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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

I agree that your time is better spent convincing one "I don't see why anybody needs more than five rounds in a magazine" deer hunter than it is convincing rabid antis; but in an online debate you often affect people who do not participate; but only read.

Depending on the environment, it is worthwhile to preach to rabid antis - if only because you don't let them preach their lies unchallenged and unconfronted. If they have an audience, then I think it is worth the time to challenge their misrepresentations. If they have no audience, then it probably is a waste of time that could be better used elsewhere.

The antis are going to be pulling out all the stops to tarnish gun owners and make gun ownership a "problem" with the Heller case coming up. Not only will all of us have to get involved and defend the Second Amendment in the coming year, we are going to need to be on our "A" game as well.

 

[wuchak]

Because I am endowed by my creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Implicit in my having these rights, among many others, is the right to defend them against those who would deprive me of them. A high capacity handgun is an effective tool when it is necessary to protect my rights from multiple foes all trying to take them at the same time. The high capacity handgun is an exceptional tool for this purpose as it is compact enough to be carried constantly, and thus be readily at hand when the need for it arises.

 

[buy guns]

Because there is no legitimate reason NOT to...

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The only way to win such a debate is by a 'nuclear' approach; leave nothing out and always verify your claims. The proposed argument is already full of fallacies as geekwitha.45 showed (great blog by the way) but are commonly accepted ideas that err on the side of being correct. That in itself is another fallacy but you are arguing with people who are ignorant. Some can be educated and won over, others not. The point is that you are trying to shed some light on the situation.

You cannot approach the high-capacity magazine by itself; it is encompassed by an entirely different anti-gun sentiment found with 'assault rifles'. You need to mention that the Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to reduce crime and point this out using crime statistics and data compiled by both the government and well-established criminlogist Gary Kleck. You can find a ton of information at www.gunfacts.info

Maybe logic will be enough to win the argument. Criminals do not follow the law (definition of a criminal) and will not care about what is on the books. That's the key reason why gun bans do not work and INCREASE crime. The site above shows the DC Murder rate statistics since their ban went into effect. I believe it is somewhere close to what, 16x the national average?

The only problem I can foresee is that you are dealing with an ignorant and arrogant invidual who does not care for learning more about firearms. Oddly enough, that seems to be the same gun owners have to deal with in regards to the people making the gun laws!

 

[Dave in PA]

Without reading the entire thread ........I try to put them on the defensive.....Why do you need a car that can go faster than 55 mph? Why do you need alcohol? Why do you need to wear leather shoes? Why do you need to have more than 4 sets of clothes? Why do you need to live in a 2500 sq ft house?

If they are going to question me, I am going to question them. It may be confrontational, however my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a constitutional right, their right to all of the above is not. If they truely want to have a conversation about firearms, I will present the facts that I have and try to use their statistics to refute themselves.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The legitimate reason for a citizen to own large capacity magazines is the same as the legitimate reason for a citizen to vote in elections -- it's a fundamental civil right and we don't got to give anyone no steekin' reasons.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Because 'standard cap' mags we're designed for the weapon.

And because if I say, fine, 10 rounds is acceptable as a lawful limit,
someone will challenge THAT and it will be 'how about 5' tomorrow.

And all the while a mag was a piece of bent sheet metal and spring that--get this--the bad guy got thrown in for free as part of his illegal and unlawfully purchased gun.

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

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.

Of course they are for killing someone. If your life is in danger, or you are under attack from an assailant with intent on killing you, what do you want to do, tickle the attacker with a couple of shots that may not stop the attacker? Citizens have the right to own the same kind of firepower the military has. and that is the way it should be.

And use this link for some backup too.

http://www.gunowners.org/op0730.htm

 

[anygunanywhere]

There is no such thing as a high capacity magazine. There are only two types.

1. Normal capacity.

2. Reduced capacity.

Anygun

 

[IA_farmboy]

There is no such thing as a high capacity magazine. There are only two types.

1. Normal capacity.

2. Reduced capacity.

Anygun

I tend to agree with this stance. How does one define "high", "low", or "normal" in any thing? It's based on one's perception of normal.

I am above average height. I sometimes hear people talk about "normal" height and I correct them. My idea of "normal" may differ from your idea of "normal". What many mean by "normal" is "average". I am normal height. Most of the population is below normal height.

 

[ctdonath]

I'd have to say there is "high capacity" - those that go well beyond what the gun was designed for. 100-round Beta-C mags for AR15s, a 33-round* mag in a Glock 26, etc. - the guns were not intended for mags over 30 or 12 rounds (respectively), but mags were made or adapted to go way over those limits.

And no, there shouldn't be restrictions on those either. They're kinda self-limiting by their very nature of being overly large for the given application.



* - yes, the 33-rounds Glock 9mm mag is "normal capacity" for a Glock 18. In this case, it's not being used in a G18.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Actually, the AR 15 originally had a 20-round magazine. The 30 round magazine was a Viet Nam development, because the AK 47 had a 30 round magazine.

 

[juantew]

legitimate reason for a private citizen to own a high capacity magazine

Because bad guys don't always stop, even when shot through the heart.

 

[Mannix]

They're the ones making the move to ban them, there for the burden of proof is on them. Can they provide any empirical data that supports the effectiveness of the AWB?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

To quote John Farnham (in The Farnham Method of Defensive Handgunning), "The most common stoppage encountered in the revovler . . . (and) in the automatic is running out of ammunition."

Or to quote Jeff Cooper, "There is such a thing as enough ammunition and there is such a thing as not enough ammuntion. There is no such thing as too much ammunition."

 

[SoCalShooter]

"Because I can." would not be considered an acceptable response.

Its an acceptable response to me and many of us here I am sure.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Defense against tyranny is the real reason we have a 2nd Amendment. Why not go with a more Constitutional reason to own high capacity magazines....
So you can shoot 30 jack-booted storm troopers before you have to reload.

I am sure many of the Jews at Aushwitz would have loved an AR with 30 round mags.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
"Because I can." would not be considered an acceptable response.

Its an acceptable response to me and many of us here I am sure.

Let's rephrase it -- "Because it's a fundamental civil right which the Constitution guarentees will not be infringed."

 

[Officers'Wife]

When I was given a similar challenge my answer was as follows...

My Grandfather carried a Thompson sub-machine gun in Operation Market Garden that had a magazine cap of 20 or 30 rounds

My Father carried an M-16 in a place called the Central Highlands that had a thirty round magazine.

My brother carried an M-16 in a place called Bosnia that also had a thirty round magazine.

Last - my Uncle was issued an M-16 with a thirty round magazine in a place called the Mekong (sp) Delta but gave it back in favor of a 7 round shotgun

Who the are you to tell them they now cannot be trusted with those weapons now much less the magazines?

Selena

 

[Novus Collectus]

One of the best responses is to challenge the whole basis for even asking the question in the first place.......What is the reasoning to NOT allow law abiding to have them?
In the report the DOJ did at the end of the AW ban about it's effectivness talks about a study done in some cities about the number of shots fired in shooting incidents. It said that although about one fifth of all handguns are ones with "high capacity" magazinses (more than ten rounds is what they high capacity), only 3% of all shooting incidents had ten or more shots fired.
Just like with the AW ban itself, ask them what justification there is to ban something that isn't even utilized in crimes to any recognizable degree. They find an "excuse" then tell them you will have a need to tell them why you need one of those magazines.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One of the best responses is to challenge the whole basis for even asking the question in the first place.......What is the reasoning to NOT allow law abiding to have them?

Ask: Are there any laws or ogvernment practices you feel violate the Constitution? Those things came about when you allowed them to rip the 2nd Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.

Ask: Is there a serious violent crime problem? If yes, then a prudent man would be armed to protect himself and his family. (If they say, "The police will protect you," the response is, "every violent crime is a case where the police failed to protect someone.") If the answer is no, then what objection do you have to me carrying a firearm?

 

[ky_man]

Glad to see this thread is still alive. Keep the ideas coming, because I'm still listening.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Legitimate reason for a private citizen to own high capacity magazines
Same as legitimate reason for a private citizen to own a) a P51 Mustang
b) a claymore sword c) a suit of armor d) USS Alabama e) Civil War
bayonet (insert collector item, curio, or ornament (see ATF FAQ) of
your choice). Just because.

I often shoot my 1943 IBM M1 carbine with a 5 shot magazine, but I
own some 30 shot magazines because that was what was used in
Korea and VietNam in that gun, plus some original WWII 15 shot mags
as well.

 

[1911Tuner]

Same as asking for a legitimate reason for eating a half-gallon of ice cream or half a lasagne...or for staying up past midnight when you have to get up at 0500.

This is America. People who demand reasons for what I want are out of line.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How about saying, "Give me a legitimate reason why someone who doesn't respect the Constitution as it is written should be allowed to vote?"