Arguments against banning hi-cap mags

[Owen Sparks]

Anyone willing to commit mas murder with no expectation of getting away with it, will not be dissuaded from committing a much lesser crime of violating a Denver city ordinance that restricts hi-capacity magazines.

 

[robhof]

Please support the ban, so I can sell some of my 50+ hi-cap mags and retire, since the price will skyrocket as it did before.

 

[barnbwt]

Please support the ban, so I can sell some of my 50+ hi-cap mags and retire, since the price will skyrocket as it did before.

Not yet, AK 75rnd drums still holding at 80$ on Gunbroker (believe me, I checked, my new VZ 58 came with a drum )

Honestly, if this attack should teach us anything, it is how dangerous an infinitely defended individual is. Without body armor, this man could have been stopped with any CCW, but was nearly invincible with his equipment, and unassailable from his position in the corner of the theatre. It doesn't matter how "effective" the attacker is, if no one can stop him. BTW, this killer had to dump the rifle when it jammed on him (and he probably only brought one mag because it was so big).

Correct me if I'm incorrect in my interpretation (with facts/precedent, please) as I'm not a "Constitutional Scholar":
We have a right to bear arms, but not armor (that is an important distinction, in my mind.) Our fore-fathers wanted for us to have the right to engage a tyranical government in battle as a last resort, but I cannot believe they upheld the right of one man to tyranize his fellow citizens through tactical advantage. So long as an aggressor is vulnerable, he can always be stopped. But with a sufficiently strong defense, he has true impunity, and is above governance. Which is why this crime is so particularly horrifying to us gun owners. This was a situation in which we could do absolutely nothing other than shield those around us.

TCB

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Does the Denver ban on mags that hold over 20 rounds cover the location of the topic shooting?

will not be dissuaded from committing a much lesser crime of violating a Denver city ordinance that restricts hi-capacity magazines.

The shooting happened in Aurora, not Denver. And, no, Denver laws only apply in the City of Denver, not the metro area.

 

[Rubikees]

I need a magazine that holds enough ammo to stop the bad person from doing the bad thing that forced me to pull my firearm in the first place, with some to spare. How many would that be, who knows. People that wish to ban magazines or firearms don't know squat about self defense.

 

[Justin]

It's an idealogical debate. And, fear plays a part on both sides. Politics, too. There is not a universal ethically, morally or scientifically single right answer. So, each opinion is personal and will vary. The concept behind "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the still the most correct argument IMO and it remains just as ineffective as it always has and will. Good luck explaining the 75-100rd drum regardless.

While it certainly is an ideological issue, there's really no debate to be had.the bottom line is that magazine bans have been tried before and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they work. Bans on certain gun types and magazines are like the TSA. They only serve to make some people feel safe while doing absolutely nothing to address the root cause.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Green Lantern]

I like Texan Scott's answer on page 1:

The trap is that answering the question "why should I" accepts the question as appropriate. The question to answer is "What good would banning them do?" How much sense does it make to say that you'd trust a man with a 10-shot firearm, but 11 makes him dangerous? If I have a .40 Glock 22 with three magazines, I have 45+1 rounds, correct? Would being limited to 30+1 make me less dangerous? (Does having 45+1 make me more likely to commit criminal violence?)

ETA: By even agreeing to CONSIDER the issue, we fall into the trap of regulating the object instead of the user.

But can't argue with Justin's either, as I was listening to NPR and had a guy on there that said he was no friend of the NRA and didn't like "high caps" BUT all of the data points to the fact he states (as well as high crime levels in gun-ban meccas like DC and Chicago) as proof that it does not reduce crime.

The biggest reason? Such a ban was in place for ten years from 1994-2004, and there is not one reputable study that has demonstrated that the ban had any effect whatsoever in bringing down the rate of violent crime. While correlation certainly doesn't equal causation, after the ban sunset in 2004, violent crime has continued to drop.

Myself (locally), I pointed out that real life isn't Hollywood, and the data shows that most likely it's gonna take more than one shot to take the bad guy out of a fight. And there ain't no rule that says the bad guy is gonna be alone. And given that LEO response time here in the sticks is a good 20 minutes MINIMUM on any given normal day...

 

[coalman]

Aside from zero correlation between past gun control efforts and reduced crime, a new "ban" will not prevent these events. As with the 1994-2004 ban, it will only increase costs (of pre-ban mags) which won't matter to someone motivated enough. What's a $70-$100+ mag - or two or three or four or more of them - when you plan to go on a rampage?

There are just too many 10+ round mags in circulation. What must happen to measurably reduce (but NOT eliminate) access to 10+ round mags by the layperson is a new ban AND a prohibition of future possession AND an unprecedented confiscation of private property by the government. The latter is HUGE in America, communist, and a massively larger step than the 1994-2004 ban. Anything less is nothing.

 

[Skribs]

Honestly, if this attack should teach us anything, it is how dangerous an infinitely defended individual is. Without body armor, this man could have been stopped with any CCW, but was nearly invincible with his equipment, and unassailable from his position in the corner of the theatre. It doesn't matter how "effective" the attacker is, if no one can stop him. BTW, this killer had to dump the rifle when it jammed on him (and he probably only brought one mag because it was so big).

At this point, all we can confirm that he had was a nylon tac vest for mag pouches. Just because the media said "body armor" doesn't mean he had it. (Also, just because we haven't confirmed he had it, doesn't mean he didn't).

 

[scythefwd]

This guy is the argument against banning hi-caps. He can switch that mag fast enough, that you might not even hear much break in his shooting rhythm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzrahUUTi8

 

[JagerRanger]

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

My 20 or 30 round mags are standard capacity for those firearms.

If you have missed the point of the gun banners eager to label most normal capacity magazines are dangerous and 'high-capacity', you have swallowed their propaganda and missed the point totally.

Yup, the rifle was an 'assault rifle." You don't have problem with that either. What the banners are attempting to do is to brainwash the population with 'hi-caps', 'Saturday-night specials' and 'assault rifles' and we gun owners ought not to go for it.

In case you're not aware of the effect their propaganda has, look into CA's current gun laws. It started with 'assault rifles' and next were the 'hi-cap' mags and now you have to provide a thump print to buy a box a ammo. The words have power.

 

[X-Rap]

Honestly, if this attack should teach us anything, it is how dangerous an infinitely defended individual is. Without body armor, this man could have been stopped with any CCW, but was nearly invincible with his equipment, and unassailable from his position in the corner of the theatre. It doesn't matter how "effective" the attacker is, if no one can stop him. BTW, this killer had to dump the rifle when it jammed on him (and he probably only brought one mag because it was so big).

Correct me if I'm incorrect in my interpretation (with facts/precedent, please) as I'm not a "Constitutional Scholar":
We have a right to bear arms, but not armor (that is an important distinction, in my mind.) Our fore-fathers wanted for us to have the right to engage a tyranical government in battle as a last resort, but I cannot believe they upheld the right of one man to tyranize his fellow citizens through tactical advantage. So long as an aggressor is vulnerable, he can always be stopped. But with a sufficiently strong defense, he has true impunity, and is above governance. Which is why this crime is so particularly horrifying to us gun owners. This was a situation in which we could do absolutely nothing other than shield those around us.

Invincible, Unassailable
I don't know if we will ever know the truth about his invincibility since so many have invested so much face time reporting how much "body Armor" he had on but I hardly think he was unassailable.
As far as the founders and their views on body armor and we citizens maintaining a tactical advantage, I doubt they would care any more today than they would have then if such things were available. They did permit forts and hardened dwellings and allowed cannon and personal arms equal and better than that which the gov issued.
I somehow don't picture the founders who pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in the name of liberty to have much concern over a level playing field for all because of the misdeeds of one.

 

[jmorris]

Arguments against banning hi-cap mags

Would be ineffective in preventing crime, if you need proof go back in history before they existed and see of crime occured back then.

Not only that it would also not prevent ownership of guns that don't need to be reloaded for hundreds of rounds.

This one was completely unaffected by the old 10 round mag limit.

 

[checkmyswag]

Texan Scott

Well said.

We can't let them frame the debate and control the language. Can't give them or their views legitimacy.

Watch your lane.

 

[WardenWolf]

I hate to say it, but I do predict a drum ban is in the pipeline and will probably be approved. They may even make all existing drums NFA items.

 

[thorazine]

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

No they are not necessary at all.

Send your high capacity magazines to me (i'll pay shipping) for proper disposal. =D

 

[Hacker15E]

I do not think a hi-cap or drum mag ban has enough traction to pass the US House.

 

[barnbwt]

This one was completely unaffected by the old 10 round mag limit.

Nice! But I'm fairly sure that all anti's believe belt-fed guns either don't exist anymore, or are highly illegal. I'm also sure they have never even heard of a hopper fed gun. That they'd faint if they knew muzzle-loaders are technically available to felons. And also that they would stroke out if they knew people are legally allowed to build guns for their own personal use.

TCB

 

[JagerRanger]

Well said.

We can't let them frame the debate and control the language. Can't give them or their views legitimacy.

I concur.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/23/dispelling-gun-myths/

"The public is not well served by those who would use half-truths to take away our Second Amendment rights."

 

[mortablunt]

I prefer the term "high-capacity freedom"

http://jpfo.org/rabbi/five-reasons.htm

 

[awgrizzly]

It is not required that we show cause why magazines, or anything else, should not be banned. The Constitution requires that those who wish to do the banning provide the justification, and thinking something is ugly and not liking a certain number of bullets is specious.

Passing a law to prevent bad guys from using something to break the law is ridiculous in concept. Why not just make it illegal to break the law? In the end I suppose there may be some number of laws broken that may dissuade a crook from doing something illegal. The law can only affect people who can be trusted with large magazines.

What's fueling this is the ghastly 100 round magazine... oh my. As moderator HSO so succinctly pointed out, the horrible 100 round magazine jammed, which likely saved many lives because the shooter discarded the AR and went to his .40 S&W (as I have heard reported).

But something many don't dare mention for fear of appearing inseeeensitive... the number of mass murders using ARs with massive magazines is rare, well within tolerable levels. And one of the most unique characteristic of this mass shooting was that the weapons were legal. Most often felons use illegally obtained weapons or are not allowed to own guns. But even that matters little, because IT'S ILLEGAL TO SHOOT 72 PEOPLE IN A THEATER. Instead of restricting guns we should demand that they pass a law restricting them from passing laws.