Debate help: Legitimate reason for a private citizen to own high capacity magazines

One of my favorite reasons for justifying any gun-related acquisition is: Because someone else might have one, and I don't want to be outgunned.

A few different points of view for replying to this argument.

1. Why should private citizens be allowed to own automobiles, swimming pools, fire or buildings more than 8 feet high? All of these kill more people per year than firearms..and definitely more people per year than regular capacity firearm magazines.

2. Why should police have a more "legitimate" reason to own high capacity magaines? Are they more trustworthy than non-police? Are they somehow "better" citizens that non-police? Are they military? Are their lives more valuable than mine?

3. OK. Police are "trained". "Let's pretend I am a trained policeman. Now give me all your magazines that can hold more than....hmmmm...10 rounds. Now give me all your guns. Now give me all your money. And go get your wife." Thank you U.S.A. Police Officers for all your great service, but Police designation does not equal sainthood. And history proves that things fall apart quickly when the police are the only armed civilians.

4. Why should any human being have to prove a "legitimate" reason to own anything? How 'bout we severely punish anyone who hurts another person and leave ownership of inanimate objects out of the law books?

The fact that some person "cannot see or understand the reason or need" for something is in itself NOT a legittamate reason to outlaw others from enjoying it.

Heck, I cannot see the reason to not tax religions. So now all religions have to pay income tax ...oh, and I DEMAND an apology too. The preceding was meant as sacasm.

I also cannot see the need for that person to breed, be allowed to vote, or be seen in public so what!

The biggest problem with the world today is peoples noses grew to big and they keep sticking them in other peoples business - that is none of their business. Regardless of what they "believe".

Show him this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

Then take him shooting and let him practice magazine changes until he can do it smoothly and quickly. He'll have to admit that a law restricting magazine capacity is ridiculous. He may be right that civilians don't need high capacity magazines, but can he explain why he needs to restrict them? He is the one that needs to defend his position because he is the one trying to take away constitutional rights.

What GeekWithA45 said.

AND any person on the earth can be confronted by several hundred people at one time (See: Rodney King Riots) IMO all guns should come with hi-caps, if just for that reason, in addition to the fact that this is still America no matter how hard the commies are trying to change it.

AND (this is directed to the blogger) would you want a 82 year old, crippled man with arthritis to have to reload his mag every time he shoots a bad guy? What if there are multiple bad guys? Are you trying to say that the old, the crippled, and the arthritic should be put in harms way? That they should be treated as inferiors to the police? By restricting Hi-caps, you are condemning said old man to death.

AND (again directed to the blogger) go to south compton\west memphis\east denver\any other crime ridden city, with only 10 rounds and flash a $100 bill. You'll realize why having more capacity is a good thing.

my answer would be " the entire purpose of the second ammendemnt is to,so to speak, leave the "trump card" in the hands of the people. if the people get single shot deringers and the gubment gets SAWs, well, we're no longer able to trump anything."

Try this one:

I don't see any need for privately-owned broadcasting facilities. As the son of a journalist, I support the First Amendment right of free speech, but the founding fathers never intended a free press to reach the millions of people that Radio, TV and internet do. Those things are just too powerful to be in the hands of private citizens. Only the police and military should be allowed to own mass communications equipment.

Rwanda, 1994
Sri Lanka, 1983
Cambodia, 1975
Darfur, Right Now

debating idiots is a waste of time

write letters to your congress critter instead.

Ask him why he wishes to throw upstanding citizens in prison simply because they own a bit of extruded plastic/stamped sheet metal that holds more than some arbitrarily mandated number of rounds.

Also point out that the resources, manpower, and money that would have to be spent enforcing this arbitrary law could very well go to other causes. Like locking up career criminals, for instance.

Gunsmith --

"Debating idiots is a waste of time.
Write letters to your congress critter instead."

I'm sorry. You lost me.

A Bill of Rights that is subject to "rationing" is pretty much meaningless isn't it?

So maybe a person should only get 5 "free speeches" per year (at 200 words or less)?

One thing that's gone unaddressed is the fact that some people have problems with their hands. It's much easier to reload magazines in the comfort of one's own home and be able to take their time doing so. I have neuropathy in my hands and it's cumbersome to have to reload my magazines at the range. (It's bad enough at home, but at least when I drop a round, it doesn't disappear into the rest of the brass or get dirty.) I can swap out a magazine much more easily than reloading one. The higher the capacity, the less time spent reloading one at the range. Some people appreciate that courtesy.

"the government has them. i need them too to keep the government in check."

If a criminal is already breaking the law against robbery/burglery/murder/assault he's not going to care if his magazine capacity is larger than what is legal, so why bother having a law that only affects law abiding people who don't like going home from the range with raw fingertips?

Because, unlike police who have backup, civilians have to face attacking criminals alone.
Mauserguy

A double digit cartridge count is no longer high capacity but standard capacity in many firearms. A private citizen needs the extra rounds for the same reasons as any other law-abiding gun user.

In the 80s LE was getting outgunned on streets because the bad guys had higher capacity guns. To effectively combat a criminal, you must be equally prepared.

AndyC said:

You're letting him dictate the terms of the debate - bad move.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

As the son of a police officer, and having been exposed to guns my whole life, I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily concealed 10-15 round semi-automatic pistol. This weapon was designed for one simple purpose, killing humans at very close range. The same is true for guns which are modeled after military weapons. These also only have one purpose, killing humans. These “assult (sic) weapons” have very accurate long-range small-caliber bullet and accept magazines capable of holding up to 60 rounds. I challenge anyone to a debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own such a weapon.

Click to expand...

This entire question is a red herring. All firearms are designed for killing. That's what guns were invented for. Target shooting was, orginally, practice for killing (whether it be animals for food, or human beings for military purposes). Whether or not the questioner sees or acknowledges a "need" for high capacity magazines is irrelevent. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees (not "grants") the right to keep and bear arms. Innumerable documents by the very people who wrote the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment make it clear that what they had in mind as "arms" was nothing less than "all the terrible implements of war."

Since the Constitution guarantess me the right to keep and bear arms, and the Constitution does not limit that right to magazines holding 10 or fewer rounds, the only "legitimate" reason I need for owning and using high capacity magazines is that I choose to. My reasons for that choice don't matter ... I have a right to so choose and I so choose. End of discussion.

write letters to your congress critter instead.

Click to expand...

I disagree. We are about to fight a public relations battle on a massive scale as Heller comes up. Every newspaper across the country will be pushing stories of gun abuse and blaming law abiding gun owners in an effort to convince both the Supreme Court and the nation that a collective ruling is a good thing.

We need to make it clear that an individual right to keep and bear arms is important to the health of civil rights and that the public at large will not accept anything less. Of course, we want to do this with well-reasoned arguments - otherwise we are just convincing the fence sitters that the antis are right and we have to be controlled.

All that "debater" needs is either one of two things to achieve a great insight into the matter;

1. A good mugging.

or

2. A good tyranny.

Debate Over

Geekwitha.45....

WELL DONE.

Debate over.....

Now I can polish my Stainless Taurus PT58HC .380 and my TWO - 19 round clips....while mumbling I dont need !a @*% reason to have em!

and if you can Guarantee that thugs,criminals,gangs,or Tyrants will never attack me or my country in groups larger than 3 .....I might reconsider....................................................................

Nay....FORGET IT.....I still want my high capacity weapons

Geekwitha.45

Excellent sir!

Others did a a super job as well.

Limitations are a means of Control.
Many Peoples have fought for Freedom as they wished to live free and not just exist in controlled environments.

Interactions with persons based on Emotion and Reaction historically do not work.

Interactions with persons based on Common Sense and Rationale, backed up by verifiable sources upon investigation and research historically do work.

My dad told me a story about a trapper that was out in the middle of nowhere. The guy was well prepared. He had a sled on his snowmobile to carry, among other survival items, a spare engine for parts in case his snowmobile broke down. He also had a six shooter on his belt in case a wolf came along.

So the trapper is checking on one of his traps and gets up to see eight wolves staring him down. He knew the math didn't add up to his favor. So he stares them back and fires on the closest one, then the next closest and so on until the few that are left run off.

He now carries two six shooters on his belt.

That is why you need to carry a dozen or so bullets in your gun. That guy was lucky. He could have been a meal for a pack of wild animals and whatever was left of him might not have been found for quite some time.

+1 to geekw/45 on page one of thread

And as others have said, some of the ones sticking out in my mind...

* Why should I be allowed to own any gun? The same reasons apply to those that have a "high capacity magazine"

* Criminals are one primary reason to allow free citizens to be armed in general, as well as w/ hi-cap mags. As w/ weapons in general, criminals can get guns, they can get guns w/ high-cap mags, criminals travel in packs, I'm one person, potentially trying to protect multiple people (family), I need every advantage I can get, if it comes to that.

*Advantage to criminal, or free law abiding citizen, who should be allowed the advantage? Criminals often have the advantage of a planned attack, you (in a SD scenario) are more likely going to be at a disadvantage from the start, if there are multiple attackers, even 2 or more is ten times more difficult than a single attacker IMO, let alone several threats.

* You may have to cover fire while you and/or your family flees the situation...

* Maybe that guy should put himself in a mock SD scenario, and see how many bullets he needs before asking such questions? I shoot IDPA practices, maybe he should go to a competitive shooting practice, particularly something like IDPA, and deal w/ multiple targets at varying distances, some moving, some behind cover, sometimes you have to move and shoot, sometimes you have to shoot from akward angles or positions, compensate for potential body armor on the attacker, or the fact he's oblivious to pain as a result of narcotics or adrenaline, etc.

He might find out how fast you can go through a magazine of 15 bullets, let alone 10, or 8, or 6, and wished he had more w/out having to reload while imagining taking fire, or having multiple armed targets charging you.

What does he think, it's like hollywood? Where the bad guys can't shoot for chit but the hero LEO type shoots everything he hits w/ one arm tied behind his back, over his shoulder, while intentionally flipping a car at 70 mph so he can hit his multiple assailants that have surrounded his vehicle and proceed to land wheels down w/ no damage to his vehicle?

We did a stage tonight, 3 attackers, 2 to the body of the target, and one to the head of the target, starting w/ 11 rounds in the gun. Well, 3 bullets x 3 targets = 9 spent rounds, one reshoot to compensate for a single miss, left me w/ one bullet in the gun. This on stationary targets, w/ me stationary. Pretty much ideal shooting scenario. Add in moving targets, taking cover, shooting at you, possibly wearing body armor or being jacked up on meth, or God knows what else, and you'll start thinking about how quick 15 rounds could go in a gun fight.

And when you're out you're out. So, you better have a reload. So, if there's no limit to the amound of reloads I can have to defend myself, all you're doing in limiting my magazine capacity is giving the advantage to the criminal who shouldn't have a gun in the first place, let alone be committing the crime on me, legally speaking, so the law won't matter to him, it will only prevent me from defending myself.

As for the lone gunmen psycho killer argument, no matter what he had (speaking of that Cho loser), again, he's a criminal, he's going to have the advantage no matter what you do. He had an extra gun to fire if someone approached him during a reload of the primary weapon. And if he wasn't able to legally obtain a hi cap mag, I'm sure he would have done so illegally, if he chose to. And he chose victims that were likely helplessly disarmed as a result of the establishment's policy. He could have gone in there w/ a slingshot and some sharp stones and probably took some casualties, or any number of other combustable projectiles he could have fabricated in his dorm.

If I were confronted by someone like that, aside from all the hunting, sporting, 2a reasons, which are all also valid, and if he admitted it was one's right to defend themselves w/ a firearm (if not that would be a different argument), then I would propose we go see how well he would do in a mock SD scenario, and see if his opinion changes. If he was unwilling to do so, that would probably be the end of that conversation, shortly after I summarized why he was an idiot.

my .02

karz

Basically he makes two points:

I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily concealed 10-15 round semi-automatic pistol.

Click to expand...

No one has a need for one, until they do.

This weapon was designed for one simple purpose, killing humans at very close range. The same is true for guns which are modeled after military weapons. These also only have one purpose, killing humans.

Click to expand...

Awfully useful if what you need to do is kill humans. Can you imagine any situation in which you'd need to kill humans?