I would disagree that a fear of guns, or even a fear of becoming a victim in a spree killing, is rational. Mass killings are vanishingly rare; you may as well be afraid of lightning strikes or moose attacks. Significantly altering your behavior based on such a tiny threat is the definition of irrationality.
(snip)
Since self defense is one of the reasons that I own guns, it makes sense that I should own the guns (and magazines) that would give me an advantage in a fight. After all, why should I play fair if some criminal is trying to rob or kill me?
-C
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Chris,
You make a very good point that cuts both ways.
The fear of being part of a killing spree, home-invasion, etc, is what seems to fuel 80% of the discussion on most gun forums.
People will perseverate to absurd lengths about slightly differences in tactical effectiveness of gadgets and how a slightly slower holster is "suicide". Heck, people will argue that if you have an external safety, you must not care about your safety and your family's and you'll certainly get killed.
Fear is a big motivator and a very personal thing. Most of the firearms enthusiasts I knew at my old club in the midwest were more likely to die of a heart attack than of violence. But that's certainly not where their focus was.
If you read Fernando ("FerFAL") Aguirre's notes on the Argentinian economic collapse, you'll see he makes some thought-provoking points about the (greater) tactical value of high-capacity magazines. It certainly made me think about my preference for thinner guns (in my situation, concealment seems to provide more perceived utility).
For most Americans right now, it probably is a marginal value if they are already carrying a modern autoloader. Already, we've heard reasonable people argue both sides of this.
But, going back to the anti-gun side, it's not an irrational fear. You simply consider it (shooting spree) a lower-probability threat, or assign less emotional import to it.
On the other hand, anti-gunners seem to think that a home-invasion you can successfully negate/shoot your way out of is unlikely and irrational and we (presumably) don't. Or they think it's unlikely you can defuse a gas station robbery by being armed ("more likely you'll get killed" is the common argument). Or they think that gun laws will prevent such robberies, but that's another thread.
I'm not just trying to split hairs; I'm making a point about the subjective aspect of what drives people. E.g. People get worried about car-jacking but not road accidents. E.g. Anthrax is scary but unlikely vs. heart disease which is very common and mostly preventable.
David
PS. Anyone have a take this from a legal standpoint? Ie. Is there some additional way that the existing laws are written that makes magazine capacity a particular "key" focus for anti-gun legislation (beyond all the specific justifications given)?