it, you know they're a nut. This argument also has the potential to work well if you're talking to people in favor of legalizing pot, as the comparisons between marijuana users and magazine owners are actually pretty clear-cut.)

*•How to enforce a ban?*
-How would you keep people from importing unmarked magazines from outside of the US, or squirting them out of a 3D printer?

*•Point out that other mass shootings have taken place without >10 round magazines*
-3 of the 4 guns used by the Columbine shooters did not use high capacity magazines. Specifically, Eric Harris had to reload his Hi-Point Carbine ten times, and the double-barreled shotgun used was reloaded over twenty times. [ur=http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html]Source[/url] The Walther used by Seung-Hui Cho could not hold more than ten rounds. The Beltway "snipers" never fired more than one shot at any given murder attempt. Charles Whitman used no high capacity magazines.

-Changing magazines is an action that even an amateur can easily complete in under four seconds. Even if the killer is limited to ten round magazines, it won't matter. They will simply carry more magazines and reload more often. Furthermore, there is not one instance where that extra reload time made a difference in the outcome of a shooting. (Some may try to claim that it did in the case of the Giffords shooting, but Loughner's gun jammed, which is what provided the time to others around him to react.)


Finally, if you're a parent and a gun owner, voice this fact. Having a kid means you've got skin in the game, and gives you additional legitimacy. Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children. As gun owners, we have not only a unique perspective and specialist knowledge on the subject, but we've also got the most to lose. Therefore it is extremely important for all of us to present the best arguments we can.

I hope that this post is useful. I've been making a number of these arguments on public news forums with some success. I'd appreciate any feedback.

If you enjoyed reading about "How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
xfyrfiter
December 23, 2012, 05:13 PM
Justin; IMHO you got it!

beatledog7
December 23, 2012, 05:16 PM
Very useful and rational. Thanks!

The single most effective argument is the one that demonstrates that magazine capacity limits will make no difference, just like every other gun control measure, because the bad guys will pay them no mind and can swap out mags very quickly anyway.

wacki
December 23, 2012, 05:20 PM
Also, the worst "rampages" weren't done with high capacity magazines.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690482

I need to compile a list of the top killers. But high capacity magazines are a clear minority.

Pilot
December 23, 2012, 05:23 PM
Excellent information. However, I think what you are saying is that there are no real reason for us to own 30 round capacity rifle mags or other hicap mags, just that enforcement of a ban is essentially impossible.

I don't know, there has to be positive arguments FOR owning these, not just that it won't do anything to reduce crime or practically speaking, un-enforceable.

Do we really sound crazy when we articulate the actual reason for the 2nd Amendment? Protecting ourselves against harm, and from a potentially abusive, oppressive tyrannical government? Are we that embarrassed of the real reason?

forindooruseonly
December 23, 2012, 05:24 PM
Good stuff.

This should be sticky-ed to the top of the page.

fehhkk
December 23, 2012, 05:25 PM
I like to refer to this article from 2004, which pretty much explains what didn't work and why:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all

k_dawg
December 23, 2012, 05:42 PM
If you admit you even have to defend them, you have already given into their arguement.

jmr40
December 23, 2012, 05:51 PM
Was discussing a similar thought with a friend. This guy is a gun owner, but not a "gun nut" like most here. He felt that the writers of the 2nd amendment could have never envisioned 30 round magazines or modern rifles and that the 2nd amendment did not apply to such weapons.

I pointed out that they never envisioned TV, computers or the internet when they wrote the 1st amendment and therefore it should not apply to modern mass communications methods.

You could see the light come on from the immediate change of facial expression. I won over an immediate convert than changed his views 180 degrees in a matter of seconds.

ShadowsEye
December 23, 2012, 05:58 PM
If you admit you even have to defend them, you have already given into their arguement.
This is very high-handed...Let me remind you that the AWB stood intact for 10 years without any successful legal challenges, and the words "well-regulated" are in the 2nd amendment.

Realize that public opinion is why the AWB lapsed without a whimper in 2004, its best to win public opinion to our favor, and educated people who don't know any better. We're not talking about engaging with the fervent Brady bunch in pointless arguments, we're talking about people who don't know any better.

Hapworth
December 23, 2012, 06:08 PM
If you admit you even have to defend them, you have already given into their arguement.
And if you don't admit you have to defend them, they have already won the argument.

tomrkba
December 23, 2012, 06:10 PM
I have tried the rational argument with several people. I have even gotten them to agree with me multiple times in the conversation. In the end, they still "felt" that semi-automatics must be banned.

I'm pretty much at the point where I say:

"If you don't know what a right is by now, then I cannot help you. If you do not understand the system, then you should be very, very careful regarding what ideas you advocate. It is very easy for the government to create laws in such a way that the effects exceed the original mandate. If you do not understand this by now, then there is no point in debating anything with you."

Let me remind you that the AWB stood intact for 10 years without any successful legal challenges, and the words "well-regulated" are in the 2nd amendment.

The government knows what "well regulated" means in the context of the Constitution. The people (many lawyers included) have no idea and this is the problem. The justification for the law was the Commerce Clause, which has been so completely abused that any twisted logic fits.

It is up to us, the armed minority, to ensure our rights exist and continue. Congress and the President have no interest in ensuring the rights of Americans are not violated.* Even the most dense Representative or Senator knew that the NDAA 2011 violates the Constitution, but they passed it anyway. They have shown, time and again, that they have no problem creating laws based upon public perception for the purposes of destroying those rights. Apparently most gun owners do not understand this either.

I fear that rational argument is not going to work this time. I believe the only thing holding them back is that gun owners have long memories and that Congress is concerned about the 2014 elections. This is not how it should be, but it is the current situation.




* For Heaven's sake: The President ordered the murder of American citizens overseas using drones. This violates their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights! If the President can casually murder Americans overseas, and get away with it, then he will do so stateside. If this is not a wake-up call, I don't know what is.

Tom609
December 23, 2012, 06:13 PM
Exactly...thanks.

Justin
December 23, 2012, 06:17 PM
Excellent information. However, I think what you are saying is that there are no real reason for us to own 30 round capacity rifle mags or other hicap mags, just that enforcement of a ban is essentially impossible.

I don't know, there has to be positive arguments FOR owning these, not just that it won't do anything to reduce crime or practically speaking, un-enforceable.

Do we really sound crazy when we articulate the actual reason for the 2nd Amendment? Protecting ourselves against harm, and from a potentially abusive, oppressive tyrannical government? Are we that embarrassed of the real reason?

I'm not saying that those reasons are invalid. What I am saying is that those reasons only make sense to people who are already part of the gun culture.

The arguments I've posted are those that are most likely to actually be effective at convincing people who are uninterested in or hostile to gun ownership.

I am fundamentally interested in preserving second Amendment rights, and as such I am only interested in those arguments most likely to convince those who think a ban is a good idea.

In other words I'm more interested in the proper results than I am in making sure that or arguments are 'authentic.'

Tl;dr the only thing that matters are results.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

ShadowsEye
December 23, 2012, 06:18 PM
The government knows what "well regulated" means in the context of the Constitution. The people (many lawyers included) have no idea and this is the problem.

I wouldn't concede that government knows anything, and there is so much arbitrary gun law through out the country that is perfectly constitutional according to SCOTUS.

HOOfan_1
December 23, 2012, 06:18 PM
And if you don't admit you have to defend them, they have already won the argument.

If defending them makes us look like "insensitive morons", then those we have to defend them to are ignorant cowards.

Seriously, the people whom we have to pander to and "defend" our rights to, just don't care what we have to say.

Justin
December 23, 2012, 06:23 PM
In that case then, you've chosen to concede victory in order to engage in counter-productive chest thumping.

I'm sorry but if you can't make the mental stretch to using effective, empathetic, data- driven policy-based arguments then you are working against or goals as gun owners.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

tomrkba
December 23, 2012, 06:25 PM
I'm not saying I cannot do it or that we cannot do it.

I am saying that the majority of people are not interested in any sort of detailed, logical debate on any topic tied to emotion.

I have tried so many times that I'm down to one sentence answers. Many include subtle barbs that tweak their ignorance of how the system works or is supposed to be setup. 95% of the people I talk to believe the government can pass any law and that rights are subject to negotiation.

The MSM has mastered tying an event to emotion. They know how to strangle any sort of logical debate. It is up to us to learn how to manipulate people in the same way. Most of us find this to be awful behavior. I find it nearly impossible to do. However, I believe this is going to have to be included in our strategy going forward.

Pilot
December 23, 2012, 06:31 PM
I see your point Justin, and maybe in a way we have already lost. I also see the value in trying to use these arguments with people "not in the legal gun culture". My hope is that there are enough new entries to our pursuit (women, first time gun owners, new CCW holders, etc) that we can use positive, proactive arguments as well.

HOOfan_1
December 23, 2012, 06:33 PM
I'm sorry but if you can't make the mental stretch to using effective, empathetic, data- driven policy-based arguments then you are working against or goals as gun owners.



Well I am sorry, but all your your proposed arguing points only argue why a ban would be unproductive, none of them argue why there SHOULD BE NO BAN.

In that case, it is too easy for the antis to point out "nothing ventured, nothing gained"

Congress has never had a problem passing laws which they knew would be ineffective. All they care about is being able to say "well we did do something". We need to point out why passing the law is not only ineffective, but also WRONG. If we can't use any of those points which you state are bad...then yes, we have already lost.

Justin
December 23, 2012, 06:34 PM
I disagree, and remember, it's important that we or or best arguments forward in public forums like blogs and news websites. Even if you don't convince the person you're arguing with, there are always the the lurkers to consider.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

Pete D.
December 23, 2012, 06:36 PM
I don't know, there has to be positive arguments FOR owning these, not just that it won't do anything to reduce crime or practically speaking, un-enforceable.
Good observation. Let me know when you come up with a positive argument.
Pete.

HOOfan_1
December 23, 2012, 06:38 PM
Good observation. Let me know when you come up with a positive argument.
Pete.

Justing already posted plenty of them....and said they make us look like morons....

zxcvbob
December 23, 2012, 06:38 PM
Another dimension to the "problem": I own guns for which no <11 -round magazines even exist. I doubt that I'm the only one.

If there is nobody to resist an armed maniac, it doesn't matter if he has a single-shot pistol or a pitchfork* or an ax handle. He has at least 5 minutes to kill people before the cops get there, even if their response time is good. He has all the time in the world to reload.

*pitchfork is really efficient and gruesome, and there was at least one pitchfork multiple-murder where the victims would have been armed except the guns were locked up because of a safe-storage law.

Hapworth
December 23, 2012, 06:40 PM
If defending them makes us look like "insensitive morons", then those we have to defend them to are ignorant cowards.

Seriously, the people whom we have to pander to and "defend" our rights to, just don't care what we have to say.Actually, I never said that defending them makes us look like insensitive morons -- that was someone else and I don't wholly agree with it, although I will agree that certain arguments are more reasonable and persuasive than others, but that's true of any subject and certainly complex ones.

And I agree, many or most won't be persuaded if they're passionate in their convictions, which is fine, but I don't think that that's reason not to engage in the debate.

HOOfan_1
December 23, 2012, 06:45 PM
Actually, I never said that defending them makes us look like insensitive morons -

I think I might have quoted the wrong person.

Yes we have to defend them. But the point I agree with Justin on, is we need to defend them to the fence sitters. Defending them to the antis is wasting the time we can be convincing the legislature that passing a ban on anything would be a bad idea.

The only people we really have to convince are those in the legislature. At this point, even if we can bring the fence sitters to agree with us, they are not going to actually ARGUE on our side, they are just less likely to argue on the other side. The arguing in this debate, as in most debates is between those strongly for more control, and those strongly against it. The common man is not who we need to convince in the short term, it is those on the hill.

Justin
December 23, 2012, 06:50 PM
I see your point Justin, and maybe in a way we have already lost. I also see the value in trying to use these arguments with people "not in the legal gun culture". My hope is that there are enough new entries to our pursuit (women, first time gun owners, new CCW holders, etc) that we can use positive, proactive arguments as well.

Thank you for getting my point rather than having a knee jerk reaction to it.

That said, I don't think we've already lost. We're in the opening salvo of the latest battle in the fight for gun rights.

We've got an uphill battle, but with a big enough push we can relegate the forces of anti-gun bigotry to the trash heap of history.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

Pete D.
December 23, 2012, 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete D.
Good observation. Let me know when you come up with a positive argument.
Pete.
Justing already posted plenty of them....and said they make us look like morons....


Nuh-uh. With all due respect, while those are well thought out and it is quite a marvelous post....none of those are positive reasons for owning 30 round magazines. They are reasons for not banning them. Not the same thing at all.
Pete

goldie
December 23, 2012, 07:43 PM
The biggest argument made against them is "you dont need 30 rounds to hunt a deer with".in the general publics eye there is no practical use for hi cap mags other than to use them to do harm or for the military.I truly think there will be a ban on them again.they might even outlaw anything that already exists,no grandfathering. & what about semi autos with proprietary mags, like a valmet,galil,hk91,hk94,their clones, the new sig 551,g36 ?they dont make 10 round mags for them, which would make them impossible to ever bring to a public range?its a very complicated problem,i'd love to know whats going to happen...

beatledog7
December 23, 2012, 08:49 PM
Reasons for owning >10-round magazines:

1) They allow for less frequent reloading, saving expensive range time.

2) They allow the same number of rounds to be stored for expedient use in a smaller space: e.g., ten 15-round (150 rounds) G22 mags take up 50% less physical space than fifteen 10-round (150 rounds) G22 mags.

3) Americans want to.

Bubba613
December 23, 2012, 08:57 PM
I want to.
I really don't need any reason other than that. And I sure don't need to justify my choice to a bunch of people prancing around in designer clothes eating food that costs what most 3rd world day laborers make in a month.

Pete D.
December 23, 2012, 09:07 PM
When we talk about a "positive argument " for owning 30 round magazines, the emphasis needs to be on explaining how ownership of those magazines is beneficial to society as a whole. Explaining that owning a Hi-cap magazine is convenient for you for any of the reasons stated so far is beside the point.
About those folks prancing around in designer clothes and eating expensive food......sounds reminiscent of Spiro Agnew's comment about the "effete corps of impudent snobs". His comment was a stereotype as is this one. Misunderstanding our opposition does not help.
Pete

Bubba613
December 23, 2012, 09:31 PM
Neither does engaging it. You will never persuade people who are ignorant of guns that there is any legitimate use for a 30 round magazine. Nor for a semi auto rifle. Since the only "use" they can imagine for a gun is hunting (and that's kinda yucky ya know) they will never wrap their minds around 30 round mags and semi auto rifles. It is narcissism to think we can persuade them.

And old Spiro knew a thing or two.

gbran
December 23, 2012, 10:09 PM
I don't want gov't to set the precedent of capacity limits, even though they did so with the '94 AWB. If they can set the limit to 10, maybe after the next mass shooting they will lower it to 6.

RX-178
December 23, 2012, 10:35 PM
If you guys want a reason that 30 round magazines SHOULD be allowed to remain legal, rather than why they SHOULDN'T be banned? I've got one.

Economics. You ban them from civilian use, you restrict their production, and you make them rarities. At this point, even Law Enforcement must pay a premium for them, not to mention go through a process of identification, registration, and other paperwork that a police agency would have to pay people to do.

Plenty of police agencies in the USA still have their officers purchase guns themselves, and the vast, VAST majority of guns used by law enforcement are civilian legal weapons that were purchased off the shelf.

I can distinctly remember a few times watching 'wildest police videos' or similar shows, and seeing a State Trooper or Sheriff's deputy fire his glock pistol exactly 10 times before the slide locked back. Now why on earth would a LEO, who retains the 'privilege' of high capacity magazines be using a 10 rounder? Simple, because it was easier to buy one without any department paperwork, which costs the department money to do!

Think about it, when's the last time you've seen LEOs with NFA weapons? Have you noticed how rare NFA weapons are with departments, even though there's supposed to be a straightforward way for them to purchase them? And I'm not even talking machineguns here. I mean short barreled rifles and shotguns, which you'd think would be PERFECT for SWAT teams, or as patrol rifles. Heck, an SBR could give even a motorcycle cop access to a long gun, so why don't we SEE any of that?

Because the NFA made these weapons rare, complicated to obtain, and expensive. Even for police agencies.

So even if the person might be against civilian ownership of high capacity magazines, legislation to ban them from civilian ownership would also hamstring law enforcement. That, I believe, is an argument FOR high caps.

Hawaiian
December 23, 2012, 10:58 PM
In states that have mag limit, it also applies to handguns. So, when a law abiding citizen with a concealed handgun license is shopping at the mall and a mentally ill individual open up with an AR/AK and a thirty round mag, the good guy is limited to responding with a ten round mag in his handgun.
Yes, let's protect the poor misguided criminal.

109Hammer
December 23, 2012, 11:11 PM
Max speed limit is 55 mph - 65 mph, why do we make cars have the ablity to go faster?

Pete D.
December 23, 2012, 11:15 PM
Max speed limit is 55 mph - 65 mph, why do we make cars have the ablity to go faster?

Do you have the answer to that one?
Pete

msb45
December 24, 2012, 12:02 AM
Since when did the STANDARD magazine become high capacity? DON'T keep falling into the traps built into the war of words. Ten rounds is a legal restriction and an arbitrary limit.

True assault weapons are select fire, another trap.

Using a car analogy. A fiberglass knock-off body on a VW does not make a Porsche.

Texan Scott
December 24, 2012, 12:28 AM
I ask if I, a father, coworker, neighbor, taxpayer, and peaceable law-abiding citizen can be trusted with 10 bullets, what is it about 11, 12, or 15 that makes me suddenly a dangerous lunatic? Have I changed? Either you trust me, or you don't.

We all agree that a gun with ten bullets should never be allowed into the hands of a criminal or a lunatic. They can't be trusted with even one. If I can be trusted with one, or ten, why can't I be trusted with more?

suemarkp
December 24, 2012, 12:32 AM
I think the closest answer is similar to what RX-178 said. Most will think us looney when we say we want the 30rd mags "for militia use" (subduing the rioting hoards, invaders, etc). They may not think it so paranoid if we say we want the same types of weapons the police have. After all, if we are armed when a "problem" occurs, we're fulfilling that role until the police show up.

I think it eliminates a lot of the come backs the anti gun people have if you say you want to be armed like the police instead of the military, as the police don't have nukes, bazookas, etc. Would probably make a passable criteria for a "militia weapon test" -- if it is in common use by the cops, the people should have it too.

Most police agencies have high capacity magazines in their semi auto pistols. If you're allowing high capacity pistols, you might as well allow high capacity rifles. Even police agencies generally have 30rd magazines in their rifles when they have to pull them out. I would think the largest police agencies even have full auto weapons. If they can justify a need for them, so can I.

kalel33
December 24, 2012, 12:55 AM
most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate.

Do you think that a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum is no adequate for defense? My revolver is my primary defense and my Sig 9mm is secondary. Even when I had just the revolver I never felt inadequate for defense. If I miss six times inside of a home then I've got problems.

JohnBiltz
December 24, 2012, 03:12 AM
They keep using the term compromise

To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance and tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships "compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement that no party is happy with, this is because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little.[1]

So what do we get? I'd call them out on this every single time they use the word. You can't let them define the language.

MachIVshooter
December 24, 2012, 06:18 AM
In other words I'm more interested in the proper results than I am in making sure that our arguments are 'authentic.'

^^^^^^^
This.

We have to play their game if we want a fighting chance. This isn't to suggest lying like they do, but, as Justin said, the reasons to own them as we see it don't justify the perceived "cost to society" of these mags to people who have been fed a constant stream of bovine excrement from the media about the issue.

So, to reiterate what Justin said, the best way to argue for >10 round mags is to argue against the effectiveness of banning them. If banning something won't fix the problem, then why ban it? If you can bring people over to this way of thinking, then we're still in the fight.

As an aside, when people ask me why I want them, I simply reply "because it's fun". You might be surprised how many people are rather OK with this answer, especially once you've pointed out (using the ineffectiveness of the '94-'04 ban, and how little time is lost reloading with lower capacity mags) that banning them does not reduce gun crime even one little bit.

Pete D.
December 24, 2012, 06:45 AM
I like the "fun" response.
So, to reiterate what Justin said, the best way to argue for >10 round mags is to argue against the effectiveness of banning them. If banning something won't fix the problem, then why ban it? If you can bring people over to this way of thinking, then we're still in the fight.
That may be the best way so far....kind of a default, though the idea that Society benefits when the laws of the Constitution that stabilize it are honored, not changed to no or to ill effect, is an additional line of persuasion.
Pete

soccergod04
December 24, 2012, 07:10 AM
How about the fact that if you take away a small part of one right written into the Constitution then it's only a matter of time before a small part of others begin to be taken away.

Example: Today: "High capacity" magazines.
Tomorrow: No more free expression, but feel free to assemble all you want
Next week: Unusual punishment is back in.
Next year: Imminent domain is out the window and all your property is seized.

Extreme? Yes. Probable? No. Not even likely. But would you put it completely out of the realm of possibility? Nope.

KTXdm9
December 24, 2012, 10:48 AM
Justin, thanks for posting. This is exactly the type of discussion we should be having.

While I agree that the "because I can" argument might fall on deaf ears, I think some of the others can be used effectively, it's just a matter relating it to your audience. For example, one could compare erosion of the 2A to the 1st by saying that commenting on message boards could "incite riots" as a way to restrict the first. After all, the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen the internet, could they?

I also think the self defense argument could be used, almost as an emotion for emotion argument. We've all ready horrible stories of home invasions by multiple intruders.

Finally, I think the use of mags in "sport" settings does offer a legitimate counter to the "only used for killing" crowd. One could counter with, "I use 30 round mags in competition, Do I look like a mass murderer?"

Rom828
December 24, 2012, 11:09 AM
Most people get the idea of self defense and would like the option of getting a gun to protect themselves. I ask them if they would like to defend their families with a gun that holds ten rounds or less? or one that would hold more. Then I tell them about a good friend of mine that had three thugs come into his business and start shooting at him. He was badly wounded, one thug killed, one down, one fled and he had two rounds left in his eighteen round mag when it was over. I only have this friend today because he wasn't restricted to magazine capacity (true story).

trook
December 24, 2012, 12:14 PM
I still have not heard a valid argument for HAVING high capacity magazines. I realize that most people we deal with do not use logic. In those cases, there is almost nothing you can do to convince them to think otherwise. However, for those on the fence, I give you the 2 following examples:

1. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It's about we the people, you and me, our children and grandchildren, to be able to defend against tyranny (think about what Hitler did to the Jews).

If, God forbid, we actually have to use the 2nd amendment one of these days for its originally intended purpose, I want us and our children to have a fighting chance to succeed and live. I don't want us to be limited to a 10 round magazine when the guy trying to kill us is armed with multiple fully automatic machine guns...

2. If multiple criminals (which is not unusual) break into my home or try to rob or kill me and my family, there is a good chance they will be armed with guns. They may even have high capacity magazines, because they are criminals and criminals don't care about the law.

I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine.

xwingband
December 24, 2012, 12:29 PM
The OP is generally correct... the arguments that should take place though is one of need. Let them try to define need.

Heres' how I would and should work almost all the time:

1) If they have children ask them if they'd call the cops to respond if another shooter was entering their child's school. It will probably be a yes.

If they don't have a kid, simply substitute themselves and work place.

2) Shots are being fired. How many shots would you like the cop to fire in response? The answer will probably be along the lines of as many as it takes.

In which case, you tell them the cop only had 10 because of regulations and it wasn't enough. They "need" more which is why they do carry more.

ISSUES:

In response to #1 they could say they won't, which is highly unlikely.

For #2 they could say that the cops should be able to hit within 10 shots. You'll have to tell them instances where this wasn't the case. It might be a good chance to tell them that guns don't immediately kill, though you wouldn't want to be in front of one. They could also say LEO should be special... in which case, based on the tone you may have to drop it because it will devolve into a lot of other points because they don't trust YOU.

Another case where you will have to drop it is if they say no one should have guns including cops. You won't win them. They think guns are the problem.

gearhead
December 24, 2012, 12:50 PM
Depending on the audience I will sometimes fight emotion with emotion. It's the thermonuclear approach but it's valid to use the analogy of those who wish to make abortion illegal. It's not a sacrifice to advocate surrendering a right that they choose to not exercise, a right that they personally may find offensive for you to exercise. I ask them how they feel when Pro-Life advocates lobby for "common sense" restrictions on abortion. Surely you couldn't be against a ban on partial-birth abortions, after all they kill living babies and they don't infringe on your general right to have an abortion.

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:03 PM
Justing already posted plenty of them....and said they make us look like morons....

What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that the arguments that I posted first do, in fact, make you look like a moron to someone who isn't already a part of the gun culture. If you have proof that those sorts of arguments actually change the minds of people who are currently in favor of stricter gun control, please post it.

Actually, I never said that defending them makes us look like insensitive morons --

No. I said it. And I stand behind it, because most of the go-to arguments that get tossed around here for defending >10 round magazines do actually make us look all manner of stupid to fence-sitters.

Reasons for owning >10-round magazines:

1) They allow for less frequent reloading, saving expensive range time.

2) They allow the same number of rounds to be stored for expedient use in a smaller space: e.g., ten 15-round (150 rounds) G22 mags take up 50% less physical space than fifteen 10-round (150 rounds) G22 mags.

3) Americans want to.

Did you even read and/or consider the first post in this thread where I lay out exactly why those arguments are bound to fail?

I want to.
I really don't need any reason other than that. And I sure don't need to justify my choice to a bunch of people prancing around in designer clothes eating food that costs what most 3rd world day laborers make in a month.

Yes, yes you do, if you actually want to keep yet another wave of idiotic and useless gun control laws from being put into effect.

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:08 PM
Do you think that a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum is no adequate for defense? My revolver is my primary defense and my Sig 9mm is secondary. Even when I had just the revolver I never felt inadequate for defense. If I miss six times inside of a home then I've got problems.

This is a thread to strategize about fighting the good fight for the Second Amendment, not sitting around and quibbling about what gun is the best for personal defense. If you want to spout off about brand or model loyalty, there's an entire wonderland of that waiting for you here. (url=http://www.thehighroad.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:14 PM
So, to reiterate what Justin said, the best way to argue for >10 round mags is to argue against the effectiveness of banning them. If banning something won't fix the problem, then why ban it? If you can bring people over to this way of thinking, then we're still in the fight.

Thank Zeus, someone who actually gets it.

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:19 PM
How about the fact that if you take away a small part of one right written into the Constitution then it's only a matter of time before a small part of others begin to be taken away.

Example: Today: "High capacity" magazines.
Tomorrow: No more free expression, but feel free to assemble all you want
Next week: Unusual punishment is back in.
Next year: Imminent domain is out the window and all your property is seized.

Extreme? Yes. Probable? No. Not even likely. But would you put it completely out of the realm of possibility? Nope.

Depending on who you're debating, they'll point out that there's already precedent for infringing on rights if it keeps society safe. Typically they'll use the hoary old example of falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.

Arguing for an absolute right is not going to work if you're arguing with people who have an understanding of history.

Of course, you can also point out that with ~20,000 gun laws already on the books that The Second Amendment is probably the most heavily regulated of all.

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:30 PM
While I agree that the "because I can" argument might fall on deaf ears, I think some of the others can be used effectively, it's just a matter relating it to your audience.

Absolutely agree. If you find yourself in circumstances with people who are somewhat sympathetic to our cause, you can certainly try those arguments, and you might even get traction.

However, the arguments I posted are the ones that seem to work well with people who are openly hostile to gun ownership. Think the comment section of the NPR, CNN, or MSNBC blogs. In other words, the Mos Eisley's of the online world.

jcwit
December 24, 2012, 01:30 PM
While I'm certainly pro gun and support our rights to own and arm ourselves the statement "I want to" leaves me wondering.

There's lots of things I want to do, but many are not even attempted because of morals or laws among other reasons.

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:33 PM
I still have not heard a valid argument for HAVING high capacity magazines. I realize that most people we deal with do not use logic. In those cases, there is almost nothing you can do to convince them to think otherwise. However, for those on the fence, I give you the 2 following examples:

Please go back and re-read the first post. To people who are fence-sitters or who lean anti, there are no arguments in favor of these magazines that really stand out as a silver bullet for converting them.

That's why I think it puts you in a much stronger position to argue against a ban because it won't work, and makes for terrible policy because of that.

Justin
December 24, 2012, 01:45 PM
Depending on the audience I will sometimes fight emotion with emotion.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using emotion in an argument. Hell, if you're a parent and you didn't get an emotional gut-punch upon finding out about Sandy Hook, there's probably something wrong with you.

Furthermore, while I don't think we should lead with emotion when debating this issue, there's certainly nothing wrong with using some emotion as a condiment on your argument sandwich, if that makes any sense.

One of the accusations often leveled against gun-owners is that we don't care about other people, especially victims of these shootings.

Wayne LaPierre's press conference was a perfect example of this. While I don't think we should be forced into showing acts of contrition, we should most assuredly show that we're sad and upset about what happened at Sandy Hook.

A bit of empathy goes a long way to getting people to consider what you have to say.

coloradokevin
December 24, 2012, 02:04 PM
Ugh. Magazine bans are ridiculously ineffective:

1) The Virginia Tech shooter reloaded, oh, something like 18 times. Used only handguns, not "assault rifles". Killed adults. It was a more deadly shooting than Newtown. I guess magazine capacity and gun type still aren't the primary concern when shooting innocent and unarmed citizens? Hmm... strange how the media always focuses on that idea, even though any fool could figure out that it just doesn't matter much when you're the only one with a gun shooting up a school.

2) High-capacity magazines are said to be dangerous to the safety of our citizens, and crime stats show that 10-11,000 people are murdered with guns every year in this country. Granted, VERY few of those people were murdered in a situation where high capacity magazines OR "assault weapons" played a role (probably less than a 10th of a percent). Interestingly, something like 17,000 people are murdered in other ways each year, nearly 11,000 people die in speeding related car crashes, and DUI accidents kill far more than that. Fine, take my magazines if you must... But, out of further concern for our safety I want to see a governor on everyone's car so it can't exceed 65 mph, I want alcohol to require a $200 tax stamp, and I want to create a set of laws that will punish people for murdering each other (oh, wait...). Ridiculous? Yeah, exactly.

Owen
December 24, 2012, 02:08 PM
Excellent information. However, I think what you are saying is that there are no real reason for us to own 30 round capacity rifle mags or other hicap mags, just that enforcement of a ban is essentially impossible.

There are plenty of good reason to own large magazines. Those reasons just aren't good arguments for turning fence-sitters. A good reason and a good argument aren't the same thing.

9MMare
December 24, 2012, 02:11 PM
As an aside....one thing that scares me, if this law is passed in my state (10 round mags...which they are considering)....if I am pulled over for a traffic violation....will the cop then be legally justified in asking to see my firearm to check that magazine capacity?

Here in WA St, if you have a CPL, it comes up when they run your license plate. I have been stopped 4 times since having a CPL (2 for a headlight out, 2 nites in a row, twice for tabs). They never asked me about gun and I didnt disclose...dont have to in WA St.

Anytime we are stopped by cops and asked for ID....traffic violation or other....will they have the legal right to ask to check our firearms?

wacki
December 24, 2012, 02:18 PM
The ugly truth of history is what I find the most compelling argument for civilian ownership of military style weapons.

Guns are meant to kill people. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

The 2nd amendment is about killing government officials. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

Quoting Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Ask a hoplophobe what the ratio is of all the homicide deaths vs. government sanctioned genocide. According to Eugene Volokh it's something like 45:1. Your government is far more likely to kill you than a psycho. People have amazingly short memories considering Mao, Stalin and Hitler weren't that long ago. Heck Syria was during Bill Clinton's reign. Yet people forget all of this. And let's not forget the mass rapings and other disgusting deeds of torture that do not get counted. The world is an ugly place. To pretend otherwise is to deceive and endanger the public.

When hoplophobes say you can't fight the government ask them how well the Russian's did against Afghanistan. Or how well the communists peasants in northern Vietnam did against the full might of the US Army & Airforce.

And then point out that the initial war isn't the most difficult part. As Iraq has shown us, the occupation is far more deadly than the war. So lets say we won Vietnam, we would of never of been able to occupy the north.

People also forget that dictators are often just one financial crisis away. And we are at the beginning of a long series of financial crisis. The financial cliff, social security, the Trillions on the Treasury bank account, the National debt... we have a ton to worry about.

Do I think the U.S. will get a dictator? No. I don't. My gut says not within my lifetime.

Unfortunately history seems to indicate otherwise but I believe the internet is the most effective tool against the Goebbels like propaganda that made the dictators of the past so successful. A free and unregulated internet is the best defense for freedom.

People may call all of this extreme, but the world is an extreme place. Our stability is the exception in history and not the norm. If the world wasn't so extreme, then our beloved Constitution wouldn't be that big of a deal. And the very pro-gun founding fathers that likened a politicians blood to fertilizer would be a mere footnote in history.


.

trook
December 24, 2012, 02:25 PM
"Anytime we are stopped by cops and asked for ID....traffic violation or other....will they have the legal right to ask to check our firearms?'

It depends on the law in your state. But, however, most likely not without sufficient probable cause.

Cosmoline
December 24, 2012, 02:48 PM
Think of it this way. In a mass shooting of unarmed people, esp. children, the killer has little to worry about. He's in no huge rush as it will take some time for police to arrive. The victims pose virtually no threat. So he can take his time. He can reload, he can aim, he can sip some coffee and chat with the voices in his head. For him, a high cap is really pretty pointless.

Now if we change that scenario to someone facing several armed home invaders, the difference between ten rounds and twenty can be life or death. Ten rounds go by REALLY fast when you're being shot at, and the time it takes to swap mags is more than enough to get shot down.

If they're banned for civilians, why not for secret service as well? Why not for the military? Surely those are honest men, and they don't need more than ten rounds.

Tinker
December 24, 2012, 03:28 PM
Unfortunately history seems to indicate otherwise but I believe the internet is the most effective tool against the Goebbels like propaganda that made the dictators of the past so successful. A free and unregulated internet is the best defense for freedom.

I agree. The problem is that those who control what John Q. Public watches in the standard media always use whatever it takes to push an agenda. In this case it is the Sandy Hook mass murders to push more gun control. If it takes sending the reporter with the highest Q rating (a "likeability" rating) to wallow in the blood on the floor while making an on the scene report, then so be it.

We are always in defense mode, having to wipe off the mud and blood that has wrongly been shovelled on top of us. Guilt by (media generated) association.

You want to see where we are headed as a nation? Do yourself a favor and watch a movie called "Idiocracy". It is hilarious and sadly prophetic at the same time.

W.E.G.
December 24, 2012, 04:17 PM
The attack always comes as a one-liner.

If you engage on that sort of thing, you are making a mistake.

If the attacker makes a swipe at you, and you really feel like that attacker is worthy of your attention and time, you must insist that they sit down and talk about it one-on-one.

At that point, the one-liner crumbles, as the attacker struggle to justify the irrational and ignorant foundation of their attack.

DO NOT engage the enemy with one liners.

Bubba613
December 24, 2012, 04:58 PM
Yes, yes you do, if you actually want to keep yet another wave of idiotic and useless gun control laws from being put into effect.

Not really. Your arguments will cut no ice with anyone except people who are probably on our side anyway. "No one needs a 30 round clip" is the only soundbite out there. And sadly it is true. No one really does need one. That's why arguments are ineffective. As far as enforcement, it doesn't matter. "If it saves one life it will be worthwhile." Is the response.
For enforcement, how about turn your mags in at the police station and claim your $15 gift certificate. Anyone found in possession of one after that is committing a felony and will be barred from owning guns period. That will certainly get many many mags "off the street." I dont argue it will do a darn thing for crime, except maybe increase it. Effectiveness on crime isn't even an issue. It's all about "doing something for the children."

AntiSpin
December 24, 2012, 05:02 PM
One fairly frequent excuse that’s being thrown up for the onset of mass shootings in recent years is “the sudden availability of military-style, semi-automatic, high-capacity firearms.”

Large-capacity semi-automatic rifles have been available in large numbers to the US civilian market for more than 60 years. There has been no “sudden” or “recent” availability of such rifles, so the reason(s) for these mass murders must be found elsewhere.

Here are a few examples:

1940s: Caliber .30 M1 Carbine: First issued to US military troops in 1942. Nearly seven million produced for military, huge numbers released into the civilian market after WWII, and dozens of companies produced them for the civilian market as well. Used both 15- and 30-round detachable box magazines.

1940s: Caliber .30 M1 Rifle (Garand): First issued to US troops in 1936. Nearly seven million produced for military. Internal magazine fed by eight-round clips. Huge numbers have been, and are being released to the public through the Civilian Marksmanship Program beginning in the 1940s, and tens of thousands have been sold back into the US civilian market from nations which received them from the US government for wartime use. (Not really a "high-capacity" weapon, but it sure reloads quickly.)

1974: Caliber .30 M14 select-fire Rifle: First issued to US military troops in 1959, still in use with some units. Fed by 20-round detachable box magazine. Because of select-fire capability cannot be released into the civilian market. Many tens of thousands of semi-auto versions (called the “M1A”) were, and are being manufactured for the US civilian market, by several different companies, since 1974.

1973: Ruger Mini-14: Ruger semi-auto rifle based on the M14 design, but utilizing either the .223, the 6.89, the 7.62X39 (.30 cal) or the .222 caliber round. First offered to the civilian market in 1973. Choice of 5, 10, 20 or 30-round detachable box magazines. The Mini-14 and its variants are immensely popular, and it is certainly safe to say that, at the least, many tens of thousands have been sold.

The answer to why there have been so many mass shootings in recent years will have to be searched out somewhere other than “sudden availability.”

Anyone with other examples to add to the above list should feel welcome to add them to this discussion

MBaneACP
December 24, 2012, 05:06 PM
I agree with Justin on this. Its an argument I've faced many times, and I typically approach it in the ways outlined here:

1) It won't work...the "installed base" of normal capacity magazines turns the whole idea into a joke.
2) The capacity of the magazine never made a difference to a spree killer (Virginia Tech)...in fact, almost all guns are designed to be readily reloaded while the user is under fire (ALL guns, at their core, are "military-derived"). Watch a cowboy shooter with a double-barreled shotgun if you doubt that.
3) On the purely political front, if we accept that the government has a right to define how many bullets our legal guns can hold, what is our argument when that number goes from "10" to "6" to "0?"

The argument used always depends on with whom we are arguing. Our job over the next 60 days is the same as that of a defense attorney in a criminal trial. It's unlikely we can sway the whole of mainstream culture (which has generally been moving in our direction for years), exactly the situation of the defense attorney who knows he or she can't persuade all 12 members of the jury to his/her cause. What that attorney has to do is create a "reasonable doubt" in the minds some members of the jury...if the gloves doesn't fit, you must acquit, to borrow a phrase.

We have to create that "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a portion of the public — and our legislators, both national and local — that the gun ban "solutions" being suggested by our enemies are essentially boilerplate, with no real effectiveness or even chance of effectiveness in the real world.

It's going to be as bad as it has ever been...

Michael B

Lucifer_Sam
December 24, 2012, 06:13 PM
Yeah, I usually use arguments similar to those in the OP. That it essentially would do no good.

One thing I sometimes mention is that the sandy hook guy locked children in a room and murdered them, and that there was no need for any "specialized" weapon at all. He could have done it with a .22 revolver, or even a knife, despite the media acting like Sandy hook couldn't have happened without a "high powered assault rifle". Also, that he had been shooting since he was 9 years old, so he was well trained, so most any weapon would have served--that the deadliness of that tragedy, in reality, had little to do with the weapons used.

I sometimes also try to mention that capacity bans are the pet project of anti gun rights advocates, that they've been trying to pass for years, and that they're taking advantage of the murders to try to pass ineffective legislation. Legislation that they know to be ineffective, and they are using political capital and pushing a derisive issue instead of actually coming up with a solution that might be beneficial to preventing something like this. The fact that antis are shamelessly trying to use Sandy Hook pisses some people off, as well it should.

If appropriate, one other thing I throw out is that semi autos are simply modern firearms, and that there is nothing inherently insidious about them. Kind of like blaming the violence of the old west on the fact that they had revolvers with a high capacity (at the time) 6 shot cylinder.

berettaprofessor
December 24, 2012, 07:12 PM
I'd have faith in Justin's reasoning except I'm not arguing in a debate club. I'm trying to convince already irrational people of the fallacy of their logic. Sorry Justin, ain't gonna work on Ms. Feinstein.

raubvogel
December 24, 2012, 08:33 PM
The answer to why there have been so many mass shootings in recent years will have to be searched out somewhere other than “sudden availability.”

Don't forget the BAR and the Thompson submachine gun.

kalel33
December 24, 2012, 08:40 PM
I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine.

If you can't do that with a 10 round magazine then you need to spend more time at the range. I feel more than comfortable with either a .357 revolver(6 rounds) or a 12 gauge pump(again 6). I do have 3 15 round magazines for my 9mm but I bought them for one reason, not having to load up all the time at the range.

You can argue all you want for not banning higher capacity magazines, but not being able to defend your household is a very very weak argument. It would be different if you were protecting land but a house doesn't "need" it. I definitely don't want anyone taking mine, but even at 11 year study on NY police gun shootings show the average amount of shots were 3.6 per incident.

It's better to be a good shot and have sound prepatory tactics than relying on high capacity magazines.

Obsidian
December 24, 2012, 08:52 PM
There is a few things I've noticed that you have to take in account with these arguments.
The first is pick your targets for lack of better words(And not to make a pun)
There are people that genuinely know in their hearts and minds that no one should own a fire arm. Or that it should just be the good old side by side shotgun to pop some ducks or pheasants. These people you will never reach realistically. Focus on those "middle" that maybe just spout things or at least are willing to listen. Hone your message to hit these so called low information individuals.

The argument or explanation rather I have works this way.
First off, explain what a right really is. Don't as much argue but explain yourself and your basic knowledge to someone. And be patient.

The 2nd is the only part of the Constitution that seems to be considered a group right by the current media and judicial explanation. However we are winning this one, if only slightly in the courts.
The thing of it is all the rights are collective or all encompassing a nation as a whole in the way that anyone that is a citizen has those rights automatically, they are not granted by anyone. (We all generally understand this)
But what does this mean in our context?
I use the 5th to explain this, and by this I mean the Miranda rights.
You have the right to remain silent. (But anything you say can and will be used against you)
What this means is you do not have to say anything.
You have this right UNTIL YOU GIVE IT UP.
Its not a stretch to say the other parts of the Constitution are the same.
You have the right of free speech until you give it up.
(As far as the old FIRE argument, well you have the ability to say that, but there is also the being accountable for what you say or do aspect.)
The rights apply to everyone. Every time. Even those that choose not to own a fire arm.
You could also explain by the fact that military service is to protect the Constitution, even if those that you protect decry military service men and women. You would not expect them to protect a specific group or class of people. You protect even those you do not agree with.
I've extrapolated form there the aspect that just because someone's free speech may offend me I don't call for them to be silenced.
Same as firearms ownership.
And sometimes I have gotten the "Well firearms can make someone kill, free speech wont"
That one is countered pretty well by "Well there are manuals on how to kill someone, create bombs, fireworks and explosives out there but they still are protected by free speech. The tool is not the cause in those situations it is then the individual, why is it different now?"

RolandTheHeadlessGunner.
December 24, 2012, 08:54 PM
A great take on a difficult situation. Don't want to come across as crazy.

raubvogel
December 24, 2012, 09:01 PM
kalel33, the point is not where you can be effective with 6 rounds. Shooting a piece of paper is very different from shooting at another human being, who is armed and plan on doing untold harm to you and to your family. It is the principle of the cornered cat, which is the name of a site that IMHO talks about these situations.

If you are a parent, chances are you are not relaxed and thinking about taking careful aim. You want to protect your family whatever it takes. So, you will fumble and miss. But, most of the time that is ok; the majority of the criminals will flee when fired at. If that is all it takes -- nobody gets killed and bad guy runs away -- great.

Some bad guys will not.

For those you will need to cause death by lead poisoning.

Bubba613
December 24, 2012, 09:33 PM
Darn, I had no idea generations of lawmen were gunned down because all they carried was 6 rounds, chiefly in .38spc. :rolleyes:

kalel33
December 24, 2012, 10:00 PM
Kalel33, the point is not where you can be effective with 6 rounds. Shooting a piece of paper is very different from shooting at another human being, who is armed and plan on doing untold harm to you and to your family.

Being able to shoot is only half the battle. You noticed I brought up strategy. All the bedrooms are upstairs. If people break into the house then one person calls the police and I cover the stairs in a crouched position. I used the same strategy when I was at the end of a long hallway. Don't engage and just protect your loved ones from a tactical position, until help arrives. If I can't shoot down a hallway or a set of stairs and can't defend myself with 10 rounds, then 15-20 isn't go to be any use, because I'm just a horrible shot or get frazzled when the chips fall.

Obsidian
December 24, 2012, 10:27 PM
You can argue all you want for not banning higher capacity magazines, but not being able to defend your household is a very very weak argument. It would be different if you were protecting land but a house doesn't "need" it. I definitely don't want anyone taking mine, but even at 11 year study on NY police gun shootings show the average amount of shots were 3.6 per incident.

Well, that is an average count. By reported professionals. We, on the civilian side are not "professionals" And 3.6 per incident? I would be interested in this quoted study. Is this 3.6 per person? Gosh, I suppose my five shot revolver is enough for that if I'm a professional marksman, but what if there are two people? Revolvers in five and six shots still take a bit longer to reload than a semi automatic. How many police officers use a revolver these days as standard issue? I mean after all by that logic you state they should need nothing more than a five shot revolver standard issue. (Okay generally speaking it was a six shot)
Again its hard to see where this information comes from with out the study and its references laid out, but in these incidents is it just reported single shooters vs one police officer? Is it two or more police officers pinning down one threat?

Going further one of the common arguments for having full access to high capacity in the eyes of the media(Standard capacity in reality) is that if the police need them we do too to protect ourselves.
The counter argument I've seen is that "You are not expected to go in to a hostile situation like someone in the military or police is. Only aggressive forces need these."
The opposing side is these forces are engaged by a hostile and they are on the defense, there for they need it, and as such any one of us could be on the defense and require them.
This one is perhaps the more difficult argument to tackle due to the complexity of explaining it to someone. Most people do not understand that a good portion of crime involves more than one individual as the aggressor. Saving the dry winded statistics once you have an ear, again putting forward the aspect that there is a significant amount of crime that involves more than one aggressor. Police are equipped to deal with multiple threats because it is a reality. We as civilians are not so equipped by having a radio or cruisers and a full tool kit afforded to us. We generally only have the fire arm to defend our lives. We do not limit the police to give them the best chances to survive, why would we expect anything less of us regular folk?

84B20
December 24, 2012, 10:39 PM
Justin, you make some very good points and I couldn't agree more. I do however have an additional point that I would make because I have direct experience with these incidents. I grew up in LA and was around for the Watts Riots as well as the Rodney King and OJ riots and several disasters like earthquakes, fires and floods. When and if these types of events occur mobs also form. That would be my final argument after exhausting the ones you mention. Oh, don't for get Katrina and Sandy for more recent events.

kalel33
December 24, 2012, 11:00 PM
We, on the civilian side are not "professionals" And 3.6 per incident?

The "professionals" missed 66% of their shots, and it was number of shots fired by a single police officer in an incident.

How many police officers use a revolver these days as standard issue? I mean after all by that logic you state they should need nothing more than a five shot revolver standard issue. (Okay generally speaking it was a six shot)

I gave the example of the police because they are likelier to fire more bullets per instance, because they are engaging the individuals and the distance could be much more than a normal home invasion. Police and miltary need them but I don't see the "need" on the civilian side for home defense.

Again its hard to see where this information comes from with out the study

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all

Here's the gauntlet thrown down. Show me at least 5 forum threads where someone used more than 6 shots to end a home invasion. I've never heard of it happening or seen a single thread on here, thefiringline.com, or sigtalk.com, except in the movies where that is totally real.

I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.

Bubba613
December 24, 2012, 11:04 PM
I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.

Well said.

HOOfan_1
December 25, 2012, 12:16 AM
What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that the arguments that I posted first do, in fact, make you look like a moron to someone who isn't already a part of the gun culture. If you have proof that those sorts of arguments actually change the minds of people who are currently in favor of stricter gun control, please post it.
.

I don't....but I am not sure there is proof that ANY argument will change their minds.

I've tried to point out how ineffective the last AWB was, and the fact that Cho didn't need 10+ capacity magazines. All of it falls on deaf ears. Many of them think we are insensitive simply because we argue with them at all.

The people whose minds we need to change are the ones sitting behind desks on the hill. The only argument they seem to understand is votes.


Let me say, however, Justin, I understand what you are trying to say. I appreciate your point, I understand your point, I even agree with what you said about the non-gun people not understanding those points. I am, however, I must admit....insensitive.

Obsidian
December 25, 2012, 12:25 AM
I am very much against high capacity magazines being banned, but the argument that you cannot protect your home without them is ludicrous. The guy who stated earlier than he'd wouldn't stand a chance without them is either blowing things out of proportion to make the case or is just a horrible shot/tactician.

So again, why would anyone military or police "Need" this item over and above anyone else? If there is a 66% miss rate as you state and by this one articles reporting that means what to creating a compelling argument against citizens owning the same items?
Also noted in this to increase the statistics of hit ratio is suicides by police officers. Interesting as that is considered a 100 percent hit ratio, not in a combat situation.
Also is this gem.
By contrast, in 2006, 30 percent of the shots fired during gunfights were hits, an unusually high percentage. That year, a total of 19 officers fired their weapons in 13 separate gunfights.
So, 30 percent of the shots were hit. And assuming by this (It does not appear to be stated) that 6 out of every one of those 19 incidents in that year states that there was more than one police officer shooting. This incidentally appears to be a very close of a percentage to the 30% mark. Other than bit of irony there, how often is a home invasion going to have more than one person defending with a firearm? How often is it going to involve more than one person breaking in?
This is important to consider because basic maneuvers or tactics like you employ in your home's defense state that you move when the other is reloading, particularly if they are pinned by someone else. Pretty simple here to explain to someone that reloading less means you are able to be engaged in your target more, and defenseless less.
Keep in mind here this is not a defenseless situation where one aggressor is going after unarmed targets and has the leisure of no threats while they change weapons/reload. Life and death situations have seconds counting a lot more when someone is aggressively trying to end yours.

You also report you use wondrous tactics and planning in the event your home is invaded. That is wonderful. Not everyone has a home's lay out that may be as tactically sound as yours. And not everyone can afford the possible thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to hand pick a home that has that. A firearm with a standard capacity magazine becomes much more economical in that sense by way of argument perhaps?

Going further, what about outside the limits of your home? For those states that have the Carry laws applicable is every situation where you may need a firearm going to be simply in the confines of your own home for everyone? Suddenly you may not have the benefit of picking your own tactical environment. Having as many advantages as possible would come in to play in these situations.

If this still is in the line of convincing someone that a magazine capacity of greater than 10 rounds is needed, think of these tidbits based off your own cited article: These would again be considered professionals in high stress adrenaline pumping-somone is trying to kill me situations. That still is 30% accuracy.

The thing that I did not see really well defined is each tactical situation. With this also this appears to be an overall average. If those 100 percent suicides are counted that certainly by percentage will offset the shootings where it took far more than 3.6 shots to neutralize a threat.

And the police and the military train for these things. By this logic, the police again would never need more than four shots. No one expects this from those that put their lives on the line, why would we expect any different for anyone? And again, the police and military in general have the support of additional equipment, be it body armor, weaponry or communication directly in for support. Other than hoping you can whisper in to a 911 call, what do you have that compares to this?

Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.

Since so many of these situations additionally involved a unarmed soft target, people say that those few seconds could afford someone else to escape/slows the carnage down.

As messed up as it is, is there really any difference in the response time that this school shooting involved? The shooter could have done it with a single shot shotgun or rifle with the age group and time he had to work with. Going in to the aspects of ban this or that in this situation where it is being used is irrelevant when the physical break downs are given to someone that may be able to have these things explained to them.

Pilot
December 25, 2012, 12:27 AM
If there is no real benefit to a defensive situation where a thirty round mag is useful, then why do these "shooters" use them or the 100 round beta mags? Yes, they are on the offensive but almost always pick "gun free zones" with no initial resistance, and soft targets. In a defensive situation you could be facing multiple armed attackers, or multiple agressive looters that could easily do you harm in a natural disaster scenario.

Why should our magazines or types of weapons be restricted when surely criminals and crazed shooters will certainly get, and use whatever they want illegally?

Owen
December 25, 2012, 12:27 AM
supporting article for the "it just won't work" argument

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

trook
December 25, 2012, 12:34 AM
Hey Kalel33,

If you are going to quote me, please keep things in context. I didn't simply say I couldn't defend my family with a 10 round magazine. I implied that it would be much more difficult if I (or anyone else) were facing multiple criminals at the same time who may or may not have high capacity mags and I only had a 10 round mag.

This is what I said:

"2. If multiple criminals (which is not unusual) break into my home or try to rob or kill me and my family, there is a good chance they will be armed with guns. They may even have high capacity magazines, because they are criminals and criminals don't care about the law. I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine".

In the scenerio described above, I can't think of a single logical person who would rather be armed with a 10 round mag than a high capacity mag.

Hokkmike
December 25, 2012, 01:19 AM
Justin, the point of the Second Amendment is that we need not give cause or reason to any masters about what kinds of guns we own and how we may legally use them. Like the First Amendment, we dare not dissect the second into who likes what said, when, whew, or why. People must simply be made to realize that protecting each part of the Constitution is protecting the whole. But you are right in that we must not be arrogant or demand, but state it in a calm, cool, and concrete manner.

Obsidian
December 25, 2012, 01:37 AM
Justin, the point of the Second Amendment is that we need not give cause or reason to any masters about what kinds of guns we own and how we may legally use them. Like the First Amendment, we dare not dissect the second into who likes what said, when, whew, or why. People must simply be made to realize that protecting each part of the Constitution is protecting the whole. But you are right in that we must not be arrogant or demand, but state it in a calm, cool, and concrete manner.

This I think is some of the hard headed aspects that Justin was commenting on not helping the cause or explaining the situation.

Generally most of us in this forum understand this. That is not the point, nor is it the point of trying to reach those that refuse to grant that what you just said to us on either side. The side is trying to reach someone that is not on one side of the fence or the other. Someone that maybe has some thoughts but has no practical knowledge of the technical aspects of it.

You can try to explain its similarities to the 1st Amendment but in the eyes of someone that does not actively shoot or own a fire arm its comparing apples to oranges as they do not use it and it does not affect them. These people can be convinced if you have a rational argument that appears to go beyond beating your chest and fighting the invisible man. Even if our side is right.
Keep in mind not every correct side of anything wins every time.

Zak Smith
December 25, 2012, 01:49 AM
Justin,

Good post.

I would just add that I generally believe that "utilitarian" arguments are not apt. Here's something I wrote in a different context
Need" is irrelevant. Nobody "needs" a sports car, backyard swimming pool, steak knives over 2", a big flat screen TV, a German Shepherd Dog, or the book "1984." Yet all have the potential to do harm to others when misused (or ignored in the case of literature). We - rightly - take great pains to protect minority groups' civil rights, even when their representatives do terrible things (hint: 9/11); yet for guns, some people want to critically infringe on the civil rights of the majority when a sick criminal uses a gun instead of any other device or tool to inflict damage.

kalel33
December 25, 2012, 01:53 AM
Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.

I have a Sig Sauer SP2022 and S&W 19-24 .357, which was passed down from my father, but nice to see you're stooping to such low points.

Again, can you find me a 5 forum threads, 3 even, where the individual shot more than 6 times. I'll even take news reports, barring gun fights between drug dealers.

kalel33
December 25, 2012, 01:54 AM
I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine".

My argument is that someone that doesn't have a "fair and reasonable chance" with a .357 revolver or a shotgun should go to the range more or change their plans that they have in case of a home invasion.

Obsidian
December 25, 2012, 02:13 AM
Quote:
Trying to keep this on topic here with explaining things to someone that may not own a fire arm or understand the need for a standard capacity magazine.
I have a Sig Sauer SP2022 and S&W 19-24 .357, which was passed down from my father, but nice to see you're stooping to such low points.

Again, can you find me a 5 forum threads, 3 even, where the individual shot more than 6 times. I'll even take news reports, barring gun fights between drug dealers.

Good to see the assumptions are coming out here. I no where made any insinuations you or anyone here does not own a fire arm. This as I recall was to engage in a discussion with those that may not own a firearm, or understand various complexities of what makes a magazine different in one context to another with round limit capacities.

To further point out the original point I stated, its not about what you may think everyone else needs or does not need. Everyone has the right until they give it up. That's all the original Constitutional amendments. If you don't feel you need anything over X rounds so be it, great! But the relationship to that could be something like: "You do not really need the ability to say and print what you want about anything. You do not need the same methods to use and administer speech as someone else. Newspapers after all sufficed for a few hundred years. Therefore nothing else is needed." Is it still an infringement on a civil liberty that someone has chosen not to give up? That is the discussion point I take.
After all again regarding the freedom of speech surely it could be curtailed because no one needs to know how to construct a device that can cause destruction. There fore all items that are judged to be written about something too destructive is banned.
This is the slippery slope argument that can be bought forward to the table with out beating our chests and seeming like we are ignorant of history.
It strikes me you are looking for an argument when there has not even been one presented to you. The whole point behind what I said was to again engage someone that likely does not own a firearm or understand even the basic difference between a "Clip" or a Magazine.

kalel33
December 25, 2012, 02:25 AM
After all again regarding the freedom of speech surely it could be curtailed because no one needs to know how to construct a device that can cause destruction. There fore all items that are judged to be written about something too destructive is banned.

But that shouldn't be curtailed either. Because, just as guns don't kill people, neither do homemade bombs kill people.

I believe in the second amendment and federalist papers enough to believe, not only do I have the right to own any gun/accessory I want, but that an RPG, Javelin, and Stinger should also be my right. Judge Scalia states that the right to bear arms means anything you can carry. I can carry quite a few toys I'd like to play with, which are illegal for me to buy.

My point was to the person that stated they could not have a "fair and reasonable chance" to defend their house. I disagreed completely and home invasions with the owner shooting seems to follow that same logic. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than not being able to defend your home unless you have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.

HorseSoldier
December 25, 2012, 02:40 AM
I have had some luck in discussing the anti-high cap magazine issue with people by pointing out that, at least in regards to pistols, the previous AWB encouraged gun manufacturers to bring a lot of smaller guns chambered for bigger calibers to the market. With a mag limit the 80s paradigm of full sized Wonder-9s with SMG sized magazine gave way to everybody and their brother wanting a Glock 26 or other compact .40s. You tell any business that their product has to conform to X, Y, and Z non-market driven parameters, they will either fail to adapt and possibly go under or they will figure out how to optimize their product for those artificial limits.

So, kudos to the Clinton administration -- an anti-crime bill fueled by the Long Island Rail Road shooting (where the victims were obliging enough to let the shooter make mag changes without taking action to protect themselves) really only served to encourage the proliferation of smaller, more concealable handguns in a more powerful caliber. I've never managed to track the logic that made that effective legislation (and, of course, people with way bigger brains and more education than me have reached the same conclusion after running the stats).

Obsidian
December 25, 2012, 02:44 AM
My point was to the person that stated they could not have a "fair and reasonable chance" to defend their house. I disagreed completely and home invasions with the owner shooting seems to follow that same logic. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than not being able to defend your home unless you have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.

Well trying to not make assumptions but if you think you can take someone with a revolver or less than ten shots, again that is great. What I also stated and what is a very real situation is that its very common for there to be multiple people breaking in to a house, robbing a store or waylaying someone on the street.
This can require multiple rounds obviously. It may require more than ten rounds. Not having to change a magazine increases your chance of survival. Why do you think the standard magazine for a AR is 30 rounds? If everyone just needed ten rounds that's what the magazine capacity would be stopped at. That is not the case.
Again, if we just looked at the police use, now many police officers are armed with a weapon that has a magazine capacity of less than ten rounds as a primary weapon?
By the study you cite again the professionals have a hit ratio of thirty percent.
Two shots from a standard six shot revolver roughly
Three shots from a pistol/rifle/shotgun with a ten round magazine capacity.
Again this is a hit ratio, not a kill ratio.

Most current training, civilian or other wise advises very strongly that you shoot or do whatever you have to do to make sure the threat is neutralized.
If it happens in one shot, or three that is outstanding.
And training helps.
As does luck.

The other angle that can be taken is how many -millions- of magazines are in place in the United States in just say the AR15 platform.
Then add the rest of the greater than ten capacity magazines in to the number if you can even estimate it.
How many of those are used in crimes?
How many are used to stop a crime?
What percentage of those owned are affected?

I'm spit balling here because it is Christmas but I wager that a larger percentage of automobiles, bats are used in the commission of a crime, but there is not a cry to ban those.
Then there are the crime studies based off the previous AWB.

Again this is not to try to convert the rabid anti gunners.
This is to try to have an articulate argument that is based off more than raw emotions and knee jerk reactions and chest beatings that do not relate to the target audience we have. This is to reach your neighbor, coworker, family member or whatever it may be that is not as knowledgeable as general gunnies are in these situations. These folks that may vote, or converse with others that do not know much but spout media sound bites.

With that, Merry Christmas to you all.

mister2
December 25, 2012, 03:14 AM
The OP said in his conclusion:

Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children.

I disagree. Not everyone wants the same thing. While the immediate community wants the carnage to stop, the long suffering libs who in the last 8 years or so have been frustrated over and over again by the incremental pro-gun victories have now taken advantage of the national outrage to channel the blame, and the resultant banning, towards the EBRs and their infernal 30-rd magazines. Ever heard the line "I really hate her, I'll think of a reason later."?? Well, here's their reason, which is ironic phraseology because these are the least reasonable individuals on the planet.

I can understand the position of some people that argument is futile and counterproductive. Because for these people, it is.

The antis are, like us, individuals, too. Some will be reasonable, some not. More than having a good argument, we also need to know who we're arguing with; which arguments will work and which won't.

If I were to pick one effective contribution we ordinary mortals can make in protecting our rights, it would be financial. There not only will be costly lawsuits, there will be media battles where the playing field is not level (more $$$s). People could be talking about this clear through the next congressional and presidential elections. Meantime, there's the dirty tricks from the same folks who brought us Fast & Furious. Break out the popcorn if that's what you prefer, but also check your wallet.

wacki
December 25, 2012, 03:42 AM
You could always argue that if we ban high capacity magazines then maybe we should be consistent and ban swimming pools. Even the anti-gunners will admit swimming pools kill far more children:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

All in the name of consistency of course. I'm sure we can throw bathtubs in the mix as well.


.

mister2
December 25, 2012, 03:44 AM
This thread has developed such divergent issues I had to break my reply into 2 posts.

As a human being I have a right to life. It follows I have the right to defend my life and those of others who depend on me.

I live in AZ. Press releases from the gov't, military and police agencies display at least semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines seized from criminals and used in local homicides. Our own people made it worse with stunts like Fast & Furious that even added to the inventory of the criminals! How about getting those guns back before looking at ours? But that's another discussion.

It goes against all reason, in the face of such evidence, for me to assume that I will be able to defend myself and my family with anything less than what a bad guy is using, let alone multiple bad guys. Remember all this is premised on what the gov't and police agencies report. And any person who hampers my ability to defend myself by denying access to equal weapons ultimately undermines my (and my dependents') right to life.

For those in love with figures, how old are your statistics? The 10-year average statistics do not have the shootout scenarios we encounter today. Two things: 1. we're now seeing upwards of 40 shots in anecdotal reporting, and 2. what if we're faced with a non-average threat?

Pete D.
December 25, 2012, 07:49 AM
Please don't take this set of questions the wrong way......remember, I am on your side. I am also, however, always interested in the nature of facts and where people get them.

Justin, you make some very good points and I couldn't agree more. I do however have an additional point that I would make because I have direct experience with these incidents. I grew up in LA and was around for the Watts Riots as well as the Rodney King and OJ riots and several disasters like earthquakes, fires and floods. When and if these types of events occur mobs also form. That would be my final argument after exhausting the ones you mention. Oh, don't for get Katrina and Sandy for more recent events.
Surveying all of those events......are there any records of people defending their homes using the weapons, etc. that we are discussing? I mean situations where the gun/magazine was needed and used as opposed to being on hand. (I understand that there is a value to the weapon being on hand, even if not used).
Second question, kinda: Any one not familiar with these conversations/threads might well wonder where all of us live that we are so concerned with break-ins, multiple attackers in our homes at night and so on. I am not asking to know where you live but I do wonder about the likelihood of these dark scenarios. That being written....I am also fond of saying to people the "you only have to be wrong once" for a life to change. Are break-ins common where you live?
Pete

Hokkmike
December 25, 2012, 08:05 AM
Obsidian, my apologies. I never meant to come across, nor have a viewed my self as "hard headed". Resolute maybe? Perhaps the premise of the OP is skewed? Should we address the argument by the anti's definition of terms and mindset? Well, certainly if we want to win them over we could, but what do we concede in so doing? Why should I have to justify to anybody the size of the magazines I use? What's next, no camo paint, no red dots? Need I explain it all to their way of thinking and satisfaction? Perhaps they are inconsolable?!!

I guess maybe I am not the one to be in such arguments with these folks. Thank you for your critique. I mean that sincerely.

IlikeSA
December 25, 2012, 08:42 AM
Why not simply point out that no one needs "high capacity" gas tanks in their cars. After all, there are gas stations all over the place, and having high capacity gas tanks could impact the ability of first responders to assist you in case of an accident with a fire. In addition, high capacity gas tanks could harm someone else in the event of an accident, or allow a mass run-over of individuals walking along the street. Ten quarts is more than enough to get from point a to point b, and if you need more, just refuel. After all, if it saves one life...what's wrong with the inconvenience to you?

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php

Bob2222
December 25, 2012, 08:46 AM
My biggest objection to AWB 2.0 is that by focusing on magazine capacity, they sidestep the actual problems. About half of all murders in the US are committed by a very small but readily identifiable segment of the population, and another 10% of individuals incarcerated for murder are severely mentally ill.

If political correctness dictates that the problem can not be correctly identified, there is absolutely no chance that the problem will be solved. I'm frankly amazed by how little politicians and media figures seem to know about firearms. I'm not a fan of the military draft, but at least when we still had one, most adult males in the United States had a basic technical understanding. And there is the problem, firearms is a subject that the libs and media have no understanding of and no interest in. Even asking questions about the motives behind homicides, about who, exactly, is committing most homicides, about the penal system and and about mental health institutions goes against 50 years of ingrained liberal dogma.

By focusing on magazine capacity and ugly guns and getting AWB 2.0, the libs and the media can then smugly walk away, completely certain that they've accomplished something when they haven't even come close to correctly identifying the problems.

84B20
December 25, 2012, 09:03 AM
Please don't take this set of questions the wrong way......remember, I am on your side. I am also, however, always interested in the nature of facts and where people get them.

Surveying all of those events......are there any records of people defending their homes using the weapons, etc. that we are discussing? I mean situations where the gun/magazine was needed and used as opposed to being on hand. (I understand that there is a value to the weapon being on hand, even if not used).
Second question, kinda: Any one not familiar with these conversations/threads might well wonder where all of us live that we are so concerned with break-ins, multiple attackers in our homes at night and so on. I am not asking to know where you live but I do wonder about the likelihood of these dark scenarios. That being written....I am also fond of saying to people the "you only have to be wrong once" for a life to change. Are break-ins common where you live?
Pete

I live in the United States of America, where these events occur. By your logic I should give up my homeowner insurance since the likelihood of my house burning down is very remote. (I know it is an old argument but appropriate here)

MuleRyder
December 25, 2012, 10:00 AM
I wonder if anything is going to work? There are many good points on here and also many ridiculous ones IMO. I generally agree with Justin's points. Some posters are really grasping for straws like comparing high capacity mags to a high capacity gas tank in your car. Really? I'm just as frustrated as anyone else, but the line from the anti's is still going to be,"Why does anyone need a 30rd mag?" That's a pretty tough question to answer. Many answers on here sound good to us, but simply sound selfish or just plain stupid to the general public. "Because I want one." is not the answer. I don't know the answer myself. We have an uphill battle, no doubt about it.

Zak Smith
December 25, 2012, 10:05 AM
America doesn't run on need.

Obsidian
December 25, 2012, 10:12 AM
Obsidian, my apologies. I never meant to come across, nor have a viewed my self as "hard headed". Resolute maybe? Perhaps the premise of the OP is skewed? Should we address the argument by the anti's definition of terms and mindset? Well, certainly if we want to win them over we could, but what do we concede in so doing? Why should I have to justify to anybody the size of the magazines I use? What's next, no camo paint, no red dots? Need I explain it all to their way of thinking and satisfaction? Perhaps they are inconsolable?!!

I think we generally are all on the same side, and just as passionate as can be about our liberties. We are in a bad spot after decades of media painting all owners or segments of us in the same brush stroke. While there are some on the other side that just can't be reached there are those we can. I think the OP was looking to generate discussion on how to reach those folks that have not closed their minds. And a discussion we have had!:)

Bubba613
December 25, 2012, 10:44 AM
One of the problems is we are not all on the same side as gun owners. Because "gun owner" is pretty amorphous. While many people drift from one type of shooting to another, or do several, most gun owners don't.
So the trap shooter cannot understand why anyone needs a semi auto with a 30rd magazine. The 3-gun shooter has no use for a $2,000 single shot 32" 12ga. The cowboy action shooter wonder why semi autos exist at all. The hunter can't see why someone would want a 38 lever gun. The bench rest shooter can't figure out why a gun with only 3 inch accuracy is acceptable. The guy with a j-frame for personal defense wonders what you even do with a heavy bolt gun in 6.5BR. Etc.
One of the most worrying things I see is "I'm a gun owner and I don't think anyone needs a 30 round clip."

MuleRyder
December 25, 2012, 11:01 AM
One of the most worrying things I see is "I'm a gun owner and I don't think anyone needs a 30 round clip."

Yes, and how about, "I spent X years in the army and shot M16s and I don't think anyone needs a 30 round clip."

84B20
December 25, 2012, 11:17 AM
One of the most worrying things I see is "I'm a gun owner and I don't think anyone needs a 30 round clip."

Yes, and how about, "I spent X years in the army and shot M16s and I don't think anyone needs a 30 round clip."

Did you actually hear a gun owner or soldier use the word "clip" instead of magazine? If so, they were probably lying to you about it. :)

22-rimfire
December 25, 2012, 11:25 AM
Why do you buy that 32 oz coke? So it lasts a while... Of course, Bloomberg restricted that to 16 oz. So you buy two. Same as magazines.

Added: Great stocking stuffers for the AR owner! Looks like a lot of stockings are being stuffed in the last two weeks. Merry Christmas!!

Bubba613
December 25, 2012, 12:12 PM
Did you actually hear a gun owner or soldier use the word "clip" instead of magazine? If so, they were probably lying to you about it

Apart from internet commandos a lot of people do actually use the term. And they really do own guns.

84B20
December 25, 2012, 12:27 PM
Apart from internet commandos a lot of people do actually use the term. And they really do own guns.

Unbelievable! :banghead:

47CubPilot
December 25, 2012, 12:43 PM
Why should a United States of America citizen own a modern style semi-auto rifle or pistol? And magazines with more than 10 rounds?

Because our governments, State and Federal, seem to be so terrified that we do.

9MMare
December 25, 2012, 02:50 PM
Second question, kinda: Any one not familiar with these conversations/threads might well wonder where all of us live that we are so concerned with break-ins, multiple attackers in our homes at night and so on. I am not asking to know where you live but I do wonder about the likelihood of these dark scenarios. That being written....I am also fond of saying to people the "you only have to be wrong once" for a life to change. Are break-ins common where you live?
Pete

This kind of thinking just takes my breath away. If you read American news (or most other countries') you'll see daily...robberies, rapes, home invasions, car jackings. Occasionally, yes, these are in my town or rural community.

Who does not take any responsible means they can to protect themselves & their families? Is ignoring it responsible? Hoping that it always passes you by, like cancer, is that responsible? I fear cancer and try to maintain a lifestyle to minimize it. Please tell me....how will the govt or community cops or anyone else SAVE you from crime, violence? They can only respond AFTER.

I try to maintain a lifestye that minimizes my being a victim of violent crime. I do not believe that a gun is the answer for everyone. It is only one thing that I have at my disposal on my rural property, in my vehicle, on my person.

Why on EARTH would I not take advantage of keeping firearms that I enjoy training with and can make that difference in saving my life? Why should I ignore the advantage that they give criminals who most surely do have them?

thump_rrr
December 25, 2012, 03:06 PM
I live in Canada where we have a 5 round limit on semi auto rifle magazines.
I have a 5/30 P Mag which is a 30 round P Mag with a 1/8" aluminum POP rivet
limiting it to 5 rounds.
Anybody who asks my opinion gets a visual explanation whenever possible that an aluminum POP rivet will not stop somebody who has criminal intent.

Hokkmike
December 25, 2012, 03:10 PM
Strictly speaking, the reason I own a semi-automatic rifle is because they are fun to shoot. A larger capacity magazine is simply more convenient. I do not think in a gun battle with the type of intruder that I am likely to face that the 23, 24, etc., shot would be critical. I have to says also that I just think the 30 round magazine look the best with the gun.

Not very technical, not very "needy".....but accurate.

hq
December 25, 2012, 03:28 PM
Do these people really think that five or ten shots is ok, but subsequent ones are somehow evil? Or, in the highly hypothetical case when a criminal really can't get his/her hands on higher capacity magazines, what problem, exactly, will changing from inefficient spray&pray to aimed shots and fast reloads solve?

How does a high capacity magazine become perfectly acceptable in the hands of a policeman, then?

Roadking Rider
December 25, 2012, 03:29 PM
If the Gov't would like to buy my 10+ rd mags from me that's fine I'll just buy twice as many tens. How long does it take to change a mag in a rifle or pistol a whole two seconds?
I myself will never get into a high cap mag discussion with a gun hater. Total waste of time.

k_dawg
December 25, 2012, 03:31 PM
Since the objective of Anti Rights Groups is not an increase in safety, and a reduction in violence; there is no reason to expect that gun bans will achieve it.

gwsut
December 25, 2012, 10:28 PM
IF I can be trusted and have a 10 round magazine .... Why can't I be trusted with a 30 round?

Pete D.
December 25, 2012, 11:24 PM
I live in the United States of America, where these events occur. By your logic I should give up my homeowner insurance since the likelihood of my house burning down is very remote. (I know it is an old argument but appropriate here)
You have misinterpreted my post. "By your logic"??? I drew no conclusions....I asked a couple of questions. I also stated that I am on your side.
Even as I wrote that note, there was a pistol not more than ten inches from my hand.
Similarly,
This kind of thinking just takes my breath away. If you read American news (or most other countries') you'll see daily...robberies, rapes, home invasions, car jackings. Occasionally, yes, these are in my town or rural community.

Who does not take any responsible means they can to protect themselves & their families? Is ignoring it responsible? Hoping that it always passes you by, like cancer, is that responsible? I fear cancer and try to maintain a lifestyle to minimize it. Please tell me....how will the govt or community cops or anyone else SAVE you from crime, violence? They can only respond AFTER.
Questions....I asked.....drew no conclusions, offered no criticism, no recommendation to ignore.
If you read more into the questions, you needn't have.
The first question did not get answered.
Ultimately, the second question resolved itself to "Are break ins common where you live." That is a yes/no question.
Pete

84B20
December 25, 2012, 11:35 PM
You have misinterpreted my post. "By your logic"??? I drew no conclusions....I asked a couple of questions. I also stated that I am on your side.
Even as I wrote that note, there was a pistol not more than ten inches from my hand.
Similarly,

I don't see how I am misinterperting your message. If you say there is little likelyhood that there is a need for large mags then my point is correct and there is no need to justify your position by stating you have a gun nearby.

wacki
December 26, 2012, 12:03 AM
Hog hunting... in some areas hogs are pests and you are trying to eradicate an entire herd.

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 02:32 AM
IF I can be trusted and have a 10 round magazine .... Why can't I be trusted with a 30 round?

OK. This one I love.

*clap clap*

Bubba613
December 26, 2012, 08:51 AM
It goes to the alleged reason for a 10rd limit. If you're shooting up a school or other event and you only have 10 rounds then someone can grab your gun when you're changing mags.
No, I didnt make that up. That really is the reason I've seen.

flatlander937
December 26, 2012, 04:42 PM
As for a reason FOR 30rd magazines?

I feel they are more vital to your survival/end outcome in a DEFENSIVE situation... and make little to no difference in an ATTACK on innocent unarmed people.

Examples:

Guy using 30rd magazines for mass killing a school against kids: It won't matter what his reload time is(it really only adds a couple seconds total)... there is nobody to shoot back. The fact is that most mass killings occur in gun free zones and/or in places that are highly likely to have unarmed and defenseless people. For one thing, if 30rd mags are "outlawed" the guy will still find them if he really wants them. There are tons out there. No getting around that.

Guy defending his home from multiple armed burglars: Say 4 people break in with 2-4 of them armed with pistols or whatever with intent to kill and steal stuff... not having to reload a 30rd magazine very well could be the difference between life and death of the home owner. If he's limited to 10 rounds, then it is quite likely that he may need all 10 shots, some may miss or he may have to shoot 2-3x for one or two of the instruders just to stop the attack, let alone if the homeowner happens to miss which is quite likely in a stressful situation.



That is the best argument that makes sense in my mind to justify a "need."

Granted, I feel a need doesn't have to be given, it's in the Constitution.

JustinJ
December 26, 2012, 05:04 PM
It would be interesting to run some FOF drills in a mock mass shooting environment with 30 round and then 10 round mags. To be honest if i were in a place in which a mass shooter attacked i'd certainly prefer my chances if he were using 10 rounders as opposed to 30 rounders. Those extra few seconds certainly could allow for more people to escape, to bum rush the shooter or make it easier to neutralize him with a concealed weapon. Realistically though unless they are going to confiscate millions of existing mags high cap mags will always be readily available.

While i think it purely delusional to believe a tyrant backed by the us military is going to be overthrown with a bunch of AR15's i do believe that there are a number of plausible "collapse of society" scenarios in which such guns and their magazines would be completely practical.

Pete D.
December 26, 2012, 05:24 PM
84B...
I don't see how I am misinterperting your message. If you say there is little likelyhood that there is a need for large mags then my point is correct and there is no need to justify your position by stating you have a gun nearby.
I didn't say that there was little likelihood that there is a need for large cap mags.
You are correct about my "gun nearby" comment. It was unnecessary.
Pete

84B20
December 26, 2012, 05:50 PM
I didn't say that there was little likelihood that there is a need for large cap mags.
You are correct about my "gun nearby" comment. It was unnecessary.
Pete

Understood.

kalel33
December 28, 2012, 01:44 AM
Ten quarts is more than enough to get from point a to point b, and if you need more, just refuel. After all, if it saves one life...what's wrong with the inconvenience to you?

You must live in a metropolitan area, because that's not the case in many rural states. Give me 10 quarts and I'd be on the side of the road, because I only made it halfway to the next gas station.

BearAZ737
December 28, 2012, 04:16 AM
Thank you for taking your time to write this up! I'm glad you started with what not to say because it is definitly responses that we react with emotionally just like the pro gun baners! Most ecellent!:D

Now if only someone like you could get on cnn or the like to back us up in these gun demonizing rants.... Disarm them with logic!!!

Dean Weingarten
January 6, 2013, 08:54 PM
Two things I have not seen yet, specifically. One is that with a 30 round magazine, you can use a number of rounds to deter mass attack, as the Koreatown shop owners did during the Rodney King riots. Mention that a primary use of firearms is to deter rather than to kill and firing rounds in front of a mob does a good job of deterring.

Second, Use a bit of verbal judo. Say that outlawing magazines violates the Second Amendment for at best (for the sake of arguement) a very little good. But why stop there? We could do a lot more to prevent mass school shootings by banning the media from covering them. As it is, the coverage of these events is like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded school because of the copycat effect. If they say lets do both, then we have a potential "poison pill" to put into a proposed bill.

blaisenguns
January 9, 2013, 04:40 PM
Ten quarts is more than enough to get from point a to point b, and if you need more, just refuel. After all, if it saves one life...what's wrong with the inconvenience

Dude, I have a 44 gallon tank on my truck and I need every bit of that go juice!:neener:

Has anyone here seen the report from Virginia tech that said it would not have made a difference if the guy was armed with revolvers with speed loaders? I am paraphrasing of course but there you have a reputable document, plus the bureau of justice report on the 94 ban that said AT BEST it reduced violent crimes by .6%, and the report can’t say that for certain due to other factors. My argument is that it is a CIVIL RIGHT, that I can have a 30rd mag.
Also, it was mentioned that it takes a couple extra seconds for one of these guys to reload, BUT they almost always have more than one gun. Hypothetically if a mass shooter had an AR 15 with a dozen 10 rd mags, and you rush him while he is reloading, why would he not pull another gun and shoot you? Also the mindset is different, the emotionless killer will not be deterred (like the terminator) and it doesn’t matter if he has 10rd or 30 rd mags. The guy defending his house from four gangbangers, is scared and tired, and will almost certainly fumble a reload (unless he is highly trained and experienced in combat).

tomrkba
January 9, 2013, 05:10 PM
No, our argument is that it is an inalienable right and the government does not have the power to restrict the capacity of magazines by abusing the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause of the Federal Constitution.

Killian
January 9, 2013, 05:12 PM
"Home invaders come in packs of 3-10. In the dark, when I'm groggy and not knowing how many people are breaking in, I want to be able to reach for a gun that I don't have to worry about reloading if there are multiple people breaking in. Plus which more noise as I fire will encourage suspects to run away, sparing their lives as well as my own. A big scary looking gun with a huge magazine frightens thieves into surrender, thus saving lives. If I had a less intimidating firearm, they might be tempted to attack me, thus causing me to take their lives." That's my argument. Then I'd suggest they look up the home invasion caught on tape in Arizona where 4 guys rush a house and are driven away by the home owner firing multiple times from his "hi capacity" firearm.

blaisenguns
January 9, 2013, 05:40 PM
Then I'd suggest they look up the home invasion caught on tape in Arizona where 4 guys rush a house and are driven away by the home owner firing multiple times from his "hi capacity" firearm.

Can you link to this?

poco loco
January 9, 2013, 06:22 PM
sorry double post.

poco loco
January 9, 2013, 06:29 PM
Depending on who you're debating, they'll point out that there's already precedent for infringing on rights if it keeps society safe. Typically they'll use the hoary old example of falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.

Arguing for an absolute right is not going to work if you're arguing with people who have an understanding of history.

Of course, you can also point out that with ~20,000 gun laws already on the books that The Second Amendment is probably the most heavily regulated of all.
one possible point to use on the no shouting fire in a theater argument is simple and true.

It is not against the law to shout fire in a theater, it is just that your right to free speech does not protect you from any damages caused by the exercise of your free speech.

Actually completely convertible to firearms as there is only a problem when used in a dangerous or criminal manner and we are already personally liable for any damages caused, and our Second Amendment right does not protect us from any damages caused by the exercise of the Right.

Exactly like the First Amendment and Free Speech.

Sometimes it helps to point out that the Supreme Court has decided twice in Castle Rock v Gonzales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) and in Warren v D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) that the police have no implicit or explicit duty to protect you personally, only society as a whole.

In the Castle Rock case, even with an Order of Protection, the Police have no duty to you as an individual.

With that the case, the best choice for home defense would be what the police use, standard capacity magazines for the weapon of choice be that a 1911, a Glock or an AR.

mister2
January 9, 2013, 07:39 PM
here's the link to the home invasion.

http://www.kvoa.com/search/?sterm=home+invasion+caught+on+tape&sbutton=

And by "standard capacity" you do mean 30 rds for ar15s as police use? Because various police dep'ts have FA M4s, just FYI.

RetiredUSNChief
January 9, 2013, 08:30 PM
Hmmmm...

I'm kind of late to this conversation, but I'd like to throw in my two cents worth.

In my experience, the best way to counter people on any subject is first to know the subject well yourself. And then lead the other person by drawing information out from them first...information which will support your viewpoint which you will state later. Feel free to take them down the odd tangent once in a while, too. But make it a VALID tangent.

Going head-to-head with many of these people is, in most cases, less than useless. They have their own set of facts and data and they'll stand safely behind them to the end. But getting them to open up by drawing information out from them produces chinks in their armor.

Don't get me wrong...most will still stand by their own point of view. But you have a much better chance in defending your own point in this fashion.

We all know numbers play an important role in this, for example. So you might go with that. Here is an example:


YOU: So, you want to outlaw magazines with greater than 10 round capacities?

HIM: Yeah. If nobody had high capacity magazines, then these kinds of things wouldn't happen.

YOU: Huh. How many gun owners are there in the country?

HIM: There are about 75 million people who own guns in the United States.

YOU: Wow! That's a lot of people! They all own high capacity magazines for their guns?

HIM: Well, most of them probably do. Obviously shotguns don't have high capacity magazines.

YOU: How many murders are commited each year by guns with high capacity magazines?

HIM: Well, over 30,000 gun related deaths occur every year.

YOU: But how many of them were murders commited by criminals with high capacity magazines?

HIM: Well, about 10,000 or so were murders. But most of the others were suicide.

YOU: Hmmm...I think we can safely say that high capacity magazines are not a factor in suicides, don't you?

HIM: Well, yeah, I suppose so.

YOU: So, out of those 10,000 murders, how many were commited by known criminals? Criminals who could not legally have owned a gun in the first place?

HIM: Probably most of them.

YOU: OK, let's go with "most of them". Let's assume that there were 7,000 separate criminals involved in the killing of those 10,000 people. Sounds like a lot!

HIM: Yeah!

YOU: So, let me get this straight: 7,000 known criminals, who already aren't allowed by law to own guns in the first place, killed an average of about 1.5 people each.

HIM: Well...

YOU: And a 10 round magazine limit changes this how?

HIM: I'm not sure what you mean...

YOU: Well, let me ask you another question...you said that there were 75 MILLION gun owners in the country. These are LEGAL gun owners...law abiding citizens. These people don't seem to factor into the actions of these 7,000 criminals, who each took an average of 1.5 lives each. How is making it illegal for THEM to get "high capacity" magazines stopping these criminals from taking 1.5 lives each?

HIM: But, but, but...


This is just an example. The object is to get THEM to volunteer enough information so that YOU can turn the tables on them LOGICALLY and USING THEIR OWN INFORMATION. And, much like this site, take the high road when dealing with them. Do NOT engage in character attacks or belittle them. Treat them with good manners and keep it on the level of a debate, not an argument.

And choose your battles. No one can take up every challenge that comes his way and realistically expect to win them all, so keep your "wins" high by choosing wisely.

This is the only hope you have of reaching even the few who will listen to you.

Oddly enough, I've won the respect of many an opponent this way. Not that I changed their minds, necessarily, but respect for the way they were treated and in keeping the dialog from devolving into an argument. Sometimes and "agree to disagree" will be the best you can hope for.

barnbwt
January 10, 2013, 12:04 AM
Why not ban 30 Rounders?

Because Lanza apparently reloaded after every dozen rounds or so to make sure he didn't run out when it didn't suit him. All reducing his capacity would do is possibly change his tactics. What did pirates of old do with their single-shot flintlocks? Carry more of them; a brace of pistols. Conflicting reports indicate this is exactly what Lanza did anyway (multiple pistols, taped-together mags, frequent changes).

And in case someone wants to claim "we're not passing this law just because of Conneticut" tell them that "assault weapons" make up little other crime, and therefore they have no justification for targeting them outside the emotional appeal of these high-profile shootings. Tell them they've just lied to you through their teeth; these measures have everything to do with milking that shooting for all it's worth.

Humans were plenty capable of harming eachother in the past, it makes no sense to claim that retro-grading our technology will solve violent crime. At least by making all men equal, Sam Colt ensured that the biggest, baddest thug wasn't always the guy in charge, and that the smart ones had to learn to pick their battles. We no longer have to worry about Conan "becoming a king by his own hand" anymore ;)

TCB

CLP
January 17, 2013, 04:28 PM
bump

If you enjoyed reading about "How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!