Anti Simulation: magazine limits

[nsf003]

This is a simulation done by me pretending to be an anti gunner. Good practice to refute my anti sim arguments and shut me the hell up. And now, on with the arguement.

I hear all the time from you gun people about how you need 75 round magazines and 30 round magazines. What kind of army are you going up against? If you need a 75 round magazine, you probably asked for the touble and you deserve what you get. If you would practice reloading instead of whining, 5 or 10 round mags would be enough. According to your statistics, people rarely have to shoot when they pull their gun and the average amount of shots fired is 3. Again, why do you NEED those magazines. And don't give me that it is your right either, the Constitution can be interpreted many ways.



Some commie mommie, from California, or New Jersey, or DC, or...

 

[Blackhawk]

I don't NEED those magazines. I WANT them.

Any other questions?

 

[cordex]

You don't NEED to own a car that can go above the speed limit, now do you? Or even to own a car that can make the speed limit, eh? No law abiding citizen really has to go above 55 mph.

Come to think of it, why does anyone really NEED to go over 30mph? You're far safer going 30 than 55, so that'd probably be a better idea.

Unless NEED is not the deciding factor in America ...

 

[SquirrelNuts]

Check out the Robert Waters book. It has several good stories about this subject. Like the man that came across a shoot-out with three bank robbers. He unloaded three hi-caps on them and still needed more in that situation.

Will we all come across a multi bank robber shoot-out? No, but some will. Who knows which ones will? No one, so everyone needs hi-caps.

I tend to agree that if you need more than 10 rounds to handle a situation, in general, you are probably already screwed. But then there are other situations. Also, how accurate do you think your shooting will be when you are under such stress? There are accounts of cops and citizens that unload X number of rounds on someone and never hit them...even at short distances.

-SquirrelNuts

 

[geekWithA.45]

I hope I never need a bandolier of full cap mags.

I hope I never NEED a gun ever.

If that should fail,

I hope my shooting doesn't suck so bad I have to reload.


I hope there's only 1, not 2 or 3 or 6 of them that need to be shot.


But you don't always get what ya hope for, do ya?

 

[Sven]

The argument is - on a more fundamental level - about FREEDOM.

 

[Frohickey]

Maybe we should have only 1 pound fire extinguishers instead of 10 pound or 15 pound fire extinguishers.

If you need more to put out a really big fire, you should practice grabbing another 1 pound fire extinguisher.

 

[Preacherman]

Frohickey, that's EXCELLENT! I'd never heard that particular argument/analogy before, but it fits perfectly. With your permission, I'm gonna steal that one!

 

[Don Gwinn]

The Founding Fathers intended that American civilians be equipped and trained well enough to take on the U.S. Army, even though there wasn't one in their day. They considered a standing army, any standing army, the "bane of liberty."

Therefore, I want those mags because the standing army has them. We'll discuss mortars, machine guns and land mines another time, after you've had time for this to sink in.

 

[Dan Shapiro]

Am I anymore dangerous with one 100-round drum magazine than with 10 10-round magazines? The number of rounds that I can carry in a single magazine is not going to control my likelihood of committing a crime.

Don’t give me the “you don’t need argument.†Let me decide the amount of protection my family deserves.

 

[El Tejon]

I don't NEED to buy the books I want; I don't NEED to attend the house of worship I so choose; I don't NEED to petition my government; I don't NEED to be protected for unreasonable search and seizure; I don't NEED due process; I don't NEED an attorney; I don't NEED a jury; I don't NEED to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment; I don't NEED any rights that the first 8 amendments don't cover. I don't NEED anything.

The Bill of Rights is not the Bill of Needs.

 

[atk]

It's not about what I need

It's not a question of what I need.

It's a question about law in a civilized society. In such a society, laws are only made to so that the government can react to dangers against its citizenry. What is the danger of having one 60 round magazine (as opposed to ten - ten round magazines)?

It's a question about how many shots the bad guys need before they stop. Whenever a person is shot, they react differently: some drop dead on the first shot, some survive multiple hits that nobody would expect. Some people have survived shotgun blasts from point blank, and continued to attack. What's wrong with being able to stop an attacker? Or multiple attackers? Or many more than the average number of attackers?

It's a question about avoiding trouble, and having the appropriate equipment to handle an emergency if it becomes necessary. Should I leave my seatbelt unbuckled, to make it less likely for someone to hit my car? Should I leave my doors unlocked to make it less likely someone breaks into my house? Should I not purchase a fire extinguisher to make it less likely a fire breaks out in my house?

It's a question about taking responsibilty for protecting yourself and your loved ones. The police are a reactionary force; they must be informed of a problem in order to react to it. A criminal will avoid performing his/her activities in front of police. In fact, the police aren't even responsible for protecting you - as decided by the Supreme Court. You, and whoever you are with, are alone to handle any problem as it develops. How does forcing me to waste time reloading make me, the people around me, and society in general any safer?

 

[4v50 Gary]

The notion of "needing" as to a right is incongruous with that right. No one needs a jet fighter, yet Mig-15s, Mig-17s are in private hands (not mine though ). The more we have to justify a "need," the easier it becomes for a bureaucrat to disagree and deprive us. It happened in England when one old Tommy was told he didn't need his No 1 Mk IV (T) rifle that he had carried during the war and bought (by luck) afterwards. Tommy had to permanently plug the barrel.

 

[David Scott]

Think of it this way: A magazine capaicty limit is a pointless law. It does absolutely no good, because (as our simulated anti points out), a little practice allows one to reload rapidly anyway.

So why do we have a magazine limit law? Because self-serving politicians wanted to show tha they were "tough on crime". Instead of doing something about the root causes of crime, like the many educational and economic unfairnesses that lead to joblessness and hopelessness, they copped out. They passed a law with only one real effect -- to provide them with a check mark on their resumes. Mr. Anti, you have been bullshat by the very officials who claim to be on your side. They have bought your vote with a wooden nickel.

If you want to support someone who's really "tough on crime", support those who advocate the citizen's right to self-defense.

 

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, that's EXCELLENT! I'd never heard that particular argument/analogy before, but it fits perfectly. With your permission, I'm gonna steal that one!

Steal away.