I would like some insight into how to successfully argue against the following point if I ever were to encounter it in a debate: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-and-gun-control/ "Because I can." would not be considered an acceptable response. First of all, I seriosly doubt that this response was written by the "son of a police officer" unless the officer's son somehow was allowed to morph into a tofu-munching, tree-hugging, liberal arts college kid. The use of the term "assult (sic) weapon" kinda tips off his lack of knowledge. I would begin by asking him is his dad ever carried such a weapon, and if so how many rounds it carried. Then I would ask him if he felt that his dad was safer for having said extra capacity. What if his dad only had 6 rounds against a criminal's 10+ rounds? Who has the advantage? I would then inform him that unlike in the movies, in the real world under duress shooters most likely will miss their targets, requiring multiple shots. I would then ask why a private citizen is to be denied the opportunity to produce and use comparable force to what a criminal is likely to have. Any other suggestions?