How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron.
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
- Status
flatlander937
Member
As for a reason FOR 30rd magazines?
I feel they are more vital to your survival/end outcome in a DEFENSIVE situation... and make little to no difference in an ATTACK on innocent unarmed people.
Examples:
Guy using 30rd magazines for mass killing a school against kids: It won't matter what his reload time is(it really only adds a couple seconds total)... there is nobody to shoot back. The fact is that most mass killings occur in gun free zones and/or in places that are highly likely to have unarmed and defenseless people. For one thing, if 30rd mags are "outlawed" the guy will still find them if he really wants them. There are tons out there. No getting around that.
Guy defending his home from multiple armed burglars: Say 4 people break in with 2-4 of them armed with pistols or whatever with intent to kill and steal stuff... not having to reload a 30rd magazine very well could be the difference between life and death of the home owner. If he's limited to 10 rounds, then it is quite likely that he may need all 10 shots, some may miss or he may have to shoot 2-3x for one or two of the instruders just to stop the attack, let alone if the homeowner happens to miss which is quite likely in a stressful situation.
That is the best argument that makes sense in my mind to justify a "need."
Granted, I feel a need doesn't have to be given, it's in the Constitution.
I feel they are more vital to your survival/end outcome in a DEFENSIVE situation... and make little to no difference in an ATTACK on innocent unarmed people.
Examples:
Guy using 30rd magazines for mass killing a school against kids: It won't matter what his reload time is(it really only adds a couple seconds total)... there is nobody to shoot back. The fact is that most mass killings occur in gun free zones and/or in places that are highly likely to have unarmed and defenseless people. For one thing, if 30rd mags are "outlawed" the guy will still find them if he really wants them. There are tons out there. No getting around that.
Guy defending his home from multiple armed burglars: Say 4 people break in with 2-4 of them armed with pistols or whatever with intent to kill and steal stuff... not having to reload a 30rd magazine very well could be the difference between life and death of the home owner. If he's limited to 10 rounds, then it is quite likely that he may need all 10 shots, some may miss or he may have to shoot 2-3x for one or two of the instruders just to stop the attack, let alone if the homeowner happens to miss which is quite likely in a stressful situation.
That is the best argument that makes sense in my mind to justify a "need."
Granted, I feel a need doesn't have to be given, it's in the Constitution.
JustinJ
Member
It would be interesting to run some FOF drills in a mock mass shooting environment with 30 round and then 10 round mags. To be honest if i were in a place in which a mass shooter attacked i'd certainly prefer my chances if he were using 10 rounders as opposed to 30 rounders. Those extra few seconds certainly could allow for more people to escape, to bum rush the shooter or make it easier to neutralize him with a concealed weapon. Realistically though unless they are going to confiscate millions of existing mags high cap mags will always be readily available.
While i think it purely delusional to believe a tyrant backed by the us military is going to be overthrown with a bunch of AR15's i do believe that there are a number of plausible "collapse of society" scenarios in which such guns and their magazines would be completely practical.
While i think it purely delusional to believe a tyrant backed by the us military is going to be overthrown with a bunch of AR15's i do believe that there are a number of plausible "collapse of society" scenarios in which such guns and their magazines would be completely practical.
84B20
Member
Understood.
Thank you for taking your time to write this up! I'm glad you started with what not to say because it is definitly responses that we react with emotionally just like the pro gun baners! Most ecellent!
Now if only someone like you could get on cnn or the like to back us up in these gun demonizing rants.... Disarm them with logic!!!
Now if only someone like you could get on cnn or the like to back us up in these gun demonizing rants.... Disarm them with logic!!!
Dean Weingarten
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2012
- Messages
- 423
Use deterrent effect, and greater effect of restricting first amendment
Two things I have not seen yet, specifically. One is that with a 30 round magazine, you can use a number of rounds to deter mass attack, as the Koreatown shop owners did during the Rodney King riots. Mention that a primary use of firearms is to deter rather than to kill and firing rounds in front of a mob does a good job of deterring.
Second, Use a bit of verbal judo. Say that outlawing magazines violates the Second Amendment for at best (for the sake of arguement) a very little good. But why stop there? We could do a lot more to prevent mass school shootings by banning the media from covering them. As it is, the coverage of these events is like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded school because of the copycat effect. If they say lets do both, then we have a potential "poison pill" to put into a proposed bill.
Two things I have not seen yet, specifically. One is that with a 30 round magazine, you can use a number of rounds to deter mass attack, as the Koreatown shop owners did during the Rodney King riots. Mention that a primary use of firearms is to deter rather than to kill and firing rounds in front of a mob does a good job of deterring.
Second, Use a bit of verbal judo. Say that outlawing magazines violates the Second Amendment for at best (for the sake of arguement) a very little good. But why stop there? We could do a lot more to prevent mass school shootings by banning the media from covering them. As it is, the coverage of these events is like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded school because of the copycat effect. If they say lets do both, then we have a potential "poison pill" to put into a proposed bill.
Last edited:
blaisenguns
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2009
- Messages
- 453
Dude, I have a 44 gallon tank on my truck and I need every bit of that go juice!
Has anyone here seen the report from Virginia tech that said it would not have made a difference if the guy was armed with revolvers with speed loaders? I am paraphrasing of course but there you have a reputable document, plus the bureau of justice report on the 94 ban that said AT BEST it reduced violent crimes by .6%, and the report can’t say that for certain due to other factors. My argument is that it is a CIVIL RIGHT, that I can have a 30rd mag.
Also, it was mentioned that it takes a couple extra seconds for one of these guys to reload, BUT they almost always have more than one gun. Hypothetically if a mass shooter had an AR 15 with a dozen 10 rd mags, and you rush him while he is reloading, why would he not pull another gun and shoot you? Also the mindset is different, the emotionless killer will not be deterred (like the terminator) and it doesn’t matter if he has 10rd or 30 rd mags. The guy defending his house from four gangbangers, is scared and tired, and will almost certainly fumble a reload (unless he is highly trained and experienced in combat).
"Home invaders come in packs of 3-10. In the dark, when I'm groggy and not knowing how many people are breaking in, I want to be able to reach for a gun that I don't have to worry about reloading if there are multiple people breaking in. Plus which more noise as I fire will encourage suspects to run away, sparing their lives as well as my own. A big scary looking gun with a huge magazine frightens thieves into surrender, thus saving lives. If I had a less intimidating firearm, they might be tempted to attack me, thus causing me to take their lives." That's my argument. Then I'd suggest they look up the home invasion caught on tape in Arizona where 4 guys rush a house and are driven away by the home owner firing multiple times from his "hi capacity" firearm.
blaisenguns
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2009
- Messages
- 453
Can you link to this?
shouting in theaters and such
It is not against the law to shout fire in a theater, it is just that your right to free speech does not protect you from any damages caused by the exercise of your free speech.
Actually completely convertible to firearms as there is only a problem when used in a dangerous or criminal manner and we are already personally liable for any damages caused, and our Second Amendment right does not protect us from any damages caused by the exercise of the Right.
Exactly like the First Amendment and Free Speech.
Sometimes it helps to point out that the Supreme Court has decided twice in Castle Rock v Gonzales and in Warren v D.C. that the police have no implicit or explicit duty to protect you personally, only society as a whole.
In the Castle Rock case, even with an Order of Protection, the Police have no duty to you as an individual.
With that the case, the best choice for home defense would be what the police use, standard capacity magazines for the weapon of choice be that a 1911, a Glock or an AR.
one possible point to use on the no shouting fire in a theater argument is simple and true.
It is not against the law to shout fire in a theater, it is just that your right to free speech does not protect you from any damages caused by the exercise of your free speech.
Actually completely convertible to firearms as there is only a problem when used in a dangerous or criminal manner and we are already personally liable for any damages caused, and our Second Amendment right does not protect us from any damages caused by the exercise of the Right.
Exactly like the First Amendment and Free Speech.
Sometimes it helps to point out that the Supreme Court has decided twice in Castle Rock v Gonzales and in Warren v D.C. that the police have no implicit or explicit duty to protect you personally, only society as a whole.
In the Castle Rock case, even with an Order of Protection, the Police have no duty to you as an individual.
With that the case, the best choice for home defense would be what the police use, standard capacity magazines for the weapon of choice be that a 1911, a Glock or an AR.
Last edited:
here's the link to the home invasion.
http://www.kvoa.com/search/?sterm=home+invasion+caught+on+tape&sbutton=
And by "standard capacity" you do mean 30 rds for ar15s as police use? Because various police dep'ts have FA M4s, just FYI.
http://www.kvoa.com/search/?sterm=home+invasion+caught+on+tape&sbutton=
And by "standard capacity" you do mean 30 rds for ar15s as police use? Because various police dep'ts have FA M4s, just FYI.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Hmmmm...
I'm kind of late to this conversation, but I'd like to throw in my two cents worth.
In my experience, the best way to counter people on any subject is first to know the subject well yourself. And then lead the other person by drawing information out from them first...information which will support your viewpoint which you will state later. Feel free to take them down the odd tangent once in a while, too. But make it a VALID tangent.
Going head-to-head with many of these people is, in most cases, less than useless. They have their own set of facts and data and they'll stand safely behind them to the end. But getting them to open up by drawing information out from them produces chinks in their armor.
Don't get me wrong...most will still stand by their own point of view. But you have a much better chance in defending your own point in this fashion.
We all know numbers play an important role in this, for example. So you might go with that. Here is an example:
YOU: So, you want to outlaw magazines with greater than 10 round capacities?
HIM: Yeah. If nobody had high capacity magazines, then these kinds of things wouldn't happen.
YOU: Huh. How many gun owners are there in the country?
HIM: There are about 75 million people who own guns in the United States.
YOU: Wow! That's a lot of people! They all own high capacity magazines for their guns?
HIM: Well, most of them probably do. Obviously shotguns don't have high capacity magazines.
YOU: How many murders are commited each year by guns with high capacity magazines?
HIM: Well, over 30,000 gun related deaths occur every year.
YOU: But how many of them were murders commited by criminals with high capacity magazines?
HIM: Well, about 10,000 or so were murders. But most of the others were suicide.
YOU: Hmmm...I think we can safely say that high capacity magazines are not a factor in suicides, don't you?
HIM: Well, yeah, I suppose so.
YOU: So, out of those 10,000 murders, how many were commited by known criminals? Criminals who could not legally have owned a gun in the first place?
HIM: Probably most of them.
YOU: OK, let's go with "most of them". Let's assume that there were 7,000 separate criminals involved in the killing of those 10,000 people. Sounds like a lot!
HIM: Yeah!
YOU: So, let me get this straight: 7,000 known criminals, who already aren't allowed by law to own guns in the first place, killed an average of about 1.5 people each.
HIM: Well...
YOU: And a 10 round magazine limit changes this how?
HIM: I'm not sure what you mean...
YOU: Well, let me ask you another question...you said that there were 75 MILLION gun owners in the country. These are LEGAL gun owners...law abiding citizens. These people don't seem to factor into the actions of these 7,000 criminals, who each took an average of 1.5 lives each. How is making it illegal for THEM to get "high capacity" magazines stopping these criminals from taking 1.5 lives each?
HIM: But, but, but...
This is just an example. The object is to get THEM to volunteer enough information so that YOU can turn the tables on them LOGICALLY and USING THEIR OWN INFORMATION. And, much like this site, take the high road when dealing with them. Do NOT engage in character attacks or belittle them. Treat them with good manners and keep it on the level of a debate, not an argument.
And choose your battles. No one can take up every challenge that comes his way and realistically expect to win them all, so keep your "wins" high by choosing wisely.
This is the only hope you have of reaching even the few who will listen to you.
Oddly enough, I've won the respect of many an opponent this way. Not that I changed their minds, necessarily, but respect for the way they were treated and in keeping the dialog from devolving into an argument. Sometimes and "agree to disagree" will be the best you can hope for.
I'm kind of late to this conversation, but I'd like to throw in my two cents worth.
In my experience, the best way to counter people on any subject is first to know the subject well yourself. And then lead the other person by drawing information out from them first...information which will support your viewpoint which you will state later. Feel free to take them down the odd tangent once in a while, too. But make it a VALID tangent.
Going head-to-head with many of these people is, in most cases, less than useless. They have their own set of facts and data and they'll stand safely behind them to the end. But getting them to open up by drawing information out from them produces chinks in their armor.
Don't get me wrong...most will still stand by their own point of view. But you have a much better chance in defending your own point in this fashion.
We all know numbers play an important role in this, for example. So you might go with that. Here is an example:
YOU: So, you want to outlaw magazines with greater than 10 round capacities?
HIM: Yeah. If nobody had high capacity magazines, then these kinds of things wouldn't happen.
YOU: Huh. How many gun owners are there in the country?
HIM: There are about 75 million people who own guns in the United States.
YOU: Wow! That's a lot of people! They all own high capacity magazines for their guns?
HIM: Well, most of them probably do. Obviously shotguns don't have high capacity magazines.
YOU: How many murders are commited each year by guns with high capacity magazines?
HIM: Well, over 30,000 gun related deaths occur every year.
YOU: But how many of them were murders commited by criminals with high capacity magazines?
HIM: Well, about 10,000 or so were murders. But most of the others were suicide.
YOU: Hmmm...I think we can safely say that high capacity magazines are not a factor in suicides, don't you?
HIM: Well, yeah, I suppose so.
YOU: So, out of those 10,000 murders, how many were commited by known criminals? Criminals who could not legally have owned a gun in the first place?
HIM: Probably most of them.
YOU: OK, let's go with "most of them". Let's assume that there were 7,000 separate criminals involved in the killing of those 10,000 people. Sounds like a lot!
HIM: Yeah!
YOU: So, let me get this straight: 7,000 known criminals, who already aren't allowed by law to own guns in the first place, killed an average of about 1.5 people each.
HIM: Well...
YOU: And a 10 round magazine limit changes this how?
HIM: I'm not sure what you mean...
YOU: Well, let me ask you another question...you said that there were 75 MILLION gun owners in the country. These are LEGAL gun owners...law abiding citizens. These people don't seem to factor into the actions of these 7,000 criminals, who each took an average of 1.5 lives each. How is making it illegal for THEM to get "high capacity" magazines stopping these criminals from taking 1.5 lives each?
HIM: But, but, but...
This is just an example. The object is to get THEM to volunteer enough information so that YOU can turn the tables on them LOGICALLY and USING THEIR OWN INFORMATION. And, much like this site, take the high road when dealing with them. Do NOT engage in character attacks or belittle them. Treat them with good manners and keep it on the level of a debate, not an argument.
And choose your battles. No one can take up every challenge that comes his way and realistically expect to win them all, so keep your "wins" high by choosing wisely.
This is the only hope you have of reaching even the few who will listen to you.
Oddly enough, I've won the respect of many an opponent this way. Not that I changed their minds, necessarily, but respect for the way they were treated and in keeping the dialog from devolving into an argument. Sometimes and "agree to disagree" will be the best you can hope for.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Why not ban 30 Rounders?
Because Lanza apparently reloaded after every dozen rounds or so to make sure he didn't run out when it didn't suit him. All reducing his capacity would do is possibly change his tactics. What did pirates of old do with their single-shot flintlocks? Carry more of them; a brace of pistols. Conflicting reports indicate this is exactly what Lanza did anyway (multiple pistols, taped-together mags, frequent changes).
And in case someone wants to claim "we're not passing this law just because of Conneticut" tell them that "assault weapons" make up little other crime, and therefore they have no justification for targeting them outside the emotional appeal of these high-profile shootings. Tell them they've just lied to you through their teeth; these measures have everything to do with milking that shooting for all it's worth.
Humans were plenty capable of harming eachother in the past, it makes no sense to claim that retro-grading our technology will solve violent crime. At least by making all men equal, Sam Colt ensured that the biggest, baddest thug wasn't always the guy in charge, and that the smart ones had to learn to pick their battles. We no longer have to worry about Conan "becoming a king by his own hand" anymore
TCB
Because Lanza apparently reloaded after every dozen rounds or so to make sure he didn't run out when it didn't suit him. All reducing his capacity would do is possibly change his tactics. What did pirates of old do with their single-shot flintlocks? Carry more of them; a brace of pistols. Conflicting reports indicate this is exactly what Lanza did anyway (multiple pistols, taped-together mags, frequent changes).
And in case someone wants to claim "we're not passing this law just because of Conneticut" tell them that "assault weapons" make up little other crime, and therefore they have no justification for targeting them outside the emotional appeal of these high-profile shootings. Tell them they've just lied to you through their teeth; these measures have everything to do with milking that shooting for all it's worth.
Humans were plenty capable of harming eachother in the past, it makes no sense to claim that retro-grading our technology will solve violent crime. At least by making all men equal, Sam Colt ensured that the biggest, baddest thug wasn't always the guy in charge, and that the smart ones had to learn to pick their battles. We no longer have to worry about Conan "becoming a king by his own hand" anymore
TCB
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
