Justin
Moderator Emeritus
In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, there have been calls for reinstating a federal ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
Arguing for the right to own these magazines is something that can be problematic, as even many gun owners see no issue with restricting access to them.
Furthermore, I've seen a lot of pro-gun folks try to make a case for these magazines, and come off as either insensitive, buffoonish, or just downright stupid, and it makes me cringe every time I watch it happen.
So, in the interest of preserving our second amendment rights, here are my thoughts on arguing against bans on >10 round magazines.
**Know Who You're Debating**
Most of the people reacting to Sandy Hook (and other rampage shootings) are not gun people. For the most part, they aren't anti-gun people, either. They are, however, completely ignorant about guns and how they work, and have a general level of fear associated with guns and people who own them.
What they're looking for is an answer to the question of "how do we stop rampage shootings" and they're grabbing at the first straw, gun control, that seems like a good idea. You have to convince them that gun control is not the answer.
**Arguments That Don't Work, and Why**
*• It's my right to own them because 2nd Amendment.*
-This argument is true, however it makes you look stupid and selfish. After all, to the people you're speaking to, you come off sounding like you put your right to own a dangerous product above the safety of their kids.
*•I own them because I can.*
-Again, this is a stupidly weak argument, and a tautology on top.
*•I own them because I may need them for self-defense.*
-Remember, the people you're talking to have not spent any time at all studying personal defense, much less defense with a firearm. By and large, most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate. Furthermore, statistically speaking, for the vast, vast majority of defensive encounters, they're right. The number of self-defense incidents where capacity of the defender's gun was what won the day are, in truth, vanishingly small. As a result, most people, who've spent no time reading up on the current state of self-defense will dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic with delusions of having to fend off an army.
*•I own them because we may need them in case of invasion/the US government turns on its own people/The Revolution/Wolverines!*
-Most people in this country live comfortable lives, and they rarely pay attention to historical precedent. As a result, they don't believe that things could come down to a situation where things go all Warsaw Ghetto, and even if they *do* entertain the notion that such a thing could happen here, they cannot and will not consider the idea of actually picking up a gun and fighting against an existential threat. Any argument that follows the revolutionary line of reasoning will be dismissed out of hand as paranoid fantasizing. You will be painted as a lunatic preparing for an event that will never happen. The assumption is that you're so delusional that you are putting your right to a revolution that will never come up against the protection of children.
*•I own them because it makes it easier for me at the shooting range or because having them reduces amount of time I have to waste loading magazines.*
-Again, this argument makes you look completely unsympathetic. After all, if a ban on magazines would reduce these shootings, then who cares if it means you're slightly inconvenienced during a range trip?
*•I own them because I compete in USPSA/3 Gun/some other form of competition.*
-This argument can help to counter the "you don't need a high capacity magazine to hunt" or "why would anyone have these things?" and pointing out that you're involved in a competitive sport may confer some legitimacy, but it's still a weak argument, because you sound like you're putting the enjoyment of a game above the safety of kids.
**Arguments That Should Work, With Explanation**
The best way to voice your opposition to a magazine ban isn't by asserting your rights. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the 2nd Amendment, rights-based or possession-based arguments are not going to sway someone who is on the fence about the 2nd Amendment, and/or already believes that no reasonable person owns such an item.
The best way to make the case in favor of >10 round magazines is from a policy perspective. As gun owners we should all be actively engaging in the public discussion over these items, and offering our unique knowledge to help guide policy in a direction that will actually be effective at stopping these sorts of shootings from happening in the future.
***The best arguments against a ban on these magazines is to point out that such a ban SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.*** It's thoroughly terrible policy that will absolutely not stop the next rampage killer from taking out as many victims as his tortured mental state demands.
Here's a breakdown of the arguments that are bound to be the most effective, at least with people who aren't being completely emotional about the situation.
*•The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban*
-The US had a ban on these magazines that lasted for ten years, and during that time, there was not one trustworthy study that showed the ban had any effect whatsoever on rates of violent crime, regardless of the type.
*•The technology is already "in the wild."*
-With the exception of the ten years during the federal assault weapon ban >10 round magazines have been sold with hundreds of millions of new guns, and available on the market to anyone who cares to purchase them. These magazines are mechanically simple (about as complex as a well-constructed travel mug), small, and completely untraceable. Any attempt to regulate these magazines will essentially be DOA because there are already so many of them in private hands.
*•Consider the implications of enforcing a ban*
-Everyone wants to get behind the idea of a ban without putting any thought into actual enforcement costs. Ask them to explain how they would enforce a ban.
Would they be willing to ok warrantless searches to find these magazines?
Would they be willing to arrest, try, convict, and imprison for ten years anyone found to possess one?
How much would it cost to imprison all of these millions of people?
Would we have to construct new prisons for them?
Would it really be worth it?
(The nice thing about this line of reasoning is that it's an extremely easy litmus test to see if you're dealing with someone who's halfway rational or not. No rational person would actually agree that locking up tens of millions of people who've harmed no one would be a good idea. And if the person says they're ok with it, you know they're a nut. This argument also has the potential to work well if you're talking to people in favor of legalizing pot, as the comparisons between marijuana users and magazine owners are actually pretty clear-cut.)
*•How to enforce a ban?*
-How would you keep people from importing unmarked magazines from outside of the US, or squirting them out of a 3D printer?
*•Point out that other mass shootings have taken place without >10 round magazines*
-3 of the 4 guns used by the Columbine shooters did not use high capacity magazines. Specifically, Eric Harris had to reload his Hi-Point Carbine ten times, and the double-barreled shotgun used was reloaded over twenty times. [ur=http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html]Source[/url] The Walther used by Seung-Hui Cho could not hold more than ten rounds. The Beltway "snipers" never fired more than one shot at any given murder attempt. Charles Whitman used no high capacity magazines.
-Changing magazines is an action that even an amateur can easily complete in under four seconds. Even if the killer is limited to ten round magazines, it won't matter. They will simply carry more magazines and reload more often. Furthermore, there is not one instance where that extra reload time made a difference in the outcome of a shooting. (Some may try to claim that it did in the case of the Giffords shooting, but Loughner's gun jammed, which is what provided the time to others around him to react.)
Finally, if you're a parent and a gun owner, voice this fact. Having a kid means you've got skin in the game, and gives you additional legitimacy. Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children. As gun owners, we have not only a unique perspective and specialist knowledge on the subject, but we've also got the most to lose. Therefore it is extremely important for all of us to present the best arguments we can.
I hope that this post is useful. I've been making a number of these arguments on public news forums with some success. I'd appreciate any feedback.
Arguing for the right to own these magazines is something that can be problematic, as even many gun owners see no issue with restricting access to them.
Furthermore, I've seen a lot of pro-gun folks try to make a case for these magazines, and come off as either insensitive, buffoonish, or just downright stupid, and it makes me cringe every time I watch it happen.
So, in the interest of preserving our second amendment rights, here are my thoughts on arguing against bans on >10 round magazines.
**Know Who You're Debating**
Most of the people reacting to Sandy Hook (and other rampage shootings) are not gun people. For the most part, they aren't anti-gun people, either. They are, however, completely ignorant about guns and how they work, and have a general level of fear associated with guns and people who own them.
What they're looking for is an answer to the question of "how do we stop rampage shootings" and they're grabbing at the first straw, gun control, that seems like a good idea. You have to convince them that gun control is not the answer.
**Arguments That Don't Work, and Why**
*• It's my right to own them because 2nd Amendment.*
-This argument is true, however it makes you look stupid and selfish. After all, to the people you're speaking to, you come off sounding like you put your right to own a dangerous product above the safety of their kids.
*•I own them because I can.*
-Again, this is a stupidly weak argument, and a tautology on top.
*•I own them because I may need them for self-defense.*
-Remember, the people you're talking to have not spent any time at all studying personal defense, much less defense with a firearm. By and large, most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate. Furthermore, statistically speaking, for the vast, vast majority of defensive encounters, they're right. The number of self-defense incidents where capacity of the defender's gun was what won the day are, in truth, vanishingly small. As a result, most people, who've spent no time reading up on the current state of self-defense will dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic with delusions of having to fend off an army.
*•I own them because we may need them in case of invasion/the US government turns on its own people/The Revolution/Wolverines!*
-Most people in this country live comfortable lives, and they rarely pay attention to historical precedent. As a result, they don't believe that things could come down to a situation where things go all Warsaw Ghetto, and even if they *do* entertain the notion that such a thing could happen here, they cannot and will not consider the idea of actually picking up a gun and fighting against an existential threat. Any argument that follows the revolutionary line of reasoning will be dismissed out of hand as paranoid fantasizing. You will be painted as a lunatic preparing for an event that will never happen. The assumption is that you're so delusional that you are putting your right to a revolution that will never come up against the protection of children.
*•I own them because it makes it easier for me at the shooting range or because having them reduces amount of time I have to waste loading magazines.*
-Again, this argument makes you look completely unsympathetic. After all, if a ban on magazines would reduce these shootings, then who cares if it means you're slightly inconvenienced during a range trip?
*•I own them because I compete in USPSA/3 Gun/some other form of competition.*
-This argument can help to counter the "you don't need a high capacity magazine to hunt" or "why would anyone have these things?" and pointing out that you're involved in a competitive sport may confer some legitimacy, but it's still a weak argument, because you sound like you're putting the enjoyment of a game above the safety of kids.
**Arguments That Should Work, With Explanation**
The best way to voice your opposition to a magazine ban isn't by asserting your rights. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the 2nd Amendment, rights-based or possession-based arguments are not going to sway someone who is on the fence about the 2nd Amendment, and/or already believes that no reasonable person owns such an item.
The best way to make the case in favor of >10 round magazines is from a policy perspective. As gun owners we should all be actively engaging in the public discussion over these items, and offering our unique knowledge to help guide policy in a direction that will actually be effective at stopping these sorts of shootings from happening in the future.
***The best arguments against a ban on these magazines is to point out that such a ban SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.*** It's thoroughly terrible policy that will absolutely not stop the next rampage killer from taking out as many victims as his tortured mental state demands.
Here's a breakdown of the arguments that are bound to be the most effective, at least with people who aren't being completely emotional about the situation.
*•The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban*
-The US had a ban on these magazines that lasted for ten years, and during that time, there was not one trustworthy study that showed the ban had any effect whatsoever on rates of violent crime, regardless of the type.
*•The technology is already "in the wild."*
-With the exception of the ten years during the federal assault weapon ban >10 round magazines have been sold with hundreds of millions of new guns, and available on the market to anyone who cares to purchase them. These magazines are mechanically simple (about as complex as a well-constructed travel mug), small, and completely untraceable. Any attempt to regulate these magazines will essentially be DOA because there are already so many of them in private hands.
*•Consider the implications of enforcing a ban*
-Everyone wants to get behind the idea of a ban without putting any thought into actual enforcement costs. Ask them to explain how they would enforce a ban.
Would they be willing to ok warrantless searches to find these magazines?
Would they be willing to arrest, try, convict, and imprison for ten years anyone found to possess one?
How much would it cost to imprison all of these millions of people?
Would we have to construct new prisons for them?
Would it really be worth it?
(The nice thing about this line of reasoning is that it's an extremely easy litmus test to see if you're dealing with someone who's halfway rational or not. No rational person would actually agree that locking up tens of millions of people who've harmed no one would be a good idea. And if the person says they're ok with it, you know they're a nut. This argument also has the potential to work well if you're talking to people in favor of legalizing pot, as the comparisons between marijuana users and magazine owners are actually pretty clear-cut.)
*•How to enforce a ban?*
-How would you keep people from importing unmarked magazines from outside of the US, or squirting them out of a 3D printer?
*•Point out that other mass shootings have taken place without >10 round magazines*
-3 of the 4 guns used by the Columbine shooters did not use high capacity magazines. Specifically, Eric Harris had to reload his Hi-Point Carbine ten times, and the double-barreled shotgun used was reloaded over twenty times. [ur=http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html]Source[/url] The Walther used by Seung-Hui Cho could not hold more than ten rounds. The Beltway "snipers" never fired more than one shot at any given murder attempt. Charles Whitman used no high capacity magazines.
-Changing magazines is an action that even an amateur can easily complete in under four seconds. Even if the killer is limited to ten round magazines, it won't matter. They will simply carry more magazines and reload more often. Furthermore, there is not one instance where that extra reload time made a difference in the outcome of a shooting. (Some may try to claim that it did in the case of the Giffords shooting, but Loughner's gun jammed, which is what provided the time to others around him to react.)
Finally, if you're a parent and a gun owner, voice this fact. Having a kid means you've got skin in the game, and gives you additional legitimacy. Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children. As gun owners, we have not only a unique perspective and specialist knowledge on the subject, but we've also got the most to lose. Therefore it is extremely important for all of us to present the best arguments we can.
I hope that this post is useful. I've been making a number of these arguments on public news forums with some success. I'd appreciate any feedback.
