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

Not open for further replies.
Well he wasn't kind enough to specify a round capacity for weapons greater than zero. A few follow-up questions are in order. Essentially he hasn't articulated his position (although he has already implied that he thinks all gun ownership is bad anyway) well enough for you to debate him.

Such as, what is the ideal limit on magazine capacity? Why?

Should people be allowed to own easily concealable semi-automatic handguns, regardless of capacity? Why or why not?

If magazine capacities are limited to x, and you do not have time to fumble around, is it OK to carry y guns, thus giving you x*y rounds loaded into guns? Why or why not?

Is a device useful for killing humans good or bad to have? Why or why not?

Is it wrong to own a device designed solely for killing humans? Why or why not?

Is it always bad to kill a human being, or are there situations where it isn't? Why or why not?
1. Why be outgunned by criminals who don't care about the law, or your constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
2. While I don't agree with the 'sole purpose' of these weapons being for killing another human being, I have no problem with that purpose if somebody breaks into my house trying to hurt my family.
because limiting your defensive capability based on the pipe dream of lowering crime by penalizing law-abiding citizens (which doesn't effect BG's) is insane.

Who knows what situation might present itself? Who knows if you might have dud rounds? Who knows if you might get confronted by a gang of violent thugs who are hell-bent on killing you?

You don't have a crystal ball, you can't predict the future. Let's assume that the likelihood of needing more than 10 rounds in a SD situation is very very low (it is). The whole point of SD usage of a firearm, and owning a firearm for that purpose is to BE PREPARED. So to be less prepared, just because you PROBABLY won't need it isn't really to be prepared at all.

Prepare for the WORST, hope for the BEST. Isn't that the point?

ETA: not to mention you might miss a lot, such as if you are critically wounded and are not able to perform as you would normally. ie: He shoots first and hits you, you're down.... or, you get stabbed, you're down. You're not out of the fight, but the fight just got a hell of a lot harder and you may very well need the extra edge provided by extra ammo.


the flip side of the whole thing though of course is, what legitimate reason is there for a private citizen to NOT own high capacity magazines? Does limiting magazines available legally to the public decrease crime? Not really. Does it achieve the purpose of eliminating them from the criminal's arsenal? Hell no.

Why should you not have what the criminal is likely to have, and use, against you?
I like to use this system in a gun control debate. You bait the person with the line " So you think that it would be ideal to prohibit or greatly limit the access of the general population to dangerous weapons?" You can also add something about only allowing .GOV or law enforcement to have dangerous weapons too, just depends on the situation. When they agree just ask them "why is the state prison not just the perfect safe place to live?" There are no weapons allowed to the general population it should be the safest place to live in the world. I have gotten the :what: look a few times.
You can argue the points pro and con to no avail because ultimately, your debate will have no effect on the outcome of the topic. At the end of the day you will still be able to have your hi-cap mag and your opponent cannot stop you.Who won? We elect legislators to debate the topics and give them the authority to make law. If they can't decide through logic what is good for us, the side with the most money will prevail. A simple process that has worked since the Romans. And I disagree with "because I can" not being a valid argument. It is the condensed version of the ultimate argument. Chuck.
Mag limits certainly didn't have any real limitting impact on the death/injury count.
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?

What I'm saying is that the mags weren't the limiting factor, and not being the limiting factor, it's moot in that specific case, and highly suspect that it even could be the limiting factor in the general case.

Cho literally had as much time as he wanted. He'd chained the doors shut, and the police chose not to break those doors down.

Cho brought as many cartridges as he wanted to bring, and killed as many people as he wanted to kill until he chose to stop.

Mass killings cease in one of two ways: the killer choses to stop*, or someone _makes_ him stop.

In the case of VT, no one stopped Cho.

(*Running out of ammo is a consequence of how much ammo the killer chooses to bring, and in any event, the killer can choose to continue killing using other means.)
Not much I can add since there have been so many great posts. A couple of things do stand out to me though.

Sentance #1
I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily concealed 10-15 round semi-automatic pistol.

Sentance #2
This weapon was designed for one simple purpose, killing humans at very close range.

He's put two arguments on the table here. Capacity and purpose.

The "capacity" has no bearing on the "purpose" of the weapon. An easily concealable 5 round revolver can be considered as "designed for one simple purpose" as easily as a 10-15 round semi-auto. Personally I think the underlying argument is simply about civilians having firearms.

One thing I've noticed about fence sitters and anti's is that they often think "ban" means disappears off the face of the earth. So to them banning a hi-cap mag means that only LEO and Military will have them. So unless you plan on firing at LEO's or military there's no need for hi-cap's because the BG's won't have them. This is where you can point out that BG's often travel in packs.

Another thing I've learned (from reading the many posts on this board actually) is that comparisons like "what's the difference between one 30rd mag and 3 10rd mags" may not be the best argument. It opens the door for a follow-up of "then we obviously need to look at banning the amount of magazines a civilian can own." Once again, a ban of this sort means that BG's won't have access to more mags than you in their mind.

I wouldn't debate the issue at all unless it was directed at me personally.
Police face bad guys in pairs or groups.

If I am attacked, I will be alone. Or alone with my wife and kids.

I deserve the same chance of survival that cops have.

I need a standard capacity magazine, not a reduced capacity magazine.

BTW, the same people the think you don't need a standard capacity magazine also think you don't need a gun.

NEVER believe they just want the magazine. They ALWAYS want the gun too.
Guys and gals, most of you are missing the main point of the "debater." He is against the evil semi-auto handgun of any capacity. He is definately not arguing for a mag capacity limit.

Read it again; he doesn't say mags with more than 10 rounds. Easily concealed and semi-auto and designed for killing are his main points.

Resist the temptation to argue the details. I don't think the various analogies work either; they sound great, but cars, swimming pools, etc. are not designed to kill.

Those of you who argued the overriding principles are more on target. Our country was established on the principle that we the people determine how we should be limited. The debater's question asks why we should have freedoms. It's the wrong question.
I'd tell him he was looking at things from the wrong end; because someone with criminal intentions MIGHT misuse an item is no reason for YOU to be denied the use of that item, and it stands for firearms and magazines as well as it does for cars that can go 100 mph, or digital cameras that can be used for child pornography, or private planes that can be crashed into buildings, or vans that might be turned into bombs, or swimming-pool chemicals that can be turned into poison gas, or flammable liquids that can be turned into Molotov cocktails, or........ (longest sentence on THR yet?)
Resist the temptation to argue the details. I don't think the various analogies work either; they sound great, but cars, swimming pools, etc. are not designed to kill.
You're wrong. The Cugnot Steam Tractor, the first practical automotive type vehicle was designed as a prime mover for artillery. Other than disease, NOTHING kills more on the battlefield than artillery.

Cars were designed to KILL.
Pepsi must stop making 24 packs NOW!!!!!!!!!

I can't think of any legitimate reason for buying a 24 pack of Pepsi, verses a 6pack...


Don't even talk to this jacka$$.:cuss:
you know what....this stuff is just silly WE are never going to convince anti's we should have anything ! There is no law currently saying I cannot have them in my state so tuff titty to them I am tired of their crap MOLON LABE
A police officer typically carries 15 to 17 rounds in his duty gun, usually 9mm +P or +P+/.40/.45; has 30+ rounds on his belt ready for instant reloading; typically wears body armor; and is within easy radio contact of armed backup. If my wife is ever confronted by violent intruder(s), on the other hand, the only ammunition she will have is likely the ammunition already in her gun; I don't know anybody who sleeps in a gunbelt.) She is shooting ammunition that is less powerful than most police ammunition (standard-pressure 9mm, 0.5 kJ), has no body armor, and her phone line may be cut, so I see no reason why she should have a sidearm with a lower capacity than a police officer.

There's also the concept of reserve capacity; there's no penalty for leaving unfired ammunition in your magazine, but there's a big penalty for running out of ammunition if somebody is trying to kill you.

In the NYPD SOP-9 study, the average number of rounds fired per police officer in shots-fired incidents (excluding accidental discharges and suicides) was eight, IIRC, with a very high standard deviation. So with a 10-round gun, you'd be moderately likely to run out of ammunition in an altercation, which is why most law enforcement agencies issue 15+ round handguns and 30-round rifles--to ensure sufficient reserve capacity.
Read it again; he doesn't say mags with more than 10 rounds. Easily concealed and semi-auto and designed for killing are his main points.
Some people need killing.

That you* don't see that doesn't mean those of us who do see that should make ourselves easy prey.

* - "you" being whoever holds this idiotic naive POV.
The "guy" is basically trying to justify a ban on guns in general, and is appearing t seem reasonable. Handguns in particular have a limited magazine capacity generally because of design constraints. A handgun is a compromise weapon. They are carried because of convenience. A rifle or shotgun is almost always prefered, if available. Concealability is also a desirable feature of handguns. Why carry a handgun that doesn't have a reasonable capacity or one that isn't concealable? Reducing of limiting the magazine capacity makes any gun less effective. Whon in their right mind would want a gun that is less effective when their life is on the line?

The idea of a gun being "designed to kill" as an argument against them is nonsense. Using a gun in self defense is a matter of expediancy, not a moral judgement. I have no idea of the intentions of someone I happen to catch in my house at 3 in the morning. I debated one particular guy who insisted that criminals have no interest in killing me, they just want my "stuff". He also insisted that having he government force me to lock my guns up would keep them from criminals. I asked him what good would a safe do if a criminal broke into my house and put his gun up to my kids head and told me toopen the safe? No. We can't just put "phasers on stun" just yet, so a gun that just "wounds" won't cut it. Can you imagine going on a hunting trip and "wounding your limit of deer?
Need is in the mind of the beholder

If I need, then I need. If you need, then you need. If he needs, then he needs.

My opinion of your, or his, or anyone else's need is of no consequence. Conversely anyone else's opinion of my need is of less than no consequence.

I'm a grandfather, but I'll say it anyway.

So there!
To the son of a LEO,
I would answer , I carry a pistol with a standard capacity magazine.
The same type of standard capacity magazine that came with his fathers issued sidearm.
For the same reasons that his father carries a sidearm, for preservation of my own life.
Of course this is just my opinion, his conceptual mileage would inevitably vary.
Basically, Geekwitha.45 pretty much summed it up excellently. What that virulent anti-rights thug basically is doing is bombarding the reader with a series of loaded terms, phrases and statements.

There is absolutely no discussion possible by answering these questions. YOU LOSE instantly. That's because the questions are not questions, but they are rhetorical tools. I hope most people notice that. It's like the classic question "so, how often do you beat your wife" ...automatically implying that you already do. And even if not, you are automatically on the defensive answering questions - which puts them into the position of the inquisitor (superior), and you into the position of subordinate which has to answer. That makes you inferior. They are the one's with the high ground or position of power who can ask the questions (loaded questions that can't be answered) and you are stuck accepting the framing of the debate based on their fabrication of facts and reality. IN other words, you are debating in their "universe" which runs according to their world-view.

I'd say the better part of 90% of THR members fail to properly address anti-gun attacks.

For example:

Merely using the term "gun violence" is an automatic loss. This term is loaded. It is biased. Its use in any debate automatically brings the center of fact/truth toward the anti position. Why?

Do we walk around and say "oh my, there's a surge in fist violence!" or "seems like steak knife violence is on the rise" ....All other forms of violence, are simply VIOLENCE. Violence with a firearm is "gun violence" ...

What does this do?

It places the blame on the inanimate object which is the target of the anti-rights movement. If you went around saying "fist violence" ..what can come of that? Who's to blame? The owner of the fists of course. You wouldn't blame their knuckles would you? You wouldn't ban their hands, or chop them off? Terms like "gun violence" ..which are used here on THR by 95% if not more of gun owners, place the blame on guns as the source or type of violence by default. Why do firearms allow violence to be categorized? They don't. Rape is not blamed on a penis. It is not called "penis violence" ...It makes gun = violence, or gun causes violence, or gun is associated with violence. None are true, relevant or factual. They are all illogical and flawed.

There is no such thing as violence of the gun. There is only violence. It encompasses all forms - and implies an ACTION by a HUMAN. Not a characteristic of an inanimate object.

Anyhow, I like what other members have already said. Don't bother debating with scumbags like this. It is a waste of time. They are set in their ways and use all the talking-points and rhetoric as if they read it off the VPC's website. Use your time to write to your congressperson. Evangelize the RKBA to fence sitters or moderates, not rabid anti-rights people.
Not open for further replies.