Debate help: Legitimate reason for a private citizen to own high capacity magazines

Status
Not open for further replies.
If he brings up VT/Cho, point out that Cho didn't have many magazines, and had to reload the magazines themselves, which means he had the time to individually put cartridges into them. Mag limits certainly didn't have any real limitting impact on the death/injury count.
 
A few years back, there was a drug-related shooting outside Bristol
TN/VA: the assassins used single-shot shotguns.

A home invader killed a woman in one break-in with a knife, and
killed a couple in another break-in with a baseball bat.

The real crime problem is not assault guns, it's assault people.
 
I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily concealed 10-15 round semi-automatic pistol.

The illegal alien vermin in New Jersey who raped a child and shot three people to death found an excellent need for his weapon.

Of course the liberal fascist of New Jersey found it logical to deprive the victims of their lives.
 
I always liked my x wife was a cop and she knew she could not always be there for me. Even though she was light a handgun is easier to carry around than she was. The cops were not around when I was robbed at gun point. They were not aroun when kids were shooting off the .45 into the air on the tennis courts as my dog and I walked by. When was the last time a cop saved anyone. Sure they come write a report. I would rather be there to tell them in person. Rather than have them looking at my body. Patrick
 
Well, the foremost reason is that society shouldn't be afraid of free men.

That said, two very practical reasons:

1) Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting twice, and
2) Sometimes bad guys run in packs greater than five.
 
geekwitha.45, excellent post #13...

Mag limits certainly didn't have any real limitting impact on the death/injury count.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not taking debate-master-flash's side, because it is our side to have as many rds as we want, but I don't totally agree with this statement...If he had 2, 33 rd mags for each gun and he was killing at point-blank range, you don't think the kill count would have been higher?
 
Phrasing the proposition being debated is key in any debate. His proposition is that you have a burden to demonstrate why you should be permitted to own a 17 or whatever round magazine. You should then challenge him to debate the proposition that the government does have a compelling reason to restrict the second amendment in such a way. In other words, ask him to show where the 2nd amendment draws the line on magazine size? 12 rounds too many? How about 10? 6? 2? zero? This is much like the minimun wage debate. I always ask, why raise the minimum wage to only $7? Why not $10? Why not $20? In both cases it is arbitrary and you want to force them to acknowledge that.
 
"Give me ONE good reason for anyone in this country shold be allowed to own a Ferrari or any other high performance car that can hit 100+. It is illegal to drive ANYWHERE in this counrty above 80 (west TX). There just is no "reasonable" arguement for owning such a vehicle unless you are planning to break the law."
Click to expand...

... or any car with a fuel tank larger than 5 gallons, unless it's intended as a get-away vehicle that can run hundreds of miles with the police in chase without stopping.
 
Why?

ky-man: Sir; arguments tend to be one sided when neither of you do not have knowledge for just cause.
Placed into this argument: Simply put. WHY NOT

I work, take care of my family, pay taxes, go to church, spent time and energy for CC, pay the state for the privilege. I vote, I'm involved with political pretenses. I keep myself abreast locally, and nationally. By and large my detractor haven't a clue, and I'll be damned if I'm going to waste MY TIME
with ignorance.

Why am I, to be denied, my hobby, work, enjoyment.
Who/whom are to decide that my life's fulfillment is based against your ?

Folks: any and all arguments are what they are. Being drawn into such a stupid circumstance, your adversary has already won. He/she/it leads and we fall into the trap. ie cause I can, cause 20 bad guys are waiting behind a flower, because I can. Hog wash!

Place me into this position. My argument is 'WHY NOT'

I do not have to explain myself, my actions, my beliefs. I was/am decent enough to follow the law, whether or not you agree, and to be in your company, probably a waste of my time.

In grade-school "who died and made you god" a crummy assed argument

I can see how many of you become defensive over such provocation.

Maintain your dignity. Walk away, let the adversary think they have done something.
Stay and reinforce these/those arguments.

Craig
 
This has probably already been covered...

Were I in a debate with this individual, my argument would be "As the son of a police officer, you should know that your father probably carries a semi-automatic handgun chambered for 9mmx19, .40 $&W, or .357 SIG that carries somewhere between 12 and 17 rounds of ammunition. As a police officer, your father is probably better trained to use that handgun under the stress of someone trying to harm him than your average 26 year old soccer mom. But since that equipment is necessary for your father to come out alive in the event he were attacked by a crazed rapist, wouldn't we also conclude that it would be at least as necessary for a soccer mom, with her inferior training and experience, to survive the same attack?"

That is my rational argument for owning the same type of weapons and magazines as the police.
 
Reductio ad absurdum

As the son of an electrical engineer, and having been exposed to electricity my whole life, I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily transported 3000 watt generator. This torture device was designed for one simple purpose, torturing humans with electrical shocks. The same is true for more powerful household generators modeled after industrial generators. These also have only one purpose, torturing prisoners with electrical shocks. These "torture (sic) devices" have very reliable outputs and accept fuel tanks capable of holding over 240 fluid ounces. I challenge anyone to debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own such a torture device.
 
I think geek analyzed the argument perfectly; but from a personal, off-the-cuff perspective:

First of all, self-defense isn't a sporting issue. When I am trying to defend my life and that of my family from immediate death or serious injury, I am not seeking to be "sporting" about it. I am seeking every single advantage I can bring to my side. If that means I can have a semi-automatic rifle with a 60rd magazine and the other guy only gets a two-shot derringer, then bad day to be the other guy.

Second, there are millions of large capacity magazines out there. Many more magazines than there are weapons to fire them and they are fairly easy to make as well. Stopping the law-abiding from using these magazines doesn't really limit the ability of criminals to access them - so why would you handicap only the people who obey the law?

Third, contrary to Hollywood mythology, gunfights can be very dynamic and difficult encounters. I did a force-on-force class with Simunitions and Glocks. I watched two IDPA Master-class shooters go at it at distances of no more than 10yds in a shoot house. Both had to change mags and one guy fired all 20 rounds of his Sims ammo to no effect. I've yet to see anybody come away from any force-on-force training thinking "I need fewer rounds in my firearm."

At the end of the day, most of these arguments are based on a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Most people are ignorant of what happens during a gunfight (and thankfully so). They don't understand how fast-moving and dynamic it can be. Most people also highly overrate their own abilities with firearms based on too much testosterone and the ability to deliver at least one good shot out of five on a nice clearly marked paper target. Finally, people don't understand the effects of stress when it is your life on the line. If somebody really cares enough about the subject to come out and run a few scenarios, it is very easy to demonstrate why large capacity magazines are an important edge in any lethal force confrontation - the kind I would like my family to have.
 
"Because I can." would not be considered an acceptable response.
Click to expand...
I don't see why that is a caveat in his argument, because it sure seems to me that he is saying "because you can't."

I'm sure he doesn't realize how much stress relief is involved in sport shooting, let him know how much fun it is to pop holes in paper one right after the other 15 times. I'm talking mega-grin time.
 
Not seeing

"As the son of a police officer, and having been exposed to guns my whole life, I simply do not see . . . ."

Hmmm . . . . I bet he knows that when his father detains someone in the line of duty, and the detainee protests that he simply did not know the law, the father says something along the lines of, "IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE."

"Not seeing," too, is no excuse.
 
Sometimes people do things which make it necessary to kill them in order to make them stop doing those thing... like shooting, stabbing or beating you to death. Sometimes the people who do those things travel in packs. They will arm themselves in whatever manner their inclinations and resources allow. It's inherently foolish to put myself at a disadvantage when it's necessary to shoot them.
 
Before accepting his statements about what other people need he should provide evidence that he is the natural son of that law enforcement officer and not adoptive or the chance product of a sporting relationship. It is a matter of his credentials for determining what other people need. Unless he produces that evidence he should be treated as an ordinary, run of the mill illegitimate child with no right to assert another person's background as qualifications for his own opinions about a matter with which he has no experience and less knowlege.
 
Criminals laws outlaw certain criminal activities. Regulating what law abiding citizens can own doesn't do anything to limit those criminal activities.

Is it more or less moral to kill or wound 10 people than to kill or wound 30? A capacity limit is arbitrary and stupid. (as said above)
 
i am human, in a situation where i am at risk of loosing my life, or the life of loved ones i will use whatever means to make sure i get out of it alive, if that includes a 30 round magazine then so be it.
 
Lets see,

Last I checked the US follows the fundamentals of English Common Law, not Napoleonic. The basic principle difference is

English Common Law

Unless something is explicity illegal it is inherently legal, I do not have to justify or ask permission for anything that is legal.

Napoleonic

Unless something is explicity legal it is inherently illegal, I have to justify or ask permission for anything that is not "permitted".

Comparisons

1. Why should anyone except the police have a car that can go faster than the current speed limit.

2. Why should anyone other than those who explicity need them have an SUV or four wheel drive, are you trying to escape over rough country

3. Why should anyone have high speed internet, it's only only used to access pornography or download illegal music

4. Why does anyone need more than one televison set, you can only use one at a time

5. Why does anyone other than a business perosn on the road need a laptop, are you trying to hide your files.

6. If you are not going to vote every time why should you keep the mandate, Just in case......?

7. It is a fact that for those in the age group of 1 to 30 years, the leading cause of death is due to being involved in a car accident. There can be no justification for these people to have a driving licence.

8. The only reason for an MP3 player is to play music that has been almost certainly illegally dowloaded.

9. Prohibition and restriction always works and never has any untowards side effects *Cough, alcohol, Cough, organised crime, Cough Kennedy family money*.....:cool:

10. etc etc etc

The list goes on:evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Skribs
  • Locked
My philosophy for debating antis
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
ArthurDent
A
A
  • Locked
If SCOTUS rules that Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines are illegal, what happens?
Replies
17
Views
1K
jmr40
jmr40
Old Hobo
  • Locked
Banning semi-autos and magazines via taxation
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
hso
hso
G
  • Locked
What is with all of this hype with High Capacity Magazines?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
ctdonath
C
A
What is the chance of SCOTUS accepting an AWB / High Capacity Magazine case this year?
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
LiveLife
LiveLife
Back
Top