Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't call Timmy4 a troll. I know he joined just a few days ago, but I saw his first thread, and he obviously created his account for the express purpose of being able to have an honest discussion with pro-gun advocates.

In addition to that, a troll would probably make more irrational arguments that cause frustration and anger, and wouldn't be so open to suggestion. If he's a troll, he's the most subtle troll I've ever seen.

Even if he is a troll, it's not common that an anti-gun posts in this forum. Personally, I consider this a welcome break from the incessant commiseration that goes on in THR. New gun legislation is proposed, a thread is started about it, and people come together to post the same ideas that everybody already has about why the proposal wouldn't work. It's preaching to the choir. Even if all these rational arguments don't do a thing to change Timmy4's mind, it's still a chance to see how the anti's function, the points they like to make, and the most effective counterpoints for those points.
 
We're into 7 pages of very well balanced, polite, informative debate with Timmy. The membership has handled itself very well imho. Moderators have been very liberal with the continuance of this thread. Anything more and all we are doing is indulging a person who is not willing to be educated and perhaps never was.

At this point this thread has no real purpose anymore and should be closed.

Just my 2 cents and well done for the membership.
 
12gaugeTim said:
Even if he is a troll, it's not common that an anti-gun posts in this forum. Personally, I consider this a welcome break from the incessant commiseration that goes on in THR. New gun legislation is proposed, a thread is started about it, and people come together to post the same ideas that everybody already has about why the proposal wouldn't work. It's preaching to the choir. Even if all these rational arguments don't do a thing to change Timmy4's mind, it's still a chance to see how the anti's function, the points they like to make, and the most effective counterpoints for those points.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!


I like having to opportunity to defend my position in a thoughful manner. Timmy has provided that.
 
The biggest school massacre in the USA didn't even involve a firearm at all.
"...The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58..."
so take away the guns, the magazines, and the bullets and bad guys through out history have always found a away and I am sure will continue to, unfortunately.

I agree with triumph's last post.
 
I used to not understand the NRA position of not giving up one inch or how people couldn't agree to "common sense gun control measures".

I get it now, as soon as they get you to 10 round mags, it will be 7 or 8, then 5. Then no magazine fed rifles.

Then we end up begging to keep a 22 bolt action.

How to stop violence is to prevent it in the first place by having real communities and families and social support systems that don't create monsters.

If that fails, we need to be able and willing and prepared to commit a greater "violence of action" against these monsters.
 
Hello again, back sooner than I thought. For some reason the other thread I started was closed or removed. So I decided to post in this one again. Hope you guys don't mind.

If I could, I would change the title to this thread, because I am now unsure where I stand on this issue, thanks to some of the posts here. I can no longer write with any confidence that a ban on high capacity magazines will be effective in saving lives. There are too many problems with that position, among them:

1. The ability of bad guys to do as much damage with lower capacity magazines, in part because of the speed in which they can change mags. Perhaps the key aspect of my argument has been that while the bad guy is trying to change mags, he can be taken down. But if it only takes a second or two, then my argument flies right out the window. There does seem to be some disagreement on this issue between the literature I have read previously and the stuff you guys have provided. Until I get to the truth here, I am no longer confident about my previous position.

2. Because there are so many high capacity magazines already in existence, and because apparently they are easy to duplicate through printing, banning them will have little to no effect on the ability of bad guys to obtain them. This argument is not really addressed by those in favor of the ban, other than one Washington Post story which I cited earlier in which the original ban had an effect. Before I reach final judgment on this question, I want to look at how it has affected California (where we already have a ban in effect.)

3. The argument that high capacity magazines are a necessity for home defense. I have been skeptical of this argument in the past, and in the other thread, I challenged people to provide me anecdotes that would back up this argument. But then someone linked me to an article about a woman who faced a dire situation with only 10 rounds, and nearly died. I have to admit this article has given me pause. I'm still skeptical that anyone NEEDS 30 rounds, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I'm truly qualified, as a non-gun owner, to arrive at an educated opinion about this.

Hence my uncertainty. Have I moved to a point where I believe that there should be no limits? I have not. But questions have been raised, and information has been provided, which I can't answer to my own satisfaction.

I remain convinced that most of you are wrong about three essential issues regarding the proposed ban: first, that it would violate the 2nd Amendment. Second, that it is part of a slippery slope. Third, that tyranny is a real possibility or concern that factors into this equation. I would be happy to discuss and/or debate these issues or any other aspect of this proposal.
 
Regarding point #1 in my last post: One of the key examples I have been relying upon in the "tackle while reloading" argument has been Jared Loughner. According to the literature which supported my original position, Loughner was tackled while trying to reload. This has also been reported numerous times in the mainstream media. However, according to several people here, Loughner was tackled when his gun jammed.

Obviously, there is a big difference between reloading and jamming- the first helps to justify my previous argument, the second destroys it (especially if the jamming is the result of a higher capacity magazine.) What is the truth about this? I assure you it matters very much.
 
Let me pose a question in return. Most of the folks that come up with these restrictions and bans have even less of a clue about guns, than you, a non shooter [who has at least done some research] so why in the world do they get to decide what we do and don't need, or even what would be ''reasonable''? Do you go to your dentist to get an opinion on what muffler to buy for your car?
 
timmy4 said:
Regarding point #1 in my last post: One of the key examples I have been relying upon in the "tackle while reloading" argument has been Jared Loughner. According to the literature which supported my original position, Loughner was tackled while trying to reload. This has also been reported numerous times in the mainstream media. However, according to several people here, Loughner was tackled when his gun jammed.

Obviously, there is a big difference between reloading and jamming- the first helps to justify my previous argument, the second destroys it (especially if the jamming is the result of a higher capacity magazine.) What is the truth about this? I assure you it matters very much.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter. Neither situation is justification for infringing upon the Second Amendment.
 
im ashamed to share a first name with the OP.


it takes about 3/4 of a second to reload and pistol or rifle as long as you know what your doing. there are guys that can fire revolvers way faster than most people have fire a rifle. its pointless.




time to ban fertilizer and diesel too, its used it high profile bombings. knives are used in high profile stabbings and dont require reloading...


if you dont want STANDARD CAPACITY mags then dont buy them. i will continue to buy them and continue to use them
 
CBT_ENG said:
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle.

Loughner was using a Glock 9mm which is most likely faster reload then a rifle. The argument that a smaller capacity magazine will save lives is ridiculous. You better hope an unarmed person is brave enough to make a split second decision to attack an armed person who is reloading. Not going to find many of those types.
Click to expand...
In his recent editorial regarding this issue, George Gascon makes the following assertion:

Most mass shootings are interrupted when the assailant is attempting to reload.

That's probably not a direct quote; I can't find the editorial and I'm going by memory. Now he doesn't back this up with any study or facts. I accepted it as a true statement, but now I am beginning to wonder. Is there any statistical evidence about this one way or another?
 
Good evening Timmy. I want to commend you for having an open mind on the issue. I will admit that when I first read your post I simply wrote it off as some of us call it, trolling. However your last two posts show a willingness to keep an open mind and consider our position. This is something I see very rarely. Thank you for that, and I hope your desire to learn more about our opinions bears fruit for you.
 
the truth is that the higher the capacity of the magazine, the more chances ther are for it to jam. I had a .22 Ruger 10/22 and I bought a 100 round drum magazine in the 80's that was a perfect illustration for this...every ten rounds or so, the thing would jam, and it would take about ten minutes of disassembly and reassembly to get the thing to work again. thirty round ''stick'' or ''banana'' style magazines worked as well as the stock 10 round magazines by Ruger.The stock 30 round magazines used by the AR 15 series work very well indeed. various aftermarket '' drums vary from decent to downright silly. most stock magazines are metal, a lot of aftermarket are ''zytel'', or some form of plastic, yet Russian fiberglass or bakalite magazines seem to work very well. But this could be because they are not drums.
 
Last edited:
BHP FAN said:
Let me pose a question in return. Most of the folks that come up with these restrictions and bans have even less of a clue about guns, than you, a non shooter [who has at least done some research] so why in the world do they get to decide what we do and don't need, or even what would be ''reasonable''? Do you go to your dentist to get an opinion on what muffler to buy for your car?
Click to expand...
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (real estate) is heavily regulated, and not completely by real estate experts.

The issue of gun safety is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it.
 
timmy4 said:
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (real estate) is heavily regulated, and not completely by real estate experts.

The issue of gun safety is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the United States is a Republic?

And that we have a Constitution?

And that it is not legal to pass statutes/laws that violate that Constitution?

A magazine limit violates the Constitution. If people want to ban certain capacity magazines or types of small arms, legally, those people need to amend the Constitution.
 
timmy4 said:
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (real estate) is heavily regulated, and not completely by real estate experts.

The issue of gun safety is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it.
Click to expand...
They did, about 223 years ago.

The King of England then is no less shady than the King of America today and vice versa.

It's time for the gent who fancies himself a leader of free men to reap what that sows.
 
Regarding your final objections, all I'll say is look at the direction that the gov't has been moving in. The gov't ls always happy to take rights and freedoms away, if the people call for it loudly enough, or if the people don't do anything. Virtual strip searches in airports, warrantless access to email, hell, Bloomberg want to tell you what drink size you can have. To me, the question isnt "why are gun rights advocates so vocal about the loss of a few rounds of ammo and jealous of their freedom" but more "why isn't everyone more vocal about all the rights that are constantly being usurped?" If we were all more like gun owners about all our rights, things would be much better, IMO. Really, how often do you hear about the gov't voluntarily giving powers back that it has taken?

Well, I will also point out that the slippery slope has been observed in other countries, so it isn't just bootless speculation on the part of gun owners. They all started with "reasonable gun control" and ended up with a populace that has great difficultly gaining access to guns. UK and Australia are both prime examples of this. Reasonable gun control=its soon reasonable for no one to have guns.
 
" but now I am beginning to wonder. Is there any statistical evidence about this one way or another?"

None that I'm aware of.
 
Warp said:
It really doesn't matter. Neither situation is justification for infringing upon the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
That's a separate issue, and one I'm willing to address. While I am no lawyer, I am extremely confident that if there is a ban on high capacity magazines, it will not be overturned by the Supreme Court, because it does not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. The Heller decision, involving trigger locks, was much more intrusive that this ban would be on gun rights, and even that was only reached by a 5-4 decision (and by the way, the dissents in that decision are very strong and make a whole lot of sense.) You would not find 5 justices who share the absolutist view of the Second Amendment that most of you have (only two currently that I can think of: Scalia and Thomas.)
 
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (aerospace) is heavily regulated, and not completely by aerospace experts.

The issue of safety regarding falls is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it. Thousands die each year from falling and tens of thousands suffer irreversible and traumatic brain injuries. Therefore I am in favor of mandatory bicycle helmets to be worn at all times whilst in public, for every man, woman, and child in America. If it saves one life, we owe it to ourselves to give it a try.
 
Warp said:
Are you aware that the United States is a Republic?

And that we have a Constitution?

And that it is not legal to pass statutes/laws that violate that Constitution?

A magazine limit violates the Constitution. If people want to ban certain capacity magazines or types of small arms, legally, those people need to amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Obviously I disagree. And look, many states have limitations on magazines, including California where I live. And these have not been overturned. Maybe they will be someday, if you're right, but they have not been.
 
BHP FAN said:
the truth is that the higher the capacity of the magazine, the more chances ther are for it to jam. I had a .22 Ruger 10/22 in the 80's that I bought a 100 round drum magazine in the 80's that was a perfect illustration for this...every ten rounds or so, the thing would jam, and it would take about ten minutes of disassembly and reassembly to get the thing to work again. thirty round ''stick'' or ''banana'' style magazines worked as well as the stock 10 round magazines by Ruger.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting argument, and it's one that the other side never makes. Thank you.
 
WRT public policy - If it were truly a gun safety issue - why wouldn't the schools, school administrators, and public officials take full advantage of the NRA's safety literature (the Eddie Eagle program)?
 
Cesiumsponge said:
Public safety is a subject matter for society in general to decide. There are laws that regulate all aspects of our society. My profession (aerospace) is heavily regulated, and not completely by aerospace experts.

The issue of safety regarding falls is one of public policy. All American citizens who are interested have a voice in it. Thousands die each year from falling and tens of thousands suffer irreversible and traumatic brain injuries. Therefore I am in favor of mandatory bicycle helmets to be worn at all times whilst in public, for every man, woman, and child in America. If it saves one life, we owe it to ourselves to give it a try.
Click to expand...
Actually, in my state, bicycle helmets ARE mandated. And there is plenty of statistical evidence that it does save lives. If I had similar statistical evidence regarding limits on high capacity magazines, I would have NO problem sticking to my original position on this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
If you are a member of a police assoc. or org. you've probably been sold out
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
waterhouse
W
LiveLife
  • Locked
Federal judge blocks California's high-capacity magazine ban
Replies
17
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
Federal appeals court strikes down California's ban on high-capacity magazines
Replies
8
Views
466
danmc
danmc
LiveLife
  • Locked
9th Circuit Court Rules CA’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Unconstitutional
Replies
2
Views
541
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
tarosean
  • Locked
NY Police...
Replies
23
Views
2K
HOOfan_1
H
Back
Top