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

[gearhead]

Depending on the audience I will sometimes fight emotion with emotion. It's the thermonuclear approach but it's valid to use the analogy of those who wish to make abortion illegal. It's not a sacrifice to advocate surrendering a right that they choose to not exercise, a right that they personally may find offensive for you to exercise. I ask them how they feel when Pro-Life advocates lobby for "common sense" restrictions on abortion. Surely you couldn't be against a ban on partial-birth abortions, after all they kill living babies and they don't infringe on your general right to have an abortion.

 

[Justin]

Justing already posted plenty of them....and said they make us look like morons....

What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that the arguments that I posted first do, in fact, make you look like a moron to someone who isn't already a part of the gun culture. If you have proof that those sorts of arguments actually change the minds of people who are currently in favor of stricter gun control, please post it.

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

No. I said it. And I stand behind it, because most of the go-to arguments that get tossed around here for defending >10 round magazines do actually make us look all manner of stupid to fence-sitters.

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.

Did you even read and/or consider the first post in this thread where I lay out exactly why those arguments are bound to fail?

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.

Yes, yes you do, if you actually want to keep yet another wave of idiotic and useless gun control laws from being put into effect.

 

[Justin]

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.

This is a thread to strategize about fighting the good fight for the Second Amendment, not sitting around and quibbling about what gun is the best for personal defense. If you want to spout off about brand or model loyalty, there's an entire wonderland of that waiting for you here.

 

[Justin]

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.

Thank Zeus, someone who actually gets it.

 

[Justin]

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.

Depending on who you're debating, they'll point out that there's already precedent for infringing on rights if it keeps society safe. Typically they'll use the hoary old example of falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.

Arguing for an absolute right is not going to work if you're arguing with people who have an understanding of history.

Of course, you can also point out that with ~20,000 gun laws already on the books that The Second Amendment is probably the most heavily regulated of all.

 

[Justin]

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.

Absolutely agree. If you find yourself in circumstances with people who are somewhat sympathetic to our cause, you can certainly try those arguments, and you might even get traction.

However, the arguments I posted are the ones that seem to work well with people who are openly hostile to gun ownership. Think the comment section of the NPR, CNN, or MSNBC blogs. In other words, the Mos Eisley's of the online world.

 

[jcwit]

While I'm certainly pro gun and support our rights to own and arm ourselves the statement "I want to" leaves me wondering.

There's lots of things I want to do, but many are not even attempted because of morals or laws among other reasons.

 

[Justin]

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:

Please go back and re-read the first post. To people who are fence-sitters or who lean anti, there are no arguments in favor of these magazines that really stand out as a silver bullet for converting them.

That's why I think it puts you in a much stronger position to argue against a ban because it won't work, and makes for terrible policy because of that.

 

[Justin]

Depending on the audience I will sometimes fight emotion with emotion.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using emotion in an argument. Hell, if you're a parent and you didn't get an emotional gut-punch upon finding out about Sandy Hook, there's probably something wrong with you.

Furthermore, while I don't think we should lead with emotion when debating this issue, there's certainly nothing wrong with using some emotion as a condiment on your argument sandwich, if that makes any sense.

One of the accusations often leveled against gun-owners is that we don't care about other people, especially victims of these shootings.

Wayne LaPierre's press conference was a perfect example of this. While I don't think we should be forced into showing acts of contrition, we should most assuredly show that we're sad and upset about what happened at Sandy Hook.

A bit of empathy goes a long way to getting people to consider what you have to say.

 

[coloradokevin]

Ugh. Magazine bans are ridiculously ineffective:

1) The Virginia Tech shooter reloaded, oh, something like 18 times. Used only handguns, not "assault rifles". Killed adults. It was a more deadly shooting than Newtown. I guess magazine capacity and gun type still aren't the primary concern when shooting innocent and unarmed citizens? Hmm... strange how the media always focuses on that idea, even though any fool could figure out that it just doesn't matter much when you're the only one with a gun shooting up a school.

2) High-capacity magazines are said to be dangerous to the safety of our citizens, and crime stats show that 10-11,000 people are murdered with guns every year in this country. Granted, VERY few of those people were murdered in a situation where high capacity magazines OR "assault weapons" played a role (probably less than a 10th of a percent). Interestingly, something like 17,000 people are murdered in other ways each year, nearly 11,000 people die in speeding related car crashes, and DUI accidents kill far more than that. Fine, take my magazines if you must... But, out of further concern for our safety I want to see a governor on everyone's car so it can't exceed 65 mph, I want alcohol to require a $200 tax stamp, and I want to create a set of laws that will punish people for murdering each other (oh, wait...). Ridiculous? Yeah, exactly.

 

[Owen]

Excellent information. However, I think what you are saying is that there are no real reason for us to own 30 round capacity rifle mags or other hicap mags, just that enforcement of a ban is essentially impossible.

There are plenty of good reason to own large magazines. Those reasons just aren't good arguments for turning fence-sitters. A good reason and a good argument aren't the same thing.

 

[9MMare]

As an aside....one thing that scares me, if this law is passed in my state (10 round mags...which they are considering)....if I am pulled over for a traffic violation....will the cop then be legally justified in asking to see my firearm to check that magazine capacity?

Here in WA St, if you have a CPL, it comes up when they run your license plate. I have been stopped 4 times since having a CPL (2 for a headlight out, 2 nites in a row, twice for tabs). They never asked me about gun and I didnt disclose...dont have to in WA St.

Anytime we are stopped by cops and asked for ID....traffic violation or other....will they have the legal right to ask to check our firearms?

 

[wacki]

The ugly truth of history is what I find the most compelling argument for civilian ownership of military style weapons.

Guns are meant to kill people. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

The 2nd amendment is about killing government officials. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

Quoting Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Ask a hoplophobe what the ratio is of all the homicide deaths vs. government sanctioned genocide. According to Eugene Volokh it's something like 45:1. Your government is far more likely to kill you than a psycho. People have amazingly short memories considering Mao, Stalin and Hitler weren't that long ago. Heck Syria was during Bill Clinton's reign. Yet people forget all of this. And let's not forget the mass rapings and other disgusting deeds of torture that do not get counted. The world is an ugly place. To pretend otherwise is to deceive and endanger the public.

When hoplophobes say you can't fight the government ask them how well the Russian's did against Afghanistan. Or how well the communists peasants in northern Vietnam did against the full might of the US Army & Airforce.

And then point out that the initial war isn't the most difficult part. As Iraq has shown us, the occupation is far more deadly than the war. So lets say we won Vietnam, we would of never of been able to occupy the north.

People also forget that dictators are often just one financial crisis away. And we are at the beginning of a long series of financial crisis. The financial cliff, social security, the Trillions on the Treasury bank account, the National debt... we have a ton to worry about.

Do I think the U.S. will get a dictator? No. I don't. My gut says not within my lifetime.

Unfortunately history seems to indicate otherwise but I believe the internet is the most effective tool against the Goebbels like propaganda that made the dictators of the past so successful. A free and unregulated internet is the best defense for freedom.

People may call all of this extreme, but the world is an extreme place. Our stability is the exception in history and not the norm. If the world wasn't so extreme, then our beloved Constitution wouldn't be that big of a deal. And the very pro-gun founding fathers that likened a politicians blood to fertilizer would be a mere footnote in history.


.

 

[trook]

"Anytime we are stopped by cops and asked for ID....traffic violation or other....will they have the legal right to ask to check our firearms?'

It depends on the law in your state. But, however, most likely not without sufficient probable cause.

 

[Cosmoline]

Think of it this way. In a mass shooting of unarmed people, esp. children, the killer has little to worry about. He's in no huge rush as it will take some time for police to arrive. The victims pose virtually no threat. So he can take his time. He can reload, he can aim, he can sip some coffee and chat with the voices in his head. For him, a high cap is really pretty pointless.

Now if we change that scenario to someone facing several armed home invaders, the difference between ten rounds and twenty can be life or death. Ten rounds go by REALLY fast when you're being shot at, and the time it takes to swap mags is more than enough to get shot down.

If they're banned for civilians, why not for secret service as well? Why not for the military? Surely those are honest men, and they don't need more than ten rounds.

 

[Tinker]

Unfortunately history seems to indicate otherwise but I believe the internet is the most effective tool against the Goebbels like propaganda that made the dictators of the past so successful. A free and unregulated internet is the best defense for freedom.

I agree. The problem is that those who control what John Q. Public watches in the standard media always use whatever it takes to push an agenda. In this case it is the Sandy Hook mass murders to push more gun control. If it takes sending the reporter with the highest Q rating (a "likeability" rating) to wallow in the blood on the floor while making an on the scene report, then so be it.

We are always in defense mode, having to wipe off the mud and blood that has wrongly been shovelled on top of us. Guilt by (media generated) association.

You want to see where we are headed as a nation? Do yourself a favor and watch a movie called "Idiocracy". It is hilarious and sadly prophetic at the same time.

 

[W.E.G.]

The attack always comes as a one-liner.

If you engage on that sort of thing, you are making a mistake.

If the attacker makes a swipe at you, and you really feel like that attacker is worthy of your attention and time, you must insist that they sit down and talk about it one-on-one.

At that point, the one-liner crumbles, as the attacker struggle to justify the irrational and ignorant foundation of their attack.

DO NOT engage the enemy with one liners.

 

[Bubba613]

Yes, yes you do, if you actually want to keep yet another wave of idiotic and useless gun control laws from being put into effect.

Not really. Your arguments will cut no ice with anyone except people who are probably on our side anyway. "No one needs a 30 round clip" is the only soundbite out there. And sadly it is true. No one really does need one. That's why arguments are ineffective. As far as enforcement, it doesn't matter. "If it saves one life it will be worthwhile." Is the response.
For enforcement, how about turn your mags in at the police station and claim your $15 gift certificate. Anyone found in possession of one after that is committing a felony and will be barred from owning guns period. That will certainly get many many mags "off the street." I dont argue it will do a darn thing for crime, except maybe increase it. Effectiveness on crime isn't even an issue. It's all about "doing something for the children."

 

[AntiSpin]

One fairly frequent excuse that’s being thrown up for the onset of mass shootings in recent years is “the sudden availability of military-style, semi-automatic, high-capacity firearms.”

Large-capacity semi-automatic rifles have been available in large numbers to the US civilian market for more than 60 years. There has been no “sudden” or “recent” availability of such rifles, so the reason(s) for these mass murders must be found elsewhere.

Here are a few examples:

1940s: Caliber .30 M1 Carbine: First issued to US military troops in 1942. Nearly seven million produced for military, huge numbers released into the civilian market after WWII, and dozens of companies produced them for the civilian market as well. Used both 15- and 30-round detachable box magazines.

1940s: Caliber .30 M1 Rifle (Garand): First issued to US troops in 1936. Nearly seven million produced for military. Internal magazine fed by eight-round clips. Huge numbers have been, and are being released to the public through the Civilian Marksmanship Program beginning in the 1940s, and tens of thousands have been sold back into the US civilian market from nations which received them from the US government for wartime use. (Not really a "high-capacity" weapon, but it sure reloads quickly.)

1974: Caliber .30 M14 select-fire Rifle: First issued to US military troops in 1959, still in use with some units. Fed by 20-round detachable box magazine. Because of select-fire capability cannot be released into the civilian market. Many tens of thousands of semi-auto versions (called the “M1A”) were, and are being manufactured for the US civilian market, by several different companies, since 1974.

1973: Ruger Mini-14: Ruger semi-auto rifle based on the M14 design, but utilizing either the .223, the 6.89, the 7.62X39 (.30 cal) or the .222 caliber round. First offered to the civilian market in 1973. Choice of 5, 10, 20 or 30-round detachable box magazines. The Mini-14 and its variants are immensely popular, and it is certainly safe to say that, at the least, many tens of thousands have been sold.

The answer to why there have been so many mass shootings in recent years will have to be searched out somewhere other than “sudden availability.”

Anyone with other examples to add to the above list should feel welcome to add them to this discussion

 

[MBaneACP]

I agree with Justin on this. Its an argument I've faced many times, and I typically approach it in the ways outlined here:

1) It won't work...the "installed base" of normal capacity magazines turns the whole idea into a joke.
2) The capacity of the magazine never made a difference to a spree killer (Virginia Tech)...in fact, almost all guns are designed to be readily reloaded while the user is under fire (ALL guns, at their core, are "military-derived"). Watch a cowboy shooter with a double-barreled shotgun if you doubt that.
3) On the purely political front, if we accept that the government has a right to define how many bullets our legal guns can hold, what is our argument when that number goes from "10" to "6" to "0?"

The argument used always depends on with whom we are arguing. Our job over the next 60 days is the same as that of a defense attorney in a criminal trial. It's unlikely we can sway the whole of mainstream culture (which has generally been moving in our direction for years), exactly the situation of the defense attorney who knows he or she can't persuade all 12 members of the jury to his/her cause. What that attorney has to do is create a "reasonable doubt" in the minds some members of the jury...if the gloves doesn't fit, you must acquit, to borrow a phrase.

We have to create that "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a portion of the public — and our legislators, both national and local — that the gun ban "solutions" being suggested by our enemies are essentially boilerplate, with no real effectiveness or even chance of effectiveness in the real world.

It's going to be as bad as it has ever been...

Michael B

 

[Lucifer_Sam]

Yeah, I usually use arguments similar to those in the OP. That it essentially would do no good.

One thing I sometimes mention is that the sandy hook guy locked children in a room and murdered them, and that there was no need for any "specialized" weapon at all. He could have done it with a .22 revolver, or even a knife, despite the media acting like Sandy hook couldn't have happened without a "high powered assault rifle". Also, that he had been shooting since he was 9 years old, so he was well trained, so most any weapon would have served--that the deadliness of that tragedy, in reality, had little to do with the weapons used.

I sometimes also try to mention that capacity bans are the pet project of anti gun rights advocates, that they've been trying to pass for years, and that they're taking advantage of the murders to try to pass ineffective legislation. Legislation that they know to be ineffective, and they are using political capital and pushing a derisive issue instead of actually coming up with a solution that might be beneficial to preventing something like this. The fact that antis are shamelessly trying to use Sandy Hook pisses some people off, as well it should.

If appropriate, one other thing I throw out is that semi autos are simply modern firearms, and that there is nothing inherently insidious about them. Kind of like blaming the violence of the old west on the fact that they had revolvers with a high capacity (at the time) 6 shot cylinder.

 

[berettaprofessor]

I'd have faith in Justin's reasoning except I'm not arguing in a debate club. I'm trying to convince already irrational people of the fallacy of their logic. Sorry Justin, ain't gonna work on Ms. Feinstein.

 

[raubvogel]

The answer to why there have been so many mass shootings in recent years will have to be searched out somewhere other than “sudden availability.”

Don't forget the BAR and the Thompson submachine gun.

 

[kalel33]

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.

If you can't do that with a 10 round magazine then you need to spend more time at the range. I feel more than comfortable with either a .357 revolver(6 rounds) or a 12 gauge pump(again 6). I do have 3 15 round magazines for my 9mm but I bought them for one reason, not having to load up all the time at the range.

You can argue all you want for not banning higher capacity magazines, but not being able to defend your household is a very very weak argument. It would be different if you were protecting land but a house doesn't "need" it. I definitely don't want anyone taking mine, but even at 11 year study on NY police gun shootings show the average amount of shots were 3.6 per incident.

It's better to be a good shot and have sound prepatory tactics than relying on high capacity magazines.

 

[Obsidian]

My Counter Argument.

There is a few things I've noticed that you have to take in account with these arguments.
The first is pick your targets for lack of better words(And not to make a pun)
There are people that genuinely know in their hearts and minds that no one should own a fire arm. Or that it should just be the good old side by side shotgun to pop some ducks or pheasants. These people you will never reach realistically. Focus on those "middle" that maybe just spout things or at least are willing to listen. Hone your message to hit these so called low information individuals.

The argument or explanation rather I have works this way.
First off, explain what a right really is. Don't as much argue but explain yourself and your basic knowledge to someone. And be patient.

The 2nd is the only part of the Constitution that seems to be considered a group right by the current media and judicial explanation. However we are winning this one, if only slightly in the courts.
The thing of it is all the rights are collective or all encompassing a nation as a whole in the way that anyone that is a citizen has those rights automatically, they are not granted by anyone. (We all generally understand this)
But what does this mean in our context?
I use the 5th to explain this, and by this I mean the Miranda rights.
You have the right to remain silent. (But anything you say can and will be used against you)
What this means is you do not have to say anything.
You have this right UNTIL YOU GIVE IT UP.
Its not a stretch to say the other parts of the Constitution are the same.
You have the right of free speech until you give it up.
(As far as the old FIRE argument, well you have the ability to say that, but there is also the being accountable for what you say or do aspect.)
The rights apply to everyone. Every time. Even those that choose not to own a fire arm.
You could also explain by the fact that military service is to protect the Constitution, even if those that you protect decry military service men and women. You would not expect them to protect a specific group or class of people. You protect even those you do not agree with.
I've extrapolated form there the aspect that just because someone's free speech may offend me I don't call for them to be silenced.
Same as firearms ownership.
And sometimes I have gotten the "Well firearms can make someone kill, free speech wont"
That one is countered pretty well by "Well there are manuals on how to kill someone, create bombs, fireworks and explosives out there but they still are protected by free speech. The tool is not the cause in those situations it is then the individual, why is it different now?"