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

[ky_man]

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/

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.

"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.

1. I would begin by asking him is his dad ever carried such a weapon, and if so how many rounds it carried.
   
2. 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?
   
3. 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.
   
4. 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?

 

[AndyC]

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

If life was devolved to simple "need", we'd still be living in caves. Personally, I don't feel I have to justify a damn thing to anyone else.

 

[RNB65]

Because citizens have the right to be free of unnecessary government control and there is no legitimate reason for government to limit the size of handgun magazines. A 17-round magazine is no more or less dangerous than two 10-round magazines or three 6-round magazines.

 

[scbair]

Why "private citizen" versus LEO? If the purpose is only to kill humans at close range, is this what our law enforcement has as its mission? Or, does such an arm permit more effective defense against multiple assailants and/or drugged/enraged assailants?

The answer should be phrased as "Police should be llowed such weapons because . . ." Then, see if a citizen might have a similar need in the event of a serious (deadly) assault.

Bottom line: If I am denied such a tool, LEOs should also be denied it.

 

[JamesM]

The need to defend against multiple attackers.

Since the military and police have them, the people should also.

No proof that previous bans on high capacity magazines reduced crime.

They are fun and some competitions require their use.

“Shall not be infringed” cant be any more clear.

 

[General Geoff]

Ask him why police have reason to own them.

 

[Taurus92 in KyleTX]

Trying to turn the argument as to why a LEO needs high cap is playing into his side of the debate of "personal ownership" (inferring non-goverment) in that he's not arguing that a LEO shouldn't have high cap-- just us "personals".

As for another reason... I like shooting at the range, more than I like reloading at same.

 

[General Geoff]

Ask him for a legitimate reason as to why law enforcement is any different or more privelaged to own high capacity magazines than a private citizen, then.

 

[Dravur]

Maybe..

Because I don't have a magic raygun that will instantly vaporize a bad guy

Because I don't have a magic ball as to how many BGs are coming and have no idea how many rounds it will take to nullify the threat.

Because an artificial limit on rounds is silly.

Because we live in a free country. Unless people like her get their way.

Because I said so...

 

[Gord]

There is no reason not to.

A magazine swap can be done in a matter of seconds - there is really no practical difference between three ten-round mags and one thirt-round mag that somehow makes the thirty more "deadly."

The only reason they are seen as such is because the average person is led to believe that they enable some sort of massive sustained fire "from the hip" that cuts down anything in its way, like a minigun.

Unless you're willing to get into a protracted debate about gun ownership in general, there's no simple way to answer the question.

 

[Stickjockey]

I challenge anyone to a debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own such a weapon.

As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over at this point. I consider it the height of arrogance for someone to say I can't/shouldn't be able to own something because according to them, I don't "need" it.

 

[igpoobah]

I don't buy weapons to hunt, and only somewhat for personal defense in normal times. I have weapons because history has taught us that people basically become animals when the lights go out (AKA any disruption to normal living) and also because gubments eventually go corrupt and need to be 'checked' by the people themselves.

These are the reasons I want lots of bullets and fast. It is insurance. Plain and simple. And for a carry weapon, more is better. For that matter, more is always better when it comes to capacity. Better for the good guys, and yes, better for the bad guys.

But alas, bad guys don't really fall into the category of 'normal private citizen' AKA law abiding. Same argument applies here as with the weapons themselves. Bad guys will get them, therefore, we need them too.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Let's go line by line, shall we?

As the son of a police officer,

Fallacy: appeal to fraudulent authority by association. My dad was a metalurgical engineer. I've certainly heard the tales and anecdotes, but I do not mistake myself for a metalurgical engineer.

and having been exposed to guns my whole life,

NULL statement: anyone with a TV has been exposed to guns their whole life. This says nothing about their knowledge of or competence concerning gun issues. Again, an appeal to fraudulent authority by association

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

Statement of opinion, to which he is entitled. It is his central proposition.

This weapon was designed for one simple purpose, killing humans at very close range.

Ah, the old "designed only for killing humans" fallacy.

A) It is Demonstrably false: sports/target/hunting/etc applications are possible.

B) It assumes, without demonstrating, that being designed primarilly for killing humans is inherently BAD, and by extension, that there are no circumstances under which humans can (and ought) be be legitimately killed.

If you accept the unstated premise, "there are no circumstances under which humans can be legitimately killed", the argument quickly becomes circular.

If you reject this premise, you then get to the _real_ question, which is, "if humans can be legitimately killed, then by whom, and under what circumstances?"

The same is true for guns which are modeled after military weapons.
These also only have one purpose, killing humans.

Tautology, and therefore null statement. Military operations are defined as the application of potentially lethal force upon other military forces, which generally includes humans. That is the definition of a miltary weapon.

Again, it fails to demonstrate that private ownership of military weapons is inherently bad or illegitimate, engage the question in any substantial way, and fails to eliminate any other potential non military uses of said weapons.

These “assult (sic) weapons” have very accurate long-range small-caliber bullet and accept magazines capable of holding up to 60 rounds.

A statement of (more or less) fact, which is actually a disguised appeal to emotion, if you find yourself frightened of such things. It is irrelevant, and does not support his proposition.

I challenge anyone to a debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own such a weapon.

A statement of fact, again with no bearing on the proposition.


Given that the arguer is only able to muster an opinion, an two irrelevant facts, I'd say he's lost any debate before he even shows up.

It is his proposition, his burden to defend it, and he has completely failed to do so. He therefore illegitimately seeks to switch that burden of proof.

QED, Game, set and match.

 

[ky_man]

As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over at this point. I consider it the height of arrogance for someone to say I can't/hsouldn't be able to own some thing because according to them, I don't "need" it.

StickJockey, I think you made a good observation. I'll keep my ears open for cues such as this from now on, and rebuke accordingly.

I think I would argue that since this is the type of pistol carried by virtually all current American police officers, this person seems to imply that carrying one automatically makes cops into killers. This logic is false.

Why can’t I, a citizen in good standing with a concealed carry permit, carry in kind?

Geekwitha.45, I think you did a good job dissecting the argument, thank you!

 

[buck00]

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.

You would be amazed how many gung-ho, seemingly right-wing cops take a very binary view of the world- "us vs them". They love guns, they love carrying guns, but some of them think they are the only ones who should be allowed to carry firearms.


Besides the right to self defense point and the "911 can take 5 minutes" point.... I'd also bring up the fact if you suddenly ban high-cap mags tomorrow, that doesn't make them disappear. The black market would be flooded with them and thus the whole concept of banning hi-cap mags would be token.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, start with 16 rounds (15+1)

Shooting a handgun in a high stress situation is very difficult. It's not unusual to have multiple misses at "bad breath distances". A hit rate of 30% in a true life or death scenario is considered reasonable. (Tell him to ask his dad for statistics.)

So out of that 16 rounds you can expect to get 5 or 6 hits.

Handgun rounds are notoriously ineffective. Around 85% of handgun wounds are not fatal. It's accepted that it may take 3 good hits to incapacitate a single attacker but sometimes it takes more.

So if EVERY SINGLE HIT is a good hit you might be able to incapacitate 2 attackers with your 16 rounds.

It's not unusual for criminals to attack in groups. We've already shown that it may easily require a full 15+1 rounds to incapacitate two attackers. That would force us to use harsh words to subdue criminal #3.

Tell him that if he'll guarantee that you'll make good hits with at least 30% of your rounds and never be up against more than one attacker and will bless you with a little luck you'll be happy to limit the rounds in your handgun to 10.

 

[Cosmoline]

As the son of a police officer,

That's almost as good as ".. as a lifelong hunter.." I agree not to let him dictate the terms of the debate. Ask him who he thinks gets to decide what firearms are reasonable or necessary for a person to own? It's not about the firearms, it's about CONTROL. If you play his game, he can always say he doesn't think XYZ arm is really necessary for whatever reason. It's purely subjective. The real question is, who gets to decide. Who gets to CHOOSE

 

[General Geoff]

Reply with:

I challenge anyone to a debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to vote.

 

[kellyj00]

just tell him he's right, then let him argue it out with the NRA folks.
Why are you debating with some fella because of a blog entry? He's not a threat to our constitutional right to own a gun.

There's no way to win an argument with a blogger. They wouldn't take the time to type something up if they didn't believe whole heartedly in an issue.

If you do make a valid point, remember who controls the debate....the one who starts it.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I think you mean standard capacity magazines. You may wish to ask him what the benefit is to forcing citizens to handicap themselves with reduced capacity magazines.

 

[Agent 006 &7/8]

I was asked a simmilar question by a guy (car nut) at work a while back...

"Give me ONE good reason why anyone, other than cops and the military, have ANY need for assault weapons or large "clips". No one NEEDS an assault rifle and who NEEDS a clip that holds more than 10 bullets." :banghead:

Rather than getting into the "evil black gun" and abritrary 10 round limit arguement I turned the tables...

"Give me ONE good reason for anyone in this country shold be allowed to own a Ferrari or any other high performance car that can hit 100+. It is illegal to drive ANYWHERE in this counrty above 80 (west TX). There just is no "reasonable" arguement for owning such a vehicle unless you are planning to break the law."

He stared at me for a moment and then said, "Gee, I've never thought about it that way." Then he began asking more reasonable questions and we were able to have a discussion about the truth of "gun control", media manipulation, the Second Amendment and (don't kill me) the joy of hunting and sport shooting. While not now a "gun nut" he is much more on our side than before.

 

[sacp81170a]

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

I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily used computer. It has no other purpose than to access websites that contain pornography and information on how to build weapons of mass destruction. It can be used to steal identities and spray libelous comments at random at the speed of light. People should be able to access no more than 5 websites a day, and 10 e-mails is far more than anyone needs to send at one time.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

What does one need with a gun? What does one need with
anything? All one NEEDS is a nice cell in a dungeon, straw
to sleep on, a hole in the floor for sanitation, bread and
water shoved under the door twice a day. People have WANTS
that go beyond NEEDS and one of my wants is independence
from those who would stick me in a cell in their dungeon
"for my own good."

I own military guns (and replicas) largely for my interest in military
history. I have an M1A1 carbine, and 30 round magazines, and a
Yugo AK, and 30 round magazines, because those are the issue
magazines for those rifles. I also have a semi-auto replica
Thompson, with 20 shot sticks and 30 shot sticks, from different
manufacturers, because I am fascinated by the history.
I do not own semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines
for the purpose of "killing humans." For the purpose of killing
humans (such as home invaders), I keep loaded a .38 revolver
and a pump action 12ga with buckshot. I do not NEED an assault
weapon just to kill people.

 

[charon]

If you wnat to directly address his "for the common good" argument, beyond the basic rights issue, that's actually pretty easy. From NRA-ILA

The Clinton Gun Ban's 10-round magazine limit interferes with the right to self-defense. Police officers use standard-size magazines for good reason--their protection. Other citizens also have the right to defend themselves, and a magazine-capacity limit puts them at a disadvantage when defending themselves. The limit has other flaws too. First, most criminals who fire guns during crimes fire only three shots on average,11 fewer than the ammunition capacity of almost all detachable magazines. Second, criminals can easily defeat a limit on magazine capacity by simply ignoring the law or by carrying multiple magazines. And third, there has never been evidence to justify a limit on magazine capacity, let alone the arbitrary number of "10" rounds. Congress' study, noted above, found that the limit on new magazines has had no effect on crimes involving multiple victims or victims who receive multiple wounds.

If he brings up VT/Cho, you could point out that such events, while heavily covered in the media, are extremely rare. You have more of a chance to get hit by lightning than be involved in such an event (about 200 people per year hit by lightning). Arson is the number 1 form of mass murder, alcohol and multiple homicides vs. guns, etc.

An average

 

[REOIV]

Reasons for allowing magazines bigger than 10 rounds:

1. 10 is arbitrary, once you but any limit on the number of bullets a gun may hold it could be dropped to 1 or none. It is another small encroachment on gun rights of Americans.

2. An 'assault weapon' with a 10 round mag looks just as scary as one with a 30 round mag. It doesn't make the rifle less deadly and switching magazines takes 1 to 2 seconds in the hands of someone skilled. What difference does it make if they have to switch mags MORE often?

3. Limiting magazines to only LEO causes an undue financial burden on private citizens. Instead of paying for lower prices and companies to come out with better and improved magazines. They have to pay to support the LEO and govt buying magazines from few distributors that have had less research and development if they even exist at all. Most of the after market gear is sold and developed in the private sector first. So now they have to pay for products and services they can't use and at a much higher price than they were paying before.

4. It needlessly interferes with a person's right to defend themselves. If a bad guy doesn't care about his mag capacity, why should the innocent person be forced to play on an uneven playing field? Why deny the private citizen the right to match or surpass their assailants attacking power?

5. By allowing Law Enforcement to have access to weaponry and items that the general public doesn't it creates a second class citizenry. It denies private citizens the ability to protect themselves under law as well as law enforcement is able to protect. Which violates the 14th amendment.