And just to take those three;
Self defense encounters are, AIUI, almost universally resolved with less rounds fired than are in ‘wheel’ guns, less than six.
Hunting does not typically allow large capacity magazines.
Target practice does not require large capacity magazines, unless you target practice is of the ‘spray and pray’ variety.
I’ve said this before but we really need a dedicated gun control thread. It comes up in so many other threads only for a moderator to say stop talking about it. Where can we talk about it then?
You’re right. Fortunately, there are countless commercial entities willing to make and sell firearms and explosives to people. I don’t know if I’m missing the point you’re making in relation to what I said about something not being available for purchase naturally vs the state making it virtually impossible for something to be made and purchased.
I meant safe for the user or at least safer than explosives. I also listed other things besides killing people. What I said about explosives compared to firearms isn’t necessarily a hill I want to die on or argue about extensively. I think people should be able to own both.
Personal defence. Which I thought was the main reason most people think we have the 2A.
Well it also proves my point. I know society needs explosives, but most of us think it absurd if a college kid could just go buy a bag of grenades at a local store. But there are those who maintain it is absolutely essential that they be free to buy something not much different to what soldiers used in Vietnam.
And yes, professionals did the work. For me, I’d like getting and keeping any firearm to be at least as time-consuming, difficult and expensive as getting a driving license here in the UK. And getting something more powerful to be like going for heavy goods licenses.
(apologies to the OP for continued hijack but I am responding to the points put to me)
One more “35,000 foot view” comment, lest we forget:
“‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”
–The Onion
By which you mean, killing people.
A fair number of gun deaths in the US are caused by armed citizens overreacting and using the gun they have handy, or being shot by someone else as they reach for that gun. Some of those aren’t classified as “murder”. Some are legally classified as “self defense”. But most of those deaths wouldn’t have happened (nor would the shooter have been killed) if it weren’t for our proliferation of hand guns.
I don’t actually think it’s possible for the US to do much about that, because we already have so many guns out there that removing them is not practical. But that’s not a “safe, practical” use of a gun.
Right but I feel like we’re going in circles here with the terminology.
In the US, a vast proportion of the population, probably the majority, think it is acceptable for people to possess a deadly weapon for the use of personal protection; at home, if not everywhere.
Few people however, would advocate for unfettered access to grenades because most can see that this would lead to a vastly less safe society, where crowds of people could be blown to bits on a whim.
However, crowds of people can be killed with an AR-15, which are trivially available. This is the hypocrisy that I am outlining. It’s likely that we have “boiling frogged” our way to this point, where firearms were considered a useful tool for hunting and (last resort) home defence whereas explosives were clearly weapons of war or demolition. But guns got much more powerful, and drawing the line around all firearms is absurd.
And an AR-15 is a fine tool for hunting deer, killing the wolf that is attacking your sheep, and other safe and productive activities. 
And perfectly fine with a 5 round magazine!
This.
If one were to argue that a large magazine is needed to hunt, therefore AR-15s need to be trivial to purchase, why can’t I say the same about grenades? I’m so terrible with a rifle, the only way I can hunt deer is by blasting them with rocket-propelled grenades, therefore the right for anyone to buy one must not be infringed.
Then they would need to check their state hunting regulations since there are limits on the number of rounds you can have in your rifle/pistol and legally hunt in some states for certain game.
And if your AR is chambered in .223 then you can’t hunt deer with it in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Washington, Virginia, and West Virginia.
This isn’t the most common argument as to why “large” magazines should be available.
Being able to buy something and being able to use it for hunting are two separate matters. There are rules as to what weapons you can use depending on where you hunt like there are for what you can hunt, what time of year and so on. Even in the most pro gun/hunting states I doubt they allow explosives for hunting. That would be far more killing for sport rather than killing to cull or to eat.
I don’t support hunting but this is presupposing these hunting regulations aren’t infringements. I would want to know the exact motivation behind such regulations though.
Hunting in the tradition befitting a gentleman. This is a limitation that starts in the notion of hunting as a sport and not just a way to put meat in the larder. The notion that ‘If you can’t take the game with a single then you really have no business hunting said game’.
(E.G. No more than 3 shells in a shotgun while sport hunting waterfowl because the tradition is double barreled arms. The hunting tradition that became sporting clays which still limits it to 2.)
I would ask why a tradition should be made a law if not following it doesn’t actually cause a problem. I don’t see any substantial or moral difference between hunting with five rounds and hunting with 30.
Because it’s what hunters, generally, wanted when the laws were passed.
Ya know, hunters that have historically been as concerned with conservation as with hunting. No more species no more hunting species.
The arguments that I’d use against large magazines for hunting are
- It might encourage spray and pray; firing a burst of rounds at a flock of birds say, leaving multiple maimed animals to die slowly. I don’t know what animal cruelty laws the US has, if any, but this is the reasoning for banning various kinds of traps here in the UK.
- As mentioned: as a society we have to weigh the desires of hunters with weapons that are effective for spree killings. If someone saying “I find it useful for hunting” is justification for being under the 2A umbrella, and that it therefore should be easy to obtain, then all weapons will be easy to obtain. Including some of the absurd examples I’ve given like explosives.
That’s a practical explanation. That doesn’t answer why a certain law should continue existing.
I think I understand what you’re saying. In response I’d say whether or not someone should be allowed to own a certain weapon or a certain size magazine shouldn’t be dependent on its use for hunting. Most people who own AR-15s and other semi automatic rifles don’t use them for hunting and hunting isn’t what the Founding Fathers had in mind specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t say “keep and bear arms for hunting” and I haven’t really seen anything from their other writings that shows they were particularly concerned with hunting.