Arguments against banning hi-cap mags

My argument isn't generally well taken...but it is true nevertheless.

People have been killing people since we were living in caves...its just the way things are...there were less people when we were living in caves, so if "early man" killed 6 or 7 people with his club and modern man kills 30 people with his hicap magazines...."early man" still killed a higher percentage of people with a club than modern man with his hicap magazines.

In thousands of years nothing has changed...and banning magazines or guns will never change what thousands of years of evolution cannot....hicap magazines simply made it possible for modern man to keep up with the growing population....take the hicap mags and man will find another way...its our nature...plain and simple.

A cold, hard fact...

you STOP THE QUESTIONER

ask
if they, and by this, I mean a person bent on killing people, have a drum or high cap magazine, it's TOO LATE

if they have a gun, it's TOO LATE

and rephrase the argument

Which testicle, right, left, choose, come on, which testicle are you going to give up

we are going to ban a tire, you have 4 on your car, which one are you going to chose, you can keep the other 3

point out how SILLY the entire line is

IN THIS CASE THIS GUY USED BOMBS
the Colorado governor admitted that banning guns would not have stopped this guy

we ban guns from 'crazy people'
we have outlawed killing

but still crazy people manage to find a way to kill people
this is a CRIME problem, not a gun problem, and while thinking about guns might give you a way to 'ignore' *and this a big driving point--what actually happened, right now a crazy person could walk in here and stab you in the neck with a Bic pen, and kill you. Banning guns won't do a damn thing, banning pens won't do a damn thing.

Simply ask "Murder is against the law, do you think somebody bent on killing is worried about some possession charge?"

I find it hard to defend the use of "hi-cap mags" too sometimes. But it really comes down to the "slippery slope" argument. The most frustrating thing is when anti's come out and say "no one wants to ban guns, they just want REASONABLE gun control."

Right.

The way I got through to my now-wife is because she has strong convictions about another hot-button political issue. Without delving into it too much and derailing the thread, let's just say, that a bill was up for the legislature that would have...increased the government's control and intrusion into her life/body, and although to me, it seemed a rather small thing to worry about (reasonable), to her, it was and attack on her civil liberties, and just the beginning of the end. If they can so easily add one or two "loop holes" for her to jump through, there will be more to come.

So she could finally relate when I said it's the same with guns.

First it's the high-capacity magazines.
Second it's semi-automatic "assault" rifles (you don't need those to hunt!)
Then it is a tax on ammunition making it prohibitively expensive
Then it is (you fill in the blank)

And so it goes...


And so it goes.

Banning hi-cap magazines won't solve anything

The most lethal mass shooting incident in modern U.S. history was at Virginia Tech by Seung Hui Cho. He killed 32 people and wounded an additional 25.

He used standard and reduced capacity magazines (15 and 10 round) for his rampage with just a 'mere' Walter P22 and Glock 19. I don't know of many knowledgeable people who would propose that 22lr and 9 mm are high powered rounds.

Yet if one were to do some cold statistical analysis, we find that Cho's 'death' percentage was 56%. While James Holmes shot more people, his ratio was just 17% even though Holmes had a 100 round drum with his 'hi-powered' AR-15, and a more powerful Glock 40 cal with an extended magazine.

Circumstances affect the outcome much more than mere hardware.

Lately when I talk to antis I say OK, lets say we ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds from law abiding citizens. A week after that law is passed a criminal kills a bunch of innocents with a gun with several of those ten round magazines and guess what, you'll be calling for us to ban semi-autos all together and go back to revolvers only for law abiding citizens.

A week after that law is passed a criminal kills a bunch of innocents with a couple of revolvers combining NY reloads and speed loaders and guess what, you'll be calling for us to ban handguns from law abiding citizens all together.

A week after that law is passed a criminal kills a bunch of innocents with a pump shotgun and guess what, you'll be calling for us to ban law abiding citizens from owning pump shotguns.

A week after that law is passed a criminal kills a bunch of innocents with a bolt action rifle and guess what, you'll be calling for us to ban law abiding citizens from owning bolt action rifles. A week after that law is passed...........Meanwhile, criminals are still killing innocents with guns with the original 20+ round magazines that they're now stealing from the military, police and other sources because they're continually being manufactured and there will always be a black market for anything materially produced.

So.......what have we established? It's that your ultimate goal is to ban law abiding citizens from having any guns whatsoever.

The answer imnsho

The answer is to ask " would you feel better if the perp used the HIGH EXPLOSIVES that he had ,instead of a gun that failed.

I see the explosives as killing all in that theater,that make any one happier ?.

Then ask ,how many of those 'evil' high capacity mag's already exist and caused no deaths .

That would make the percentage of "killer high cap mag's" so small as to be non existent.

I agree with Justin, furtermore we have seen that it takes a couple of seconds, "if that" for the average person to change out a mag, if i have 10 , 9 or 10 round mags, what difference would that possiblly make to a skilled shooter. We see drills where with practice, this takes almost no time to drop a mag and pop another one in, or simply carry a second gun. It is whats called "reaching". Right now people are just confused and angry, what the past has taught us is that in 6 weeks this will be a memory except to the people in that town.
Whenever they do surveys, and ask people what is going on in the world, it's never ceases to amaze me how ignorant most folks are about what doesn't effect them directlly. Most don't know who the Vice President is. It's truelly amazing how shallow most of the people actually are. I feel bad for the town where this happened, as this will probablly bankrupt them.
By the time they figure out the tens of millions of dolllars this is going to cost them "excluding the obvious loss of life", I would bet the town will go bust, as this is only the beginning, many of those folks will be filing lawsuits against everyone form the Movie thearre chain to the owner of the cany concession. A bullet, to end this guys life would have at least limited the cost that this is going to extract from essential services, like Fire, Police, Public services etc.
I stll don't know why he wasn't shot when they had the chance. Some may find that not "High Road" but what he did dosen't qualify him as a member of the human race. We kill during war and terrorist attacks, this was a terrorist attack, paint it anyway you want, but this kid qualifies as a Terrorist, Home Grown, but still a terrorist. He should have been put down right there.

Gym, he doesn't qualify as a terrorist from what I understand. Terrorism implies there is a political agenda behind the violence. This was just a mass murder. A very well planned mass murder, but just that. This is a crazy guy who snapped, not a plea for change.

Why don't we just make murder illegal?

Oh, wait...

Didn't they ban hi-cap soda pop in NYC? Heck, you can't get a Happy Meal in CA.
I thought the constitution specifically denied/specified the governments ability to (fill in the blank).

I posses no 'hi-cap' magazines. They all are standard designs for the particulars guns, some 30, some 20, and some 15 or 10 rounds.

More over, any proficient shooter can reload in less than a second.

Why are we even talking about this? The gun banning has been on the agenda for ages. 'Hi-cap' mags are just one angle of attack.

I'd rather have a discussion on serial numbers on rounds.

The people at the theater were lucky in the sense that the assassin had no clue how to use his weapons. An ape does a better job http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU&feature=topvideos_mf

Best arguement against hi-capacity magazines.

At least for me was was some reporter asking that the ww2 battle rifle had a capacity of 10 per clip (really 8) and we defeated the Germans with it. So why do we need a greater capacity then 10, he asked?

I'm not convinced but it is a good arguement. Even then I'm, really not in the market for magazines that could hold 100 or 250 rounds. Are they really necessary?

First off, why don't we stop using propoganda that has been propogated by anit-gun rights groups. "High Capacity?" Hardly, they are standard capacity, or just plain old magazines.

Limiting the capacity of a magazine doesn't limit the capcity or desire to kill.

First off, why don't we stop using propoganda that has been propogated by anit-gun rights groups. "High Capacity?" Hardly, they are standard capacity, or just plain old magazines.

Click to expand...

Actually, most gun manufacturer's will say "high capacity" as if its a feature - you get 17 rounds in this instead of the 7 you'd get in that! High capacity is one of the things I actually look for in a defensive gun - against multiple targets, I want to be sure.

The fact that you accept "high cap" as a negative connotation means the propoganda has worked on you.

At least for me was was some reporter asking that the ww2 battle rifle had a capacity of 10 per clip (really 8) and we defeated the Germans with it. So why do we need a greater capacity then 10, he asked?

Click to expand...

"Clip" works here, for once! The Garand is a battle rifle, but we also had the Thompson with 30 or 50 round magazines, and I believe the BAR had 20 (correct me if I'm wrong on that, not too familiar with 70-year-old firearms that I can't legally own anyway). Right now, the standard for most military rifles is 30 rounds.

I'm not convinced but it is a good arguement. Even then I'm, really not in the market for magazines that could hold 100 or 250 rounds. Are they really necessary?

Click to expand...

Necessary? Maybe not for hunting or personal defense. But 2A isn't about what's "necessary". It's about our rights. Should we need to defend ourselves as citizens, I want to be allowed to have every advantage I chose to prepare for.

GambJoe said:

At least for me was was some reporter asking that the ww2 battle rifle had a capacity of 10 per clip (really 8) and we defeated the Germans with it. So why do we need a greater capacity then 10, he asked?

I'm not convinced but it is a good arguement. Even then I'm, really not in the market for magazines that could hold 100 or 250 rounds. Are they really necessary?

Click to expand...

Joe, that was military against military. If a soldier is shot or dies there are many men behind him to carry on the fight. Many men did die. If I am defending my family and I am shot or die then it is game over for my family. Huge difference. I need every advantage I can have over the bad guy because they already have so many against me.

Shawn

If only one in ten million people are capable of this sort of madness, in a country of 300+ million that's at least 30 people. If just one of them snaps it will be all over the TV, internet and radio within hours. This makes the problem seem worse than it really is. This is a horrible tradgidy with 12 dead and about 70 hurt, but to keep things in prespective over 100 Americans die on average EVERY DAY in traffic acidents. Thats about 750 a week or 40,000 a year! Collectivly criminalizing millions of law abiding and peacful people for having a THING just to keep one lone crazy from being able to get it is not the solution. Crime is an action, not a thing.

Joe, that was military against military. If a soldier is shot or dies there are many men behind him to carry on the fight. Many men did die. If I am defending my family and I am shot or die then it is game over for my family. Huge difference. I need every advantage I can have over the bad guy because they already have so many against me.

Click to expand...

That's also why our military wants more capacity whenever possible. There's another guy on the other side to continue on if you do take down an enemy soldier. You want more rounds so you can continue the fight.

That's also why our military wants more capacity whenever possible. There's another guy on the other side to continue on if you do take down an enemy soldier. You want more rounds so you can continue the fight.

Click to expand...

I agree.

@ Skribs
That's the most assinine thing I've read all day, and I've read a lot.

17 rounds is 17 rounds whether you call it high capacity or standard capacity.

"High Capacity" is used as a subjective measurement of capacity in relation to the amount of ammunition held in a magazine. ANti-gun rights groups regularly use "high capacity" as a term (incorrectly) to scare voters.

There are standard capacity (amount the mag was designed to hold) and reduced capacity (nuetered as part of the 1994 AWB).

Even then I'm, really not in the market for magazines that could hold 100 or 250 rounds. Are they really necessary?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but fortunately exercising our rights doesn't depend on the need to prove that we should.

"High Capacity" is used as a subjective measurement of capacity in relation to the amount of ammunition held in a magazine. ANti-gun rights groups regularly use "high capacity" as a term (incorrectly) to scare voters.

Click to expand...

And gun manufacturers use it as a term to entice buyers. The term isn't offensive to me. I like high capacity. Using the term doesn't make me feel brainwashed. It makes me feel giddy that when I'm at the range I have to reload less between putting more holes in paper. The media uses the term "gun" to scare people, that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about guns.

Does the Denver ban on mags that hold over 20 rounds cover the location of the topic shooting? If so, I would say the fact that they were already illegal would be a good sign that criminals simply don't obey the law.

Criminals don't obey the law?
Explain this fascinating concept to me!

(Picture it with the Condescending Wonka meme, I can't find the picture right now)

I think when they refer to high capacity they mean anything over ten. Most want to go back to the 90's law.