Defending Hi-Cap Mags

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) about 443,000 deaths per year are directly attributed to cigarette smoking. An additional 44,000 die from the effects of second-hand smoke. More than 1,300 per day.

Each day about 3,800 people under the age of 18 smoke their first cigarette so an additional 1.4 million new smokers are heading into the above statistic every year.

(The above paraphrased from Mullings, 12-17-2012 by Rich Galen).

This is not gun related but shows how any deaths from firearms pale in comparison to the above statistics.

And no talk of banning tobacco. Hypocrisy?

Dan
 
There is no reasoning needed to defend high-cap mags. Its a scapegoat by many anti's and lawmakers who want another AWB.

Many firearms are designed that way, to accept high-cap mags. That's all. you shouldn't have to explain to anyone why you need a 30rd magazine for your rifle or a 17rd mag for your pistol. That is how they are designed.

In comparison cars are designed to have at least 10gallon tanks or more. That is how they are designed. If it was found that automobiles are the main causes of accidents and air pollution, restricting the fuel capacity of auto's are not the solution.
 
According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) about 443,000 deaths per year are directly attributed to cigarette smoking. An additional 44,000 die from the effects of second-hand smoke. More than 1,300 per day.

Each day about 3,800 people under the age of 18 smoke their first cigarette so an additional 1.4 million new smokers are heading into the above statistic every year.

(The above paraphrased from Mullings, 12-17-2012 by Rich Galen).

This is not gun related but shows how any deaths from firearms pale in comparison to the above statistics.

And no talk of banning tobacco. Hypocrisy?

Don't fall into the rut of comparing deadliness without compassion, and be darn sure to have your figures as right as can be. Also remember that the people who lost loved ones in this tragedy really don't care about how many died of other causes on the same day.

The one point that I think we can all agree with the antis and everyone else on is that +/- 11,000 firearm murders every year in this country are far too many (to that end, even one is too many, but I digress...). Difference is, we understand that new laws will not change the numbers. That is the point you have to drive home.

This is not to say that numbers cannot be used as arguing points, especially with these kind of high profile tragedies; Don't come across as insensitive in the process, but don't fail to remind people that, tragic as they may be, these "mass shootings" are still an extremely rare occurance, and are statistically insignificant (always emphasize statistically). Help them keep it in perspective. 20 little kids being murdered is always a horrible thing......and we reach that toll every ~6 days in this country with cases of shaken baby syndrome alone.
 
I need some persuasive arguments to help me justify hi-caps in handguns. Sure, they are fun, I like them, I use them, I-can-therefore-I-will, etc. But when people challenge me to explain the need for them, I can only fall back on the above, and I know I'm not very convincing.

Can I get some help here w/ logical / rational arguments? ....... Thanx......
Standard capacity.... the term is standard capacity. IF the gun was designed and sold with a 15 round mag it is not a "hi cap" mag it is a standard capacity mag.

IF that same gun is sold in a state like CA witha 10 round mag it is a reduced capacity mag becasue the gun was desinged with a 15 round mag.

Smith and Wesson got this right on their website.
 
Yes, thanks MachIV, I have been following your very insightful contributions to this thread (and many others). Very good points indeed.

Dan
 
Excellent points, EBK. I agree we should start refering to them as "normal capacity" or "standard capacity" or "design capacity" or even just "capacity".
The SOB's have maneuvered us into talking about 10+ as "HIGH capacity" !!
 
Why the need for magazines at any capacity? For the same reason the 2A exists.

Why did our nation's Founding Fathers include the Second Amendment in the Constitution?

Perhaps because at that time in history, it was the only way for one to retrieve and protect their rights from being taken away by tyrants and further colonization.
Perhaps because they were long-sighted in their goals and hopes for our country.
Perhaps because they knew how easy it was to lose everything without protection from a government run amok.
Are we there now? No. Not even close.
But let's not be short-sighted and self-absorbed. The way things are today is not the way they will always be in the future. Human history has shown us that again and again.
The most valuable legacy to pass forward thru the generations is the one that was passed to us: The ability to protect our American way of life, and thus, protect all our rights and liberties from the dangers within.
 
I own what I want and 20 rounds is better to have on hand than 10 rounds when evil people try to hurt you.
 
1. I don't get to carry a machine gun in the car - what's in my magazine is all the backup I get. Cops carry a machine gun in the car and they still carry 2 to 4 normal capacity magazines, and have radio contact with instant response backup.
2. We all don't live 10 minutes from a police station. I called the highway patrol to report an accident one time and it was an hour before they could get someone out there, another incident involving a drunk driver took 1/2 hour, the guy left his wallet, shot up targets and beer cans in the truck, but easily escaped.
3. We're not always attacked by a single, stationary crook. Two to three guys moving can require a bit more than 5 or 10 rounds just to be able to safely retreat.
4. Even the experts miss on occasion. Cops average around 50% depending on lighting, training weapons etc.
http://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?_r=0
 
This is not gun related but shows how any deaths from firearms pale in comparison to the above statistics.

And no talk of banning tobacco. Hypocrisy?

There is massive talk of banning tobacco (especially since the tobacco industry was successfully knee-capped by feel-good politicians). How many major employers allow you to smoke (even during breaks) anywhere near company property. How many stores, restaurants, cities, airlines, apartments? How much tax is levied on a pack of cigarrettes with the sole aim of limiting access to them?

I don't smoke. But I do empathathize with an under-represented group of people having their Pursuit of Happiness yanked out from under them by a scowling, self-righteous crowd. Now that evil tobacco is gone (for all intents and purposes) the eye is shifting to evil fast food (though obesity has trended quite obviously with dropping tobacco use). The eye had turned away from gunowners after the ill-concieved AWB (it got poked :D) but its gaze threatens us once more with this "spate" of tragedies.

TCB
 
I need some persuasive arguments to help me justify hi-caps in handguns. Sure, they are fun, I like them, I use them, I-can-therefore-I-will, etc. But when people challenge me to explain the need for them, I can only fall back on the above, and I know I'm not very convincing.

Can I get some help here w/ logical / rational arguments? ....... Thanx......

Well, the most relavant point is to protect us against a tyrannical government. The Revolutionary war was started by the British coming to take arms from the colonists. Many people don't want to hear this reasoning though. Some people think that "we've evolved from that" or "that isn't really relavant today" or "we're more civilized now" (whatever that means). The last hundred years has been extremely violent and bloody. If civilians had less than equal equipment than the repressive government, it would be very difficult to win a rebellion or civil war, look at the trouble Syria and Libya are having, they first had to get access to arms, let alone military grade arms.

Others just don't want to hear or think about our government as tyrannical, socialist or marxist. Some may even fear being unpatriotic for even thinking so.

So if the person you're conversing with doesn't go for the anti-tyranny thing, I'd go this route: Personal protection. Obviously people will say "but why do you NEED 30+ rounds to protect yourself?" Look at the latest natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes etc. There was rioting and looting, which usually involve more than 30 people.

If they're still not convinced but they're still listening or questioning: how about non-disaster riots, such as racially or politically motivated ones, or flash mobs and angry mobs? All of which usually involve more than 30 people. Mind you, it's not an endorcement to just let loose any mob or riot, you will still have to articulate that said mob/riot or individual people within it are targeting you with deadly force.

IF they're still lending you their ear, bring it down from mobs and riots to gangs. Thugs, robbers, burglars and even assailants are increasingly operating in groups of 2 or more people. Specifically, between 2-5 people or even more than that. "Well you don't need 30 rounds for 2-5 people though." Well, if each one is armed with a gun, lets just say for the sake of argument that 5 robbers each had revolvers with 5 rounds loaded in them. They have 25 rounds at their disposal, all aimed at you and your family. They're bad guys, it's the good guys that should win this fight, hence the extra 5 rounds for you.

If they're still not convinced, you know you're the one with the fighting chance come the next dictator, disaster, riot, mob or gangs knocking at your door.

Oh yeah, if they bring up the "but think of the children" line, tell them I AM.
 
Malicious intent overcomes any physical limitations. Whether the person has a knife, or an AR and a 60-round mag, or a Single Six.... They're going to do just as much damage as they want to do.
 
Since this is THR, let's talk philosophy.

In a free society based off Locke's basic rights to life, liberty, and property, citizens don't have to prove some special need to own legitimate products that do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

By the same token, if a government wants to remove a citizen's ability to own one of those legitimate products, it has to show that such product inherently presents such a risk to the citizenry (and the rights of that citizenry) that it warrants the government infringing on those basic rights to property.

As of yet, I have not seen a single logical reason (even from states that have mag-capacity limits) as to what is inherently dangerous/risky/infringing about a magazine with a certain capacity.
 
High capacity. Low capacity. 1 capacity. I(we) do not want ANYONE to get hurt/killed. How do we keep a weapon out of the wrong hands. Period.

I find it strange when some gun owners and non owners say we don't need High Capacity Mags or AR's. Every gun/rifle is an assault weapon in the wrong hands.

Me........ I'd rather be next to a responsible gun carrying owner than driving near a talking/texting cell driver.
 
Last edited:
Why not simply answer: "because I can"

Because it's a fundamentally unpersuasive argument.

If you're going to engage in a debate with someone who disagrees with you, it might be a good idea to, you know, actually use arguments that might work.

I am continually amazed at the number of people on this forum who don't seem to get that.
 
Ask them to explain whether or not they would be willing to arrest, try, and imprison someone simply for owning such an item
ha "yes" would be their answer. 10 RNDS is the limit in NY and if caught with a new production "normal" mag its felony time. LE ONLY. The masses of anti's not a clue about gun laws or their object of hate, guns. Nor do most of them want to learn. I'm 2 for 2 now. 2 days in a row where an anti has told me how guns are a problem. And when the conversation progressed they new nothing about a guns function, stats or local and sate laws. These were both "educated" people. All I could do was smile.

Its funny/scary how passionate people are about something they know little about.
 
Last edited:
Quote... I'm 2 for 2 now. 2 days in a row where an anti has told me how guns are a problem. And when the conversation progressed they new nothing about a guns function, stats or local and sate laws. These were both "educated" people. All I could do was smile.

Its funny/scary how passionate people are about something they know little about.

I'll end the conversation by telling the person I'm talking to that if anyone of their family members or themselves ever have their life threatened they will buy a gun for protection. They do give that some thought.
 
Last edited:
Its funny/scary how passionate people are about something they know little about.

Yeah, you aren't kidding.

I had someone physically threaten me yesterday (online) stating "thanks to your sport / hobby / whatever you call it, all these children died. Gun owners like you should be hung!"

I didn't even KNOW the person. They were responding on a thread where I was having a (perfectly calm) conversation about the pro's and con's of a high-cap ban.
 
Ask how does law limiting magazine capacity protect children from somebody who's willing to break the law.
 
Germany has some stupid over-regulations about guns and magazine capacity, still Germany is within TOP5 school shooting sprees.

I spent four years in my university with pistol on hip, sometimes with vz.58 plus several loaded 30rds mags in schoolbag ady we have never had school shooting. Utah is imho pretty much the same.

The difference is not in mag capacity or gun control, but in gun-free zones.
 
IMHO more then 50% of U.S. residents live rural. That being said after 2100hrs the only police protection they have is county deputy's and state police. At 2:00am so one kicks in your door an you dial 911 and it takes 30-40 minutes for LEO to respond. In that amount of time are you going to watch the **** heads savage your family. You ware only allowed 10 rd mags. Think about it and bring this fact up. Just that fact alone
 
Some good points noted here. I'll add,

Around here, shooting ranges charge by the hour. I'm not training for a quick draw competition. I admire Trent's fast magazine changes noted above, but can't and don't try to do that myself. That's why i have a 15rd. mag in my 92FS and not a 10 rd magazine.

So, high cap mags mean more bang for my buck at the hourly range. If i can't use them, it adds to my expense. That's called a Government Taking, and it's rightly illegal.

I also live in a AWB state, so my weapon-owning rights are already compromised from someone living in say, Texas. Looking on a National level, that's about as fair as someone required to pay 25% of their income in taxes, while others are only forced to pay 10%....That's not equal; and how anyone can call it "fair" is beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top