How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron.

[HOOfan_1]

Actually, I never said that defending them makes us look like insensitive morons -

I think I might have quoted the wrong person.

Yes we have to defend them. But the point I agree with Justin on, is we need to defend them to the fence sitters. Defending them to the antis is wasting the time we can be convincing the legislature that passing a ban on anything would be a bad idea.

The only people we really have to convince are those in the legislature. At this point, even if we can bring the fence sitters to agree with us, they are not going to actually ARGUE on our side, they are just less likely to argue on the other side. The arguing in this debate, as in most debates is between those strongly for more control, and those strongly against it. The common man is not who we need to convince in the short term, it is those on the hill.

 

[Justin]

I see your point Justin, and maybe in a way we have already lost. I also see the value in trying to use these arguments with people "not in the legal gun culture". My hope is that there are enough new entries to our pursuit (women, first time gun owners, new CCW holders, etc) that we can use positive, proactive arguments as well.

Thank you for getting my point rather than having a knee jerk reaction to it.

That said, I don't think we've already lost. We're in the opening salvo of the latest battle in the fight for gun rights.

We've got an uphill battle, but with a big enough push we can relegate the forces of anti-gun bigotry to the trash heap of history.

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

 

[Pete D.]

Nuh-uh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete D.
Good observation. Let me know when you come up with a positive argument.
Pete.
Justing already posted plenty of them....and said they make us look like morons....

Nuh-uh. With all due respect, while those are well thought out and it is quite a marvelous post....none of those are positive reasons for owning 30 round magazines. They are reasons for not banning them. Not the same thing at all.
Pete

 

[goldie]

The biggest argument made against them is "you dont need 30 rounds to hunt a deer with".in the general publics eye there is no practical use for hi cap mags other than to use them to do harm or for the military.I truly think there will be a ban on them again.they might even outlaw anything that already exists,no grandfathering. & what about semi autos with proprietary mags, like a valmet,galil,hk91,hk94,their clones, the new sig 551,g36 ?they dont make 10 round mags for them, which would make them impossible to ever bring to a public range?its a very complicated problem,i'd love to know whats going to happen...

 

[beatledog7]

Reasons for owning >10-round magazines:

1) They allow for less frequent reloading, saving expensive range time.

2) They allow the same number of rounds to be stored for expedient use in a smaller space: e.g., ten 15-round (150 rounds) G22 mags take up 50% less physical space than fifteen 10-round (150 rounds) G22 mags.

3) Americans want to.

 

[Bubba613]

I want to.
I really don't need any reason other than that. And I sure don't need to justify my choice to a bunch of people prancing around in designer clothes eating food that costs what most 3rd world day laborers make in a month.

 

[Pete D.]

When we talk about a "positive argument " for owning 30 round magazines, the emphasis needs to be on explaining how ownership of those magazines is beneficial to society as a whole. Explaining that owning a Hi-cap magazine is convenient for you for any of the reasons stated so far is beside the point.
About those folks prancing around in designer clothes and eating expensive food......sounds reminiscent of Spiro Agnew's comment about the "effete corps of impudent snobs". His comment was a stereotype as is this one. Misunderstanding our opposition does not help.
Pete

 

[Bubba613]

Neither does engaging it. You will never persuade people who are ignorant of guns that there is any legitimate use for a 30 round magazine. Nor for a semi auto rifle. Since the only "use" they can imagine for a gun is hunting (and that's kinda yucky ya know) they will never wrap their minds around 30 round mags and semi auto rifles. It is narcissism to think we can persuade them.

And old Spiro knew a thing or two.

 

[gbran]

I don't want gov't to set the precedent of capacity limits, even though they did so with the '94 AWB. If they can set the limit to 10, maybe after the next mass shooting they will lower it to 6.

 

[RX-178]

If you guys want a reason that 30 round magazines SHOULD be allowed to remain legal, rather than why they SHOULDN'T be banned? I've got one.

Economics. You ban them from civilian use, you restrict their production, and you make them rarities. At this point, even Law Enforcement must pay a premium for them, not to mention go through a process of identification, registration, and other paperwork that a police agency would have to pay people to do.

Plenty of police agencies in the USA still have their officers purchase guns themselves, and the vast, VAST majority of guns used by law enforcement are civilian legal weapons that were purchased off the shelf.

I can distinctly remember a few times watching 'wildest police videos' or similar shows, and seeing a State Trooper or Sheriff's deputy fire his glock pistol exactly 10 times before the slide locked back. Now why on earth would a LEO, who retains the 'privilege' of high capacity magazines be using a 10 rounder? Simple, because it was easier to buy one without any department paperwork, which costs the department money to do!

Think about it, when's the last time you've seen LEOs with NFA weapons? Have you noticed how rare NFA weapons are with departments, even though there's supposed to be a straightforward way for them to purchase them? And I'm not even talking machineguns here. I mean short barreled rifles and shotguns, which you'd think would be PERFECT for SWAT teams, or as patrol rifles. Heck, an SBR could give even a motorcycle cop access to a long gun, so why don't we SEE any of that?

Because the NFA made these weapons rare, complicated to obtain, and expensive. Even for police agencies.

So even if the person might be against civilian ownership of high capacity magazines, legislation to ban them from civilian ownership would also hamstring law enforcement. That, I believe, is an argument FOR high caps.

 

[Hawaiian]

In states that have mag limit, it also applies to handguns. So, when a law abiding citizen with a concealed handgun license is shopping at the mall and a mentally ill individual open up with an AR/AK and a thirty round mag, the good guy is limited to responding with a ten round mag in his handgun.
Yes, let's protect the poor misguided criminal.

 

[109Hammer]

Max speed limit is 55 mph - 65 mph, why do we make cars have the ablity to go faster?

 

[Pete D.]

Max speed limit is 55 mph - 65 mph, why do we make cars have the ablity to go faster?

Do you have the answer to that one?
Pete

 

[msb45]

Since when did the STANDARD magazine become high capacity? DON'T keep falling into the traps built into the war of words. Ten rounds is a legal restriction and an arbitrary limit.

True assault weapons are select fire, another trap.

Using a car analogy. A fiberglass knock-off body on a VW does not make a Porsche.

 

[Texan Scott]

I ask if I, a father, coworker, neighbor, taxpayer, and peaceable law-abiding citizen can be trusted with 10 bullets, what is it about 11, 12, or 15 that makes me suddenly a dangerous lunatic? Have I changed? Either you trust me, or you don't.

We all agree that a gun with ten bullets should never be allowed into the hands of a criminal or a lunatic. They can't be trusted with even one. If I can be trusted with one, or ten, why can't I be trusted with more?

 

[suemarkp]

I think the closest answer is similar to what RX-178 said. Most will think us looney when we say we want the 30rd mags "for militia use" (subduing the rioting hoards, invaders, etc). They may not think it so paranoid if we say we want the same types of weapons the police have. After all, if we are armed when a "problem" occurs, we're fulfilling that role until the police show up.

I think it eliminates a lot of the come backs the anti gun people have if you say you want to be armed like the police instead of the military, as the police don't have nukes, bazookas, etc. Would probably make a passable criteria for a "militia weapon test" -- if it is in common use by the cops, the people should have it too.

Most police agencies have high capacity magazines in their semi auto pistols. If you're allowing high capacity pistols, you might as well allow high capacity rifles. Even police agencies generally have 30rd magazines in their rifles when they have to pull them out. I would think the largest police agencies even have full auto weapons. If they can justify a need for them, so can I.

 

[kalel33]

most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate.

Do you think that a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum is no adequate for defense? My revolver is my primary defense and my Sig 9mm is secondary. Even when I had just the revolver I never felt inadequate for defense. If I miss six times inside of a home then I've got problems.

 

[JohnBiltz]

They keep using the term compromise

To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance and tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships "compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement that no party is happy with, this is because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little.[1]

So what do we get? I'd call them out on this every single time they use the word. You can't let them define the language.

 

[MachIVshooter]

In other words I'm more interested in the proper results than I am in making sure that our arguments are 'authentic.'

^^^^^^^
This.

We have to play their game if we want a fighting chance. This isn't to suggest lying like they do, but, as Justin said, the reasons to own them as we see it don't justify the perceived "cost to society" of these mags to people who have been fed a constant stream of bovine excrement from the media about the issue.

So, to reiterate what Justin said, the best way to argue for >10 round mags is to argue against the effectiveness of banning them. If banning something won't fix the problem, then why ban it? If you can bring people over to this way of thinking, then we're still in the fight.

As an aside, when people ask me why I want them, I simply reply "because it's fun". You might be surprised how many people are rather OK with this answer, especially once you've pointed out (using the ineffectiveness of the '94-'04 ban, and how little time is lost reloading with lower capacity mags) that banning them does not reduce gun crime even one little bit.

 

[Pete D.]

Fun

I like the "fun" response.

So, to reiterate what Justin said, the best way to argue for >10 round mags is to argue against the effectiveness of banning them. If banning something won't fix the problem, then why ban it? If you can bring people over to this way of thinking, then we're still in the fight.

That may be the best way so far....kind of a default, though the idea that Society benefits when the laws of the Constitution that stabilize it are honored, not changed to no or to ill effect, is an additional line of persuasion.
Pete

 

[soccergod04]

How about the fact that if you take away a small part of one right written into the Constitution then it's only a matter of time before a small part of others begin to be taken away.

Example: Today: "High capacity" magazines.
Tomorrow: No more free expression, but feel free to assemble all you want
Next week: Unusual punishment is back in.
Next year: Imminent domain is out the window and all your property is seized.

Extreme? Yes. Probable? No. Not even likely. But would you put it completely out of the realm of possibility? Nope.

 

[KTXdm9]

Justin, thanks for posting. This is exactly the type of discussion we should be having.

While I agree that the "because I can" argument might fall on deaf ears, I think some of the others can be used effectively, it's just a matter relating it to your audience. For example, one could compare erosion of the 2A to the 1st by saying that commenting on message boards could "incite riots" as a way to restrict the first. After all, the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen the internet, could they?

I also think the self defense argument could be used, almost as an emotion for emotion argument. We've all ready horrible stories of home invasions by multiple intruders.

Finally, I think the use of mags in "sport" settings does offer a legitimate counter to the "only used for killing" crowd. One could counter with, "I use 30 round mags in competition, Do I look like a mass murderer?"

 

[Rom828]

Most people get the idea of self defense and would like the option of getting a gun to protect themselves. I ask them if they would like to defend their families with a gun that holds ten rounds or less? or one that would hold more. Then I tell them about a good friend of mine that had three thugs come into his business and start shooting at him. He was badly wounded, one thug killed, one down, one fled and he had two rounds left in his eighteen round mag when it was over. I only have this friend today because he wasn't restricted to magazine capacity (true story).

 

[trook]

I still have not heard a valid argument for HAVING high capacity magazines. I realize that most people we deal with do not use logic. In those cases, there is almost nothing you can do to convince them to think otherwise. However, for those on the fence, I give you the 2 following examples:

1. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It's about we the people, you and me, our children and grandchildren, to be able to defend against tyranny (think about what Hitler did to the Jews).

If, God forbid, we actually have to use the 2nd amendment one of these days for its originally intended purpose, I want us and our children to have a fighting chance to succeed and live. I don't want us to be limited to a 10 round magazine when the guy trying to kill us is armed with multiple fully automatic machine guns...

2. If multiple criminals (which is not unusual) break into my home or try to rob or kill me and my family, there is a good chance they will be armed with guns. They may even have high capacity magazines, because they are criminals and criminals don't care about the law.

I would like to have a fair and reasonable chance to defend my life and the life of my wife and children. I can’t do that with a 10 round magazine.

 

[xwingband]

The OP is generally correct... the arguments that should take place though is one of need. Let them try to define need.

Heres' how I would and should work almost all the time:

1) If they have children ask them if they'd call the cops to respond if another shooter was entering their child's school. It will probably be a yes.

If they don't have a kid, simply substitute themselves and work place.

2) Shots are being fired. How many shots would you like the cop to fire in response? The answer will probably be along the lines of as many as it takes.

In which case, you tell them the cop only had 10 because of regulations and it wasn't enough. They "need" more which is why they do carry more.

ISSUES:

In response to #1 they could say they won't, which is highly unlikely.

For #2 they could say that the cops should be able to hit within 10 shots. You'll have to tell them instances where this wasn't the case. It might be a good chance to tell them that guns don't immediately kill, though you wouldn't want to be in front of one. They could also say LEO should be special... in which case, based on the tone you may have to drop it because it will devolve into a lot of other points because they don't trust YOU.

Another case where you will have to drop it is if they say no one should have guns including cops. You won't win them. They think guns are the problem.