Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ky_man, Aug 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,326
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    If he brings up VT/Cho, point out that Cho didn't have many magazines, and had to reload the magazines themselves, which means he had the time to individually put cartridges into them. Mag limits certainly didn't have any real limitting impact on the death/injury count.
     
  2. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,777
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    A few years back, there was a drug-related shooting outside Bristol
    TN/VA: the assassins used single-shot shotguns.

    A home invader killed a woman in one break-in with a knife, and
    killed a couple in another break-in with a baseball bat.

    The real crime problem is not assault guns, it's assault people.
     
  3. Dannavyret

    Dannavyret member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    74
    I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily concealed 10-15 round semi-automatic pistol.

    The illegal alien vermin in New Jersey who raped a child and shot three people to death found an excellent need for his weapon.

    Of course the liberal fascist of New Jersey found it logical to deprive the victims of their lives.
     
  4. crankshop1000

    crankshop1000 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    372
    Because I can.
     
  5. marley

    marley Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    richmond,VA
    I always liked my x wife was a cop and she knew she could not always be there for me. Even though she was light a handgun is easier to carry around than she was. The cops were not around when I was robbed at gun point. They were not aroun when kids were shooting off the .45 into the air on the tennis courts as my dog and I walked by. When was the last time a cop saved anyone. Sure they come write a report. I would rather be there to tell them in person. Rather than have them looking at my body. Patrick
     
  6. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,796
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    Well, the foremost reason is that society shouldn't be afraid of free men.

    That said, two very practical reasons:

    1) Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting twice, and
    2) Sometimes bad guys run in packs greater than five.
     
  7. Bazooka Joe71

    Bazooka Joe71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,803
    Location:
    Southern Indiana
    geekwitha.45, excellent post #13...

    I'm certainly not taking debate-master-flash's side, because it is our side to have as many rds as we want, but I don't totally agree with this statement...If he had 2, 33 rd mags for each gun and he was killing at point-blank range, you don't think the kill count would have been higher?
     
  8. woof

    woof Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    central Ohio
    Phrasing the proposition being debated is key in any debate. His proposition is that you have a burden to demonstrate why you should be permitted to own a 17 or whatever round magazine. You should then challenge him to debate the proposition that the government does have a compelling reason to restrict the second amendment in such a way. In other words, ask him to show where the 2nd amendment draws the line on magazine size? 12 rounds too many? How about 10? 6? 2? zero? This is much like the minimun wage debate. I always ask, why raise the minimum wage to only $7? Why not $10? Why not $20? In both cases it is arbitrary and you want to force them to acknowledge that.
     
  9. MikeH

    MikeH Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    571
    Location:
    MoCo, MD
    ... or any car with a fuel tank larger than 5 gallons, unless it's intended as a get-away vehicle that can run hundreds of miles with the police in chase without stopping.
     
  10. Neophyte1

    Neophyte1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    318
    Location:
    NC
    Why?

    ky-man: Sir; arguments tend to be one sided when neither of you do not have knowledge for just cause.
    Placed into this argument: Simply put. WHY NOT

    I work, take care of my family, pay taxes, go to church, spent time and energy for CC, pay the state for the privilege. I vote, I'm involved with political pretenses. I keep myself abreast locally, and nationally. By and large my detractor haven't a clue, and I'll be damned if I'm going to waste MY TIME
    with ignorance.

    Why am I, to be denied, my hobby, work, enjoyment.
    Who/whom are to decide that my life's fulfillment is based against your ?

    Folks: any and all arguments are what they are. Being drawn into such a stupid circumstance, your adversary has already won. He/she/it leads and we fall into the trap. ie cause I can, cause 20 bad guys are waiting behind a flower, because I can. Hog wash!

    Place me into this position. My argument is 'WHY NOT'

    I do not have to explain myself, my actions, my beliefs. I was/am decent enough to follow the law, whether or not you agree, and to be in your company, probably a waste of my time.

    In grade-school "who died and made you god" a crummy assed argument

    I can see how many of you become defensive over such provocation.

    Maintain your dignity. Walk away, let the adversary think they have done something.
    Stay and reinforce these/those arguments.

    Craig
     
  11. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    If 4 or more criminals show up at your dwelling which would you rather have in your weapon, 10 rounds or 30+.
     
  12. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,250
    This has probably already been covered...

    Were I in a debate with this individual, my argument would be "As the son of a police officer, you should know that your father probably carries a semi-automatic handgun chambered for 9mmx19, .40 $&W, or .357 SIG that carries somewhere between 12 and 17 rounds of ammunition. As a police officer, your father is probably better trained to use that handgun under the stress of someone trying to harm him than your average 26 year old soccer mom. But since that equipment is necessary for your father to come out alive in the event he were attacked by a crazed rapist, wouldn't we also conclude that it would be at least as necessary for a soccer mom, with her inferior training and experience, to survive the same attack?"

    That is my rational argument for owning the same type of weapons and magazines as the police.
     
  13. Euclidean

    Euclidean Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    Texas
    Reductio ad absurdum

    As the son of an electrical engineer, and having been exposed to electricity my whole life, I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily transported 3000 watt generator. This torture device was designed for one simple purpose, torturing humans with electrical shocks. The same is true for more powerful household generators modeled after industrial generators. These also have only one purpose, torturing prisoners with electrical shocks. These "torture (sic) devices" have very reliable outputs and accept fuel tanks capable of holding over 240 fluid ounces. I challenge anyone to debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own such a torture device.
     
  14. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I think geek analyzed the argument perfectly; but from a personal, off-the-cuff perspective:

    First of all, self-defense isn't a sporting issue. When I am trying to defend my life and that of my family from immediate death or serious injury, I am not seeking to be "sporting" about it. I am seeking every single advantage I can bring to my side. If that means I can have a semi-automatic rifle with a 60rd magazine and the other guy only gets a two-shot derringer, then bad day to be the other guy.

    Second, there are millions of large capacity magazines out there. Many more magazines than there are weapons to fire them and they are fairly easy to make as well. Stopping the law-abiding from using these magazines doesn't really limit the ability of criminals to access them - so why would you handicap only the people who obey the law?

    Third, contrary to Hollywood mythology, gunfights can be very dynamic and difficult encounters. I did a force-on-force class with Simunitions and Glocks. I watched two IDPA Master-class shooters go at it at distances of no more than 10yds in a shoot house. Both had to change mags and one guy fired all 20 rounds of his Sims ammo to no effect. I've yet to see anybody come away from any force-on-force training thinking "I need fewer rounds in my firearm."

    At the end of the day, most of these arguments are based on a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Most people are ignorant of what happens during a gunfight (and thankfully so). They don't understand how fast-moving and dynamic it can be. Most people also highly overrate their own abilities with firearms based on too much testosterone and the ability to deliver at least one good shot out of five on a nice clearly marked paper target. Finally, people don't understand the effects of stress when it is your life on the line. If somebody really cares enough about the subject to come out and run a few scenarios, it is very easy to demonstrate why large capacity magazines are an important edge in any lethal force confrontation - the kind I would like my family to have.
     
  15. skinnyguy

    skinnyguy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    511
    Location:
    Tooele, Utah
    I don't see why that is a caveat in his argument, because it sure seems to me that he is saying "because you can't."

    I'm sure he doesn't realize how much stress relief is involved in sport shooting, let him know how much fun it is to pop holes in paper one right after the other 15 times. I'm talking mega-grin time.
     
  16. cambeul41

    cambeul41 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,186
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan
    Not seeing

    "As the son of a police officer, and having been exposed to guns my whole life, I simply do not see . . . ."

    Hmmm . . . . I bet he knows that when his father detains someone in the line of duty, and the detainee protests that he simply did not know the law, the father says something along the lines of, "IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE."

    "Not seeing," too, is no excuse.
     
  17. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Sometimes people do things which make it necessary to kill them in order to make them stop doing those thing... like shooting, stabbing or beating you to death. Sometimes the people who do those things travel in packs. They will arm themselves in whatever manner their inclinations and resources allow. It's inherently foolish to put myself at a disadvantage when it's necessary to shoot them.
     
  18. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    Before accepting his statements about what other people need he should provide evidence that he is the natural son of that law enforcement officer and not adoptive or the chance product of a sporting relationship. It is a matter of his credentials for determining what other people need. Unless he produces that evidence he should be treated as an ordinary, run of the mill illegitimate child with no right to assert another person's background as qualifications for his own opinions about a matter with which he has no experience and less knowlege.
     
  19. The Deer Hunter

    The Deer Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,801
    Location:
    Chairborne HQ, MA :(
    Why does my neighbor need a 5 bedroom house with only 3 people living there but we only need a 3 bedroom house with 4 people living here?
     
  20. ky_man

    ky_man Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    102
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Thanks, you guys are great!
     
  21. Mannlicher

    Mannlicher Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,435
    Location:
    North Central Florida and Miami Florida
    strange request. Maybe you should hang out for awhile, and read some of the traffic. Most things that refer to that are mentioned often.
     
  22. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,860
    Criminals laws outlaw certain criminal activities. Regulating what law abiding citizens can own doesn't do anything to limit those criminal activities.

    Is it more or less moral to kill or wound 10 people than to kill or wound 30? A capacity limit is arbitrary and stupid. (as said above)
     
  23. CajunBass

    CajunBass Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,278
    Location:
    North Chesterfield, Virginia
    I'd simply not get into the debate. You won't change his mind. He won't change yours.
     
  24. RLsnow

    RLsnow Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Norway
    i am human, in a situation where i am at risk of loosing my life, or the life of loved ones i will use whatever means to make sure i get out of it alive, if that includes a 30 round magazine then so be it.
     
  25. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    Lets see,

    Last I checked the US follows the fundamentals of English Common Law, not Napoleonic. The basic principle difference is

    English Common Law

    Unless something is explicity illegal it is inherently legal, I do not have to justify or ask permission for anything that is legal.

    Napoleonic

    Unless something is explicity legal it is inherently illegal, I have to justify or ask permission for anything that is not "permitted".

    Comparisons

    1. Why should anyone except the police have a car that can go faster than the current speed limit.

    2. Why should anyone other than those who explicity need them have an SUV or four wheel drive, are you trying to escape over rough country

    3. Why should anyone have high speed internet, it's only only used to access pornography or download illegal music

    4. Why does anyone need more than one televison set, you can only use one at a time

    5. Why does anyone other than a business perosn on the road need a laptop, are you trying to hide your files.

    6. If you are not going to vote every time why should you keep the mandate, Just in case......?

    7. It is a fact that for those in the age group of 1 to 30 years, the leading cause of death is due to being involved in a car accident. There can be no justification for these people to have a driving licence.

    8. The only reason for an MP3 player is to play music that has been almost certainly illegally dowloaded.

    9. Prohibition and restriction always works and never has any untowards side effects *Cough, alcohol, Cough, organised crime, Cough Kennedy family money*.....:cool:

    10. etc etc etc

    The list goes on:evil:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice