That is an excellent point!
In general, our point should be that limiting magazine capacity negatively impacts the defensive use of guns far more than it would rare mass shooters, and I can't think of a better example.
One should never assume that criminals operate independently. There are no shortage of examples of criminals working in teams.
Criminal teams are typical for the most dangerous, brazen armed robberies, such as home invasions.
Now, consider the effectiveness of bullets. The rule I was taught is, "They don't work." Never count on one bullet to stop an assailant. When one is faced with multiple assailants, it stands to reason that the less you need to reload the better one is.
The way we should frame this is that it (potentially) takes more rounds to stop a violent criminal than it does to eventually kill people, say during a mass murder spree. The victim of an attempted crime must stop the aggressive assailants before harm is done, while a mass murderer typically has much more time and safety to execute his helpless and cowering victims. In addition, mass murderers tend to wear "tactical" clothing (as the news media has repeatedly emphasized) that has numerous pockets for holding magazines, and they don't need to conceal their weapons, while law-abiding citizens are far more limited in what they can carry due to issues of concealment or what they're wearing while at home (especially at night while asleep).
I will add, it's not a 'need' issue. The .gov has no business regulating a citizen's needs. History shows it's a path to genocide and/or incarceration.
Absolutely, a government determining what it is that the people "need" is part of the Communist manifesto. Historically, it has always been that the people need very little indeed: minimal sustenance, no voice with which to speak out, no freedom. That's right, we in fact NEED very little to continue working as slaves for the all-powerful state, and obviously this is an extremely dangerous path to follow. The best current example is Communist North Korea, whose people evidently NEED even less than the Soviet population did to survive and serve their masters.
To put it in terms that people can better understand, most people don't NEED to own an automobile--they could take public transportation instead. Automobile accidents kill far more people, including children, than guns do in this country, so what if the US government decided that for safety as well as environmental reasons, Americans are no longer permitted to own a car (even one) unless they can justify a dire NEED for one or they are a government official? Biden and Obama have stated repeatedly in recent weeks that they have to do something, even if it only saves one life, and banning automobiles would save a lot more lives than that. If this sounds crazy, then so does banning certain weapons just because of their cosmetic features or limiting magazine capacity, neither of which is going to negatively impact criminal activity whatsoever.
One major issue we face is how much people trust the government when somebody like Obama (a masterful deceiver, I guess--doesn't fool me, though) is president. They don't understand human nature and history the way the Founders and Framers did, or many of us do, for that matter. We need to educate, when possible, in a more fundamental way, showing how each country that fell to Communism did so on the good intentions of charismatic leaders. People need to be reminded that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"--that's a warning about missing the big picture, and it doesn't get any bigger than infringing on our RKBA as a check against government tyranny, using Communist principles ("to each according to his
need") no less, and all for NO benefit to our safety. While we're at it, we should remind people that the gridlock we often see in the federal government was designed into it deliberately so that it couldn't do much more than the basics, limiting the government's power and the corruption that always goes with power. If the gridlock seems particularly severe at the moment, it is because we've apparently reached the point where those who favor a powerful national government (which is patently un-American) are taking bold, open steps to achieve their goals.
"Need" is a dangerous word. In the wrong hands, it can do untold damage.
We have had people telling us for decades that we don't need this kind of gun, or that kind of magazine or certain types of ammo.
What we are... what I am really being told in those circumstances is what other people need, not what I need. They don't know what I need as they have never asked me.....I suspect that they don't care much either.
Additionally, in a free country it is OK to merely want and pursue, rather than to need. What we individually want is none of the government's business as long as we individually do not violate the rights of others. Laws should be created to discourage the latter through punishment, not prevent the entire population from obtaining what they want just because of the illegal actions of a handful of deranged people--especially when it would hurt many more people than it would help, as in the case of gun control in general and magazine capacity limits in particular.
Y'know...second amendment issues aside....the Constitution guarantees me "the pursuit of happiness".
Actually, this phrase only appears in the Declaration of Independence, although it does reflect the true American political philosophy. What the Constitution does is limit the power of government over our natural or, if you prefer, God-given rights, and not just for rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights (which is technically part of the Constitution). Effectively, it protects liberty from the tyranny that inevitably would result from having any government (a necessary evil) otherwise, which in turn protects our right to pursue happiness. That said, unfortunately these documents are only ideas on paper--it takes actual people to defend our own freedom in accordance with the Constitution, and wisely the Founders and Framers realized that doing so would take an armed populace (militia), which is why the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly and specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights as the 2nd Amendment.
So to prove our point about magazine capacity we are going to use a photo of a gun using a 5 shot revolver?
Good point--we'll need to use a different photo.
And the key point is that you are the only person qualified to say that you do, not the government nor the people with whom you are debating. Note that all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are
individual rights (confirmed for the 2nd Amendment by the Heller case)--there is a reason for this, and it is called liberty.
