And why do those situations require more of anything? Why do you need 30 rounds when you go into a hostage situation? Are they going in alone? because there is a good chance that when I need a gun, I will be alone.
This is a matter of frequency, not severity.
So you think that criminals will be obeying these laws so civilians can rest assured that they will be evenly matched with their 10 round magazines when facing criminals?
I don’t think criminals will abide by these laws, do you?
I was responding to YogSothoth who said this:
The standard capacity magazine for a Glock 17 in any state that hasn’t restricted magazine size is 17. This falsifies this claim. The nonsense occurs when someone claims large = standard. That cannot be and it’s not some external claim. It’s right here in this thread.
You think he was attempting to confuse you by actually defining his terms.
No - but there are other readers. Yog has stated he’d like to ban all guns so I’m pretty sure I’m not going to persuade him anytime soon. There are other readers, the teeming millions, who may still be on the fence.
He is clearly defining his terms for the other readers, as well. He thinks anything over 10 is large. It’s extraordinarily difficult to argue that he is doing anything to confuse you or anyone on the fence when he is very clearly setting forth his position.
When you have a relative term like “large,” isn’t it preferable when someone clearly defines what they mean?
Again, that’s not my point. Criminals seem to abide by the “no automatic weapons” law, don’t they?
But that’s not my point either. My point is, once again - “Police should have access to better weaponry (however you define it) than citizens” If law enforcement required automatic weapons to fight crime, then they should have automatic weapons, regardless of whether or not it is legal for a citizen to own it.
I don’t care if criminals abide by it or not, it doesn’t matter. Is it legal for a citizen to obtain a 30 round magazine? Then law enforcement should be able to obtain 45 round magazines.
Pass whatever laws the Constitution will allow, and then law enforcement should be exempt from those laws, that is my stance. No matter how many scenarios, what-ifs, gotchas, you can come up with, that will continue to be my stance.
I don’t fight crime for my job, so i would give more access to the people who do.
Then we’re back to the point where “standard” is being defined as “large” and that makes no sense. I don’t think a magazine can be “standard capacity” and “large capacity” simultaneously. Do you think that is possible?
A magazine can have a standard capacity that is large. It can be the Suburban of magazines.
Large compared to what? Large is relative, remember? If all cars were suburbans, they would not be considered large.
This seems to be an argument just for the sake of arguing. The standard size of things can be large. The standard sized Aircraft Carrier is pretty fucking large. The standard sized whale is pretty large.
If someone says “Man, that’s a large whale!” would you argue and say “Not really, its just the standard size whale, it’s not large at all”
Of course they can be, if your ideal/envisioned/hoped for car is smaller.
And casual conversation, remember?
I’m willing to argue this point if you are. If not, then not. I think it’s a meaningful point but if others don’t then I suggest they use more accurate terminology.
If someone said to you, Thailand’s aircraft carrier is pretty fucking large - do you think it would be accurate to say based on that image, well, it’s not actually large as far as aircraft carriers go. If someone said that a Hector’s Beaked Whale (top right quadrant) is a large whale - I think it would be fair to argue that in fact, it’s not that large of a whale with respect to other whales.
The reason this is worth arguing is that if people can be convinced that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are “large”, then the next obvious argument is why people would need or want “large” capacity magazines. It’s a less subtle way of defining them as “evil”. Why would anyone want or need “evil” magazines?
As I said, I prefer a higher level of precision in language. And when it comes to proposals that could make the things that I legally own cause me to be a felon, then it’s no longer a casual conversation. This is GD after all - with the thread about legislation. A certain level of accuracy is called for.
The other day, someone made me a felon in GD. That stung. So I put him on the terror watch list in MPSIMS.
We should totally ban rocket propelled phase plasma exploders then. Anyone with one should either turn them in or destroy them. I define rocket propelled phase plasma exploders as “cereal”.
I can’t tell if I would consider those things large by just looking at a small picture. I’d have to see it in person. Just like I’ve see some “Large” houses, even though they may be smaller than other houses. People have their own opinions on what they consider large. Maybe some people think 10 rounds is a large magazine, maybe some think 30 rounds is large. Maybe they mean “large” as in “a lot” instead of dimensional measurements. If 7-11 only had one cup size, and it was the 128oz super big gulp, I’d say that was a large ass drink, despite the fact that it would be the standard size cup in 7-11, and despite the fact there might be other sizes that are larger.
That’s just crazy talk! Criminals would be the only ones with rocket propelled phase plasma exploders then, or they would just switch to water propelled phase plasma exploders, you gonna ban them too??
How do you feel about the synthetic drugs I’ve made in my lab that are not currently illegal? I sure hope the government doesn’t make them illegal and confiscate them without compensating me for the street value.
While the right to own drugs is not enshrined in the Constitution, the right not to be deprived of property is. Just wondering if you are similarly against confiscating recently outlawed drugs without compensation.
Some of these doesn’t support your assertion, though some do.
John Hendricks did stop a psycho. You’re right there.
Joel Myrick did not. He went to get his gun after the shooting stopped and the gunman fled. You can presume that the guy was going to shoot up another school which makes no sense since he thought he was being bullied, but I’m not going to do that. At most, Myrick stopped Woodham from fleeing.
Jeanne Assam was not an example of a random citizen armed with a gun, she was a former cop and volunteer security guard who was licensed to carry a firearm.
With regards to the Appalachian School of Law shooting, there are disputed reports. The one by County Sheriff’s Deputy Tracy Bridges said that he and another student, Mikael Gross, a police office from a nearby town, pulled their weapons on the gunman and forced him to submit.
Another account by Ted Bensen, a Marine veteran and former police office said the gunman had already dropped his weapon and raised his arms like he was mocking people, and that’s when he was physically tackled. There were differing accounts as well as to whether the gunman already finished shooting or still had cartridges left.
Nick Meli shouldn’t even be here, as he didn’t even fire a shot or confront the shooter, only updated the police on the gunman’s whereabouts. Though he had a gun and drew it, its not at all an example of an armed citizen, again one who worked in security, stopping a madman on a rampage.
As for Byron Wilson, you neglected to mention that not only did Wilson come out on the losing end, the rampage was ultimately stopped by SWAT officers trained to do such a thing.
Of these 5 examples, only 1 was truly a scenario where a gunman was stopped by a random armed citizen. 1 was simply capturing the guy after the shooting stopped, 2 were stopped by trained personnel who were licensed and trained to use their firearms, and the last guy simply became an extra victim.
I stand by my statement that it hasn’t really happened. You may have wanted to conflate that with “it never happens”, which is wrong, and exactly why I worded it the way I did. My personal belief is that I’m fine with law enforcement having access to weapons. At least I can be sure they are trained and licensed and their arms are registered. That’s the minimum I want for everyone. From these examples, you should trust them more than your average citizen to be armed
How do you put these phrases in the same post? You are like a case study in cognitive dissonance.
ETA: maybe you could expand on your thought that “it hasn’t really happened” is materially different from “it never happens”. What did you intend by “it hasn’t really happened”?
Right. I guess I disagree with Bone here. If your baseline of comparison is a revolver with six shots, or a pump shotgun with five shots, then saying that a Glock 19 with a fifteen round magazine is “large capacity” is perfectly okay. (Although, I absolutely disagree with banning it).
Yes, it is standard for a Glock 19 and therefore not “large” as compared to itself, but there we get into semantics that might make the term meaningless. What if I say that a 6’7" NBA player is a tall man. Would Bone contend that it is not true because he is actually a standard height when compared to most NBA players?
I mean, nothing is large or small when compared with itself.
ETA: What if I made a gun called the Super Ultravires SKS with an absurd looking 1000 round magazine. Is that not large capacity, or is it merely standard capacity because all of my guns have the same sized magazine?
