Defending Hi-Cap Mags

[Tommygunn]

There is one salient thing that hasn't been mentioned.
"Gun control" is not really about gun control. It's about PEOPLE control.
I was listening to Geraldo Rivera this morning on his radio program. Before I got disgusted and turned channels I listened to him and NY Governor Spitzer whine on about how no one "needs" "high cap" magazines or "assault weapons." Rivera is simply a hopeless case from the get-go but Spitzer is either a champion liar or every bit of a "tool" as Geraldo is being. Spitzer may not want to "control" anyone but the next administration may have different motives.
In Germany, Hitler did not really enact very many gun laws either; most of what he needed had been enacted during the Weimar era or before.

 

[MachIVshooter]

People will choose the easiest route for anything. It's human nature.

People will find alternate methods of accomplishing their goals if the primary is unworkable. This is also human nature.

I'm sure McVeigh would have preferred a military fuel-air bomb, but he couldn't get one, so he instead manufactured his own from benign products, and still managed to tear a large building in half and kill 168 people in one fell swoop.

I'm sure Bin Laden would rather have used dedicated missiles to bring down the WTC, but his organization made due with commercial airliners and managed to level two huge skyscrapers and kill 2,996 people with x2 injured.

If the CT shooter could not have stolen these weapons from his mom, he may very well of slashed his young victims with an $8 hardware store machete or burned them alive with 5 gallons of gasoline.

The tool does not make the crime happen.

 

[Trent]

People will choose the easiest route for anything. It's human nature.

People will find alternate methods of accomplishing their goals if the primary is unworkable. This is also human nature.

I'm sure McVeigh would have preferred a military fuel-air bomb, but he couldn't get one, so he instead manufactured his own from benign products, and still managed to tear a large building in half and kill 168 people in one fell swoop.

I'm sure Bin Laden would rather have used dedicated missiles to bring down the WTC, but his organization made due with commercial airliners and managed to level two huge skyscrapers and kill 2,996 people with x2 injured.

If the CT shooter could not have stolen these weapons from his mom, he may very well of slashed his young victims with an $8 hardware store machete or burned them alive with 5 gallons of gasoline.

The tool does not make the crime happen.

While I agree with you, you have to be careful about big claims.

The Federal Government heavily restricted the commerce on Ammonium Nitrate following the OK city bombing, and there hasn't been a repeat performance. Your argument actually works against you in this case, as it demonstrates that a ban of an item prevents crime. (Of course, OK City is anecdotal to the point there hasn't been an ANFO bombing before or after, but they can still point to it as a victory.)

After 9/11 we instituted such severe security measures that banned private possession of everything ranging from fingernail clippers to bottles of water on airplanes, and there hasn't been a repeat performance of THAT act since. Again, this means (to people making such argument) that when your civil liberties are sufficiently violated you can have a positive impact on criminal intent. (Never mind the incident is ALSO anecdotal and hasn't happened either prior to or since the original event.)

Gasoline isn't an effective argument because the range is limited, synchronizing multiple burns is technically challenging, and schools have multiple points of egress in the event of a fire to evacuate the building. (Would have been a good argument against Aurora though since the perpetrator compromised the emergency exits.)

The machete you reference is perhaps the only compelling argument, as that is EXACTLY how mass murders occur in countries where private possession of firearms are unilaterally prohibited.

 

[Justin]

They don't need to be defended. Don't allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

Just answer, its my right. Period.

And how many people have you convinced with this argument?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

 

[XD 45acp]

My defense for the question on magazines is.... Tossed Salad.... Why do we need Tossed Salad? You can get vegtables other ways, Why tossed Salad? Because you want it, thats why. Anybody can abuse anything,... you can abuse Exlax, but we dont ban it. Changing the tool does not make a building prettier, the wonderful mind of the Archetect does. Fix the mind, not the tool.

 

[MachIVshooter]

While I agree with you, you have to be careful about big claims...........Your argument actually works against you in this case, as it demonstrates that a ban of an item prevents crime.

Not really. If taken out of context, I suppose it could. But then, so can anything.

My entire point is one that we all know to be true; People will find a way to do what they want to do. When the ideal/optimal tool or course of action is, for whatever reason, unavailable or unworkable, alternates are evaluated and selected based on the next easiest route to accomplish said goal. If you need to drive somewhere, but your car fails, you will select an alternate mode of transport. If you need to make a phone call and your cell phone dies, you will select an alternate device to make said call.

Humans are, by nature, problem solvers, for better or worse. Some are lazy, many have limited conviction, so deterrents sometimes work. That's why we have laws and correlating punishments. But they are only effective inversely to a person's conviction. Exceeding the speed limit has minimal criminal and virtually no moral repercussions (unless you cause a MVA), so many, many people do it every single day. We know there may be a price, but it's a risk lots of us are willing to take, and willing to pay the price when we get caught. Stealing has a much higher price and does have moral implications, so fewer of us do it. But a significant number of people determine that they can live with the ethical implications, and that the risk is worth the reward. Same goes for drugs and every other illicit item or act.

So, again, the determining factor in whether or not a person will commit a crime is their conviction; The availability of implements and the potential punishment simply help define the level of conviction required to carry out the unlawful act. To this end, how do you deter someone who is willing to pay for their act with their own life? Simple answer: You can't. You can only try to physically stop them with force.

Gasoline isn't an effective argument because the range is limited, synchronizing multiple burns is technically challenging, and schools have multiple points of egress in the event of a fire to evacuate the building.

Do you really think he couldn't have walked in, assaulted the teacher, and then poured the accelerant all over the huddled victims and torched them? We're talking about kindergarteners, not teenagers or adults; Ever seen what a 5/6 year old does when terrified? They almost universally freeze and begin crying. They do not know how to act/react to a threat. Virtually any weapon could have been used to exact his toll.

 

[CraigC]

But when people challenge me to explain the need for them...

Challenge them to explain the "need" for free speech, free religion or the right to peacefully assemble.

 

[thump_rrr]

We have mag restrictions in Canada.
5 rounds for magazines designed for semi auto rifles.
10 rounds for magazines designed for semi auto pistols.
We have no grandfather clause so all mags had to be converted before a certain date.

The funny thing is that most of the magazines I purchase are P Mags which have an aluminum pop rivet preventing the follower from allowing more than 5 rounds to be loaded.

Will someone who is willing to go on a shooting spree be concerned about drilling out a rivet, making the mag illegal?

Not to mention that LAR pistol mags which hold 10 rounds are perfectly legal for use in a rifle as are Glock pistol mags which the KRISS uses.

 

[Trent]

Not really. If taken out of context, I suppose it could. But then, so can anything.

My entire point is one that we all know to be true; People will find a way to do what they want to do. When the ideal/optimal tool or course of action is, for whatever reason, unavailable or unworkable, alternates are evaluated and selected based on the next easiest route to accomplish said goal. If you need to drive somewhere, but your car fails, you will select an alternate mode of transport. If you need to make a phone call and your cell phone dies, you will select an alternate device to make said call.

Humans are, by nature, problem solvers, for better or worse. Some are lazy, many have limited conviction, so deterrents sometimes work. That's why we have laws and correlating punishments. But they are only effective inversely to a person's conviction. Exceeding the speed limit has minimal criminal and virtually no moral repercussions (unless you cause a MVA), so many, many people do it every single day. We know there may be a price, but it's a risk lots of us are willing to take, and willing to pay the price when we get caught. Stealing has a much higher price and does have moral implications, so fewer of us do it. But a significant number of people determine that they can live with the ethical implications, and that the risk is worth the reward. Same goes for drugs and every other illicit item or act.

Do you really think he couldn't have walked in, assaulted the teacher, and then poured the accelerant all over the huddled victims and torched them? We're talking about kindergarteners, not teenagers or adults; Ever seen what a 5/6 year old does when terrified? They almost universally freeze and begin crying. They do not know how to act/react to a threat. Virtually any weapon could have been used to exact his toll.

I completely agree with you; my entire point was cautioning against singular anecdotal acts. Just as one CCW stopping a mass murder doesn't (on it's own) provide compelling argument for CCW in all circumstances, singular acts also don't provide a compelling argument AGAINST it.

You need a long history of acts you can draw on, to form lasting conclusions.

Take China, for instance. You throw one incident out there (22 children wounded by knife wielding attacker), people can say "well, see, they don't have guns and knives aren't as lethal."

Throw out FIVE instances of school massacres in China in the last two years, including a man who took a hammer to a classroom of pre-schoolers, killing several, and THEN you have an argument that can't be easily defeated.

Now you can present the argument that "the only way to stop mass murders is with force. Otherwise you have to wait for the perpetrator to stop on his own cognition; through willful surrender, escape, or suicide."

There's no doubt that "where there is a will, there is a way", but make sure you're ready to defend your position. This is incredibly difficult with singular, anecdotal cases as they can be attacked individually.

 

[MachIVshooter]

This is incredibly difficult with singular, anecdotal cases as they can be attacked individually.

So take the two very high profile instances I mentioned and assume that the terrorists would rather have parked a bomb vehicle below the structures (which they had done in the past, more than once), but restrictions on ammonium nitrate and security on site made that too difficult or too likely to fail, so they just flew planes into the buildings instead.

The argument is not as difficult to make as you surmise.

 

[CraigC]

Last I checked, the right to own ammonium nitrate is not protected by the Constitution.

 

[huntsman]

Gun ownership as a whole isn't going to be threatened. When you look at the number of states that have been allowing or broadening concealed carry laws lately its pretty clear that we have a national attitude that is in favor of gun carry.

I pray you're correct but when you look at what freedoms we've lost since 9/11 I'm skeptical.

 

[Aries-]

Here in Canada our Centerfire rifles are limited to 5 rounds in the mag, and handguns are limited to 10 rounds. has Zero effect on the criminals that use guns in the commission of a crime.

 

[Trent]

So take the two very high profile instances I mentioned and assume that the terrorists would rather have parked a bomb vehicle below the structures (which they had done in the past, more than once), but restrictions on ammonium nitrate and security on site made that too difficult or too likely to fail, so they just flew planes into the buildings instead.

The argument is not as difficult to make as you surmise.

THAT is an effective counterpoint. I forgot all about the original WTC bombings.

Makes you wonder what is next?

Anyway we're a bit off topic now, my apologies.

 

[Ak Guy]

Thanx for the many excellent points and the discussion.
The "constitutional argument" doesn't carry any weight w/ the people I'd like to sway....they would cancel the 2nd ammendment by snapping their fingers, if they could.
But the argument re: how fast you can reload 10 rounders is pretty hard to refute. And very demonstratable. I shoot both IDPA & USPSA and can / will show these folks how easy/fast it is. (They have no clue re: guns, but they're not stupid).
And thanks for the VA TECH info.... 10 rounders, reloaded 12 times or more....very good info to know.
One point I'd throw out...the 30 rnd handgun "sticks" make a very good handle to wrestle a gun away from someone.
Thanx again....I feel MUCH better equiped to argue the issue !!

 

[Trent]

You're welcome, and glad we could help.

BTW, stay warm up there. Winter is coming.

 

[gym]

If I have to drive 1000 miles and stop 3x for gas, and someone else has to stop 4 times, how much difference is it going to make in the outcome. 2% maybe 3% longer. it's the same with mags, more mags to carry the same amout of lead, the mag change time is less than a second, what difference will it make in the end.

 

[xwingband]

Why do our police need more than 10 rounds?

The court cases state that police have no obligation to defend us. Their sidearms are for their protection. If I want to use them for protection the same reason cops should have them is the same for me.

If I don't need them for protection, take them from the police also. But wait... you say the police need to defend against gun wielding criminals? So do I.

Then your argument goes down to the right to personal protection. If they don't believe you have that right ask them if they'd want a gun if you assaulted them right there... probably.

 

[shooter_from_show-me]

Point out that from a defense stand point, people don't drop dead like in the movies/TV, but can continue coming at you even when shot multiple times.

Especially when they are hopped up on PCP!

 

[easyg]

Why the need for high capacity magazines?


Because the 2nd Amendment is NOT about deer hunting, or duck hunting, or stopping an armed intruder in your home.

The 2nd Amendment is about the people of this nation having access to the tools needed to overthrow our government should our government become tyrannical.


The people of Libya recently overthrew their tyrannical government and they didn't do it with double-barrel shotguns or single shot muzzle loaders....they did it with assault rifles, machine guns, and crew served weapons.

 

[OptimusPrime]

As a point of comparison, has the drastic limitation of certain over-the-counter cold medicines caused any reductions in the levels of meth production? Are there any LEOs who can comment on this? (Forgive me if my details are incorrect, as I really never knew why we can't buy as much Sudafed, Claritin, etc. as we wanted; I was told it was for meth production.)
My point is A-problem; B-perceived fix; C-drastic restriction; D-....results?....

 

[USAF_Vet]

What I tell people, more or less, defending my AR and the standard 30 round magazines:

My AR and 30 round mags is good for home defense. Unlike what many anti's claim, home invasions are not limited to one or two people. More often, gangs are using military and SWAT like raids on people houses to rob them, kill them, etc. Flash mobs are becoming more and more common, and with them, they bring more and more violence. Flash mobs in neighborhoods are not common place yet, but they have happened. I'm not waiting around for it to happen to me before I get prepared.

If I could be certain that I would only need 10 rounds to defend my life and my family, I'd have a gun that only accepted 10 rounds. But I'm not certain of that, so I have a gun and magazines capable or confronting any number of potential threats to my life.

Hard to take on six home invaders with intentions unknown with only a five round revolver.

Unlike in TV and movies, people don't instantly die, flung against the far wall when shot in real life. Many police reports have shown it has taken numerous rounds to drop a bad guy who was high on drugs, or simply drunk. I prefer to have as many rounds as I need to end a threat to my life. If I can get a one shot stop, so be it. But to rely on that is imprudent.

The 2nd Amendment is about the people of this nation having access to the tools needed to overthrow our government should our government become tyrannical.

easyg, while I'd say most of us here know this, your typical anti is not going to listen to that argument. They don't see a government as tyrannical, they are too brainwashed for that and see the tyrants being good for the masses, when only the few actually benefit.

The true nature of the 2A is not something fence sitters and anti's are willing to accept, therefore, I don't see it as a good argument to defend our need for standard capacity magazines.

 

[AdamSean]

An instructor will teach you to fire as many rounds as it takes to end an attack. In most instances, it has taken more than 8 rounds to stop a single attacker. What happens if there are more than one? When seconds count, I don't want to take the extra time to load a new magazine. My life could very well be on the line.

 

[MachIVshooter]

the mag change time is less than a second, what difference will it make in the end.

Well, to the person trying to defend himself, it could be a huge difference. Most defensive shootings end in 3-5 rounds fired by the defender, but it would sure be crappy to be that statistical anomaly having to defend against a half dozen armed assailants and need to do a mag change amidst the attack.

But for these people who corral and slaughter innocents in victim disarmament zones? None, really. Their victims are HIGHLY unlikely to attempt a hand-to-hand or improvised weapon counter attack during the 1-3 seconds a mag change takes.

When arguing how quick mag changes are, don't end up on the defensive when the anti's say "well, then it shouldn't matter to you". Be sure to make the point that it does matter in certain circumstances.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

My biggest peeve in the "high capacity mag" argument is everyone who does not know what is defined as such. Keep in mind this is no one on this forum but people on youtube and in my daily interactions. These are the people who scream "High cap magazines should be banned! My Glock holds 12 and that is all everyone ever needs!" I mention Glock because they are disproportionately the ones to attack and defend magazines over 10 in the same breath. States like NY and NJ are the examples for POTENTIAL high capacity legislation. They have laws preventing anything over 10 rounds wheras California is 5 rounds on ARs IIRC. What fascinates me is how twisted the facts become. Many years ago I was talking with one of my mentors, NYS police officer, and I asked him why the law was in place. He said it was an old law for when the state still issued revolvers and didn't want police officers outgunned. Now the standard issue is the Glock 23 with 13/15 or 17 rounds.