Since most gun using criminals acquire their guns criminally, and since there are millions of high cap magazines already out there, I submit that the criminal who wants a gun with a high cap magazine, will seek and buy one like that. Neither he nor the guy he buys it from, will even know or care that there is a ban in place.
Before I respond to this, I would like you to state that you understand that exactly two people in almost 80 years have been killed by legally owned automatic weapons. I can provide a cite if you would like, but it has already been done before.
I think irrationality pervades the pro-gun side in a way it doesn’t with the pro-gun control side. You cannot debate someone who thinks that everyone in the debate has to somehow ensure that 10 or 30 years down the line, the gun legislation of today won’t turn into something more. The rational point of view would be to support good legislation now, put in place safeguards that would stop bad ones, and fight bad ones later if and when they pop up. Going by that, all pro gun people should support things like licensing, training, registration, and background checks. These are good things to support, admitted even by the pro gun side in this debate AND polls show, by the majority of even NRA members. Plus, any side that mandates Congress protect an industry from lawsuits and at the same time says the CDC cannot even do studies on gun violence owns the majority of the irrationality.
Remove the protection that the gun manufacturers get, allow any government entity to do studies on gun violence, and support the very basics of licensing and registration and THEN we can talk about “both sides do it equally”. And of course, you would ask “why should gun people do that?” They won’t because the argument is already so skewed for their side, they’ve pretty much won and don’t want to give up any power, but then don’t pretend that the debate is anything but insane on one side of the equation.
I cannot fathom the life you have lived so far to reach that conclusion. The majority of Americans do not see the government as evil, and even less of them would when you point out exactly how much they benefit from a strong government. I’m reminded of those crazy town hall tea baggers who, during the health care debate, shouted that government is bad and evil but then on the same placard scrawled “don’t take my medicaid”. The job of the police is to protect us. You may not like the way they do it, they may enforce laws that you would readily disagree and ignore, but they are there to uphold the system of laws that the majority of your fellow citizens are in favor of for the benefit of us all. I fear that this debate will go nowhere because of our fundamental differences in the way we view LEOs.
I think you have an interesting point here. You make the case that its more about numbers, that citizens need to be armed because they face the majority of the crime and deserve the weapons to protect themselves with. But I would contend that you miss one important thing. Even if the majority of crimes happen to non-LEOs, its simply because there are more of them. Statistically, they are much less likely to encounter a situation in which they need firearms, let alone the high capacity, fully automatic ones that police needs. National violence rates per 100000 people are at about 6.1 in 2007. The rate of not just violence but deaths for police are more than twice as much, at 16.8 in 2006. So even if a regular citizen experiences more crime total, it is because they severely outnumber LEOs. The life of a policeman is much more dangerous, and for that reason and the responsibility of stopping crime that I mentioned above, they need to be more heavily armed.
I’ll try to look for that, I’m curious too. However, considering that guns are legal with little restrictions almost everywhere, I would pose to you a question as well: if there are so many guns, why are there so much crime still? Why don’t we hear everyday about how some armed citizen in public stopped a crime? It would only be fair to compare those statistics to the police, because if it is difficult to stop a crime anyways with a gun, it would be unfair to hold only the police to standards that not even an armed citizen can prevent
I assume by “current proposal” you mean the AWB. This is what I see as the old murder problem. The argument can be reworked to say that making murder legal should be ok, since only bad people murder wrongly, and good people will only kill someone who deserves it. Criminals are no different from you and me, they are not master supervillains able to circumvent the law like John Mayer circumvents panties. When you restrict certain guns that are used often, there will be a non-zero number of people who will be unable to get those guns or a replacement. Even if the law is so full of holes and does nothing, there is still some small number of people who will not be able to use those types of guns. Hell, make it a law that people who buy guns would have to do a little dance and even that will stop some non-zero number of people. Meanwhile, if it is true that there are readily available alternatives, then your rights are not significantly impacted. You do not have a right to a specific type of gun without restriction. What would wish that you guys would do is support the AWB, but add in all of the good, common sense laws that even you guys support. Doing that shows that you’re doing this seriously because right now the NRA and people who are in government are spending all their time opposing ALL gun laws and offering insane suggestions like arming teachers and janitors. It is up to you guys to stop saying crazy things and offer solutions if you want to be thought of as serious partners.
What I would love for a guy who has a soapbox and credibility with gun people like Wayne LaPierre to say is that he doesn’t oppose gun restrictions, just the AWB. And in the same speech, offer that the NRA will support gun registration, licensing, training, and background checks. Because even if he believes that deep down, all he is saying is to arm the teachers and Obama’s a tyrant. These are the types of people in the national debate and there is NO arguing with them. It doesn’t help that you, though you are very reasonable on many aspects of the gun issue, continue to say things like the police aren’t there to help you.
You can’t know that and it is irresponsible for you to claim that.
He’d have to tie up all the kids and teachers first, pour the gasoline and light it on fire. And apparently there was a security door at Sandy Hook. He’d have to blow that up first to get in, wouldn’t he? He definitely would not be able to carry out his massacre as easily as he did without the guns. It is doubtful that lacking the ease of such weapons that he had, the body count would have been as high as it was, or even existing in the first place. People do attack others using bombs, but those are difficult to use and put you more at risk of capture of harm than a gun
How many instances has nukes been used? Going by that logic, every use of a nuclear weapon has been responsible and only for the betterment of humanity by ending a horrible war. Every country should have one because in the history of nukes, there’s been no abuse at all. None. This fact is undeniable.
Also, gorillas use for offense has never happened, so it is ok for people to own them because people will never misuse a gorilla. It hasn’t happened yet, so it won’t in the future.
I disagree. I believe banning them would make it much more difficult for criminals to get and there will be a statistically significant number that will be deterred from crimes, a statistically significant number that will have their crime severity reduced, and a statistically significant number that will be caught trying to get harder-to-find alternatives. At the same time, I believe banning something like that does not significantly impact your rights, therefore less justification is needed to ban them
I’m talking about all drugs, not just ones you believe would support your argument. Your argument on guns is that less restrictions is better overall without going to the type of restrictions, so either remove all restrictions or admit that some restrictions on drugs are helpful, and some on guns are helpful as well.
First, let’s NOT draw that distinction. You draw no distinction between a small violation of the 2nd Amendment, a total repeal, or a restriction that doesn’t affect it at all. Second, the point is that in the example, you shouldn’t make murder and rape illegal because the bad guys will do them anyways while good guys won’t. Like you said for guns, criminals will get them anyway so why ban them? I am not a rapist. If rape was legal or had no legal consequences, I’m not about to go on a raping spree. So I think rape should be legal. That is what you’re saying with regards to guns. And don’t confuse a ban with restriction. Banning one type of guns does not mean all guns are banned. Looking at the big picture, one can ban all types of one gun and it would still be a restriction if other guns are allowed. We want to ban what we consider the more dangerous kinds. And if those aren’t, well, your rights are not harmed significantly at all, so the ban should have your full support.
I remind you that this isn’t an argument on WHY child porn is illegal, I know why its illegal, you telling me why its illegal doesn’t address your contention that banning high capacity magazine or types of guns only means criminals will get them and law-abiding citizens won’t. In case of child porn, a more apt analogy would be that banning it is pointless since everyone who has it isn’t an abusive child molester, and only child molesters will have the abusive types of porn. Banning this type of porn only hurts the legitimate owners of these pictures, from art collectors to simply moms who take funny pictures of their kids in the bath or when they are an infant so it doesn’t matter.
Your logic makes that the rational conclusion. Unless you are willing to accept some limits of gun ownership, which I haven’t seen you do (but mainly because I’ve been arguing with other people), then you’re the one who has excluded the middle. However, in order to come to some common ground, I would like to ask you what gun control laws you would be happy to support in order to reduce gun violence.
There’s a lot of drugs out there too, and child porn. Should we throw up our hands and declare that those things should be legal as well?
What is it with you guys and nukes? I would love to have an argument just once with a “reasonable anti-gunner” who didn’t play the nuke card. I did laugh at the gorilla bit however. Since you didn’t answer my question, I think we are done.
Police face threats more frequently than ordinary citizens, sure. But that does not mean the severity of the threat faced by an ordinary citizen is somehow diminished when it does occur, simply by the fact that it occurs less often.
I’m not sure why. I asked you for what figure you thought was reasonable, you answered and asked me the same question. I answered. The fact that I am on one side of a spectrum doesn’t make me hypocritical. And I am being completely honest in my response that I would never support a magazine limit under any circumstances. I understand you disagree with that position and find it unreasonable, but I hardly think that qualifies as being dishonest.
I believe you have a rational reason (that’s somewhat redundant as I’m reading rational to mean based on reason). I think your reason is weak.
When I stated that it is my job to provide for the defense of myself and my family, you responded:
Then we have a fundamentally different outlook on life. So much so that I’m not sure there is any common ground whatsoever. Your view is completely alien to me in a way I cannot understand. Perhaps you are making a semantic argument but I’m not seeing the point.
You asked a direct question, so I will answer. I think a psych test would run afoul of the 2nd amendment and would not support it. Training, registration, all sales through FFL, that’s fine but only in exchange for shall issue federal conceal carry with little to no restrictions. If a person can pass all the same things that police do, they should have the same freedom to carry as police do. Would you support that?
The key phrase is “while carrying out their duties”. We can have a separate discussion about prosecutorial immunity and the qualified immunityof police immunity, but it’s pretty broad.
You asked for where I was suggesting things to reduce gun violence. I pointed to a thread that I started, doing exactly that. You participated in that thread, saying similar things that you’ve said in this thread. Common sense, reasonable, rational controls, etc. You probably want to avoid relying on those types of arguments because while they may seem like winners to you, most gun rights advocates have a different opinion than you on what is common sense, reasonable, or rational in terms of gun controls. And while I don’t think that all gun control advocates will always aim to ban all guns – I not sure it’s worthwhile to try and determine what type I’m engaged with. What’s the point? But yes, I would support certain increased gun control laws, but only contemporaneously with increased gun rights. I hear a lot from the control side about what they wish to restrict, but nothing about what they are willing to concede. So I ask you, what freedoms would you support in exchange for the restrictions you are trying to impose? If you are not willing to concede anything – then you are engaged in incrementalism and gun rights advocates would be correct to oppose any additional restrictions.
I feel the same way, except in the opposite.
How do you stop a crazy person with a gun?
YogSosoth’s reply to my previous post seems to indicate that there just isn’t much common ground for discussion:
Point #1
Lumpy: what you propose just wouldn’t work.
YogSosoth : yes it would.
Point #2
Lumpy: maybe opiates and cocaine (the most commonly trafficked illegal drugs) should be legal after all.
YogSosothI was talking about everything. Provide a universally inclusive rationale for your position.
Point #3
Lumpy: I point out a logical distinction between actions and objects
YogSosothDoesn’t matter.
Point #4
Lumpy: I explain why another of YogSosoth’s strawmen doesn’t logically follow.
YogSosoth: You’re evading the point.
Point #5
Lumpy: Conclusion of why I in fact think that enforcing some laws does have to be given up on as hopeless and counter-productive.
**YogSosoth/B]: Insists that my argument doesn’t mean what I think it means. Draws a false equivalence between gun control and enforcing the law at all.
Readers, irregardless of the subject of the dispute, one of us is debating logically and one isn’t. I’d like a show of hands.
My vote is for Lumpy being the logical one.
If you can’t sell a spare AR at a time like this, you might as well admit to yourself that you will never sell that spare AR. I was at a gun show this last weekend and guys were walking around with AR’s slung to their backs with for sale signs. A month ago, those AR’s would be gone by dinnertime. This time around, they were still there on Sunday.
OK, I see what you are saying now. I meant severed in the sense that it was severed and discarded. I think the prefatory clause preserves a state’s right to arm its own citizens.
Under my theory the firearms that are guaranteed under the right to self defense is not as expansive as the right granted to the states to arm their militias. I think the right to self defense is a right to effective self defense. Its is not a plenary right.
Before the voter ID cases, I would have said that a ban on assault weapons would not pass constitutional muster on the grounds that a ban of assault weapons does not serve a compelling or even significant state interest because in person voter fraud is miniscule ompared to other types of voter fraud and the infringement on voter rights is disproportionately large compared to the state interest at stake. But, since SCOTUS thinks that it makes sense to allow states to pass laws that significantly abridge a right as vital as voting (both in terms of requiring the ID to begin with and the extra time it takes to vote when everyone has to have their ID verified) because of some miniscule effect it might have on vote integrity, I would not be surprised if they buy the argument that an assault weapons ban could in fact save some lives.
I bought a boatload of stripped lowers a few years ago with some friends on the theory that we would try buildinga bunch of them as a learning experience (we bought mroe than we thought we would need on the premise that we would fuck up the first few times (it turns out that its not taht difficult)). The problem right now is that then price of full uppers is exhorbitant sow e can build lowers fairly cheaply but thats about it.
The guy at the local army navy store goes to government auctions and people have been buying bras by the ton. Someone bought 10,000 pounds of spent brass for $100,000.
Yes but the authorities have to justify requiring me to jsutify my exercise of a right. At least they have to if i sue them.
The justification for limiting magazine capacity seems to largely rely on the notion that you can stop mass murderers when they stop to reload. I’m not sure that it makes sense to form gun policy based on 5% of the gun violence but hey, if the Republicans can form voter ID laws based on some miniscule amount of in person voter fraud…
With that said, I think you could justify a 10 round cap BUT there are a lot of higher cap magazines floating around out there.
For example:
The typical AR comes witha 30 round magazine.
The most popular gun in the country is probably a glock 19 which has a capacity of 15.
The Glock 17 has a capacity of 17.
The extended magazine for these glocks have a capacity of 33, almost everyone I know has a couple of these.
The ruger 10/22 a popular rifle chambered in 22lr (used for plinking and small game) comes with a 10 round magazine but everyone gets the extended magazine (25 rounds).
There are revolvers out there that chamber 11 rounds of 22lr.
The horse is waaay out of the barn unless you want to confiscate existing magazines.
It is more than a goal, it is my right to defend my family.
I would be OK with licensing and registration requirements
I think the state in conjunction with teh federal government can restrict my access to anythign I don’t need for effective self defense.
I don’t need to have the right to rape to defend myself against rape. I HAVE the right to murder to defend myself against murder. I think the ban on recreational drugs is stupid and unecessarily makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Yeah, the horse left the barn decades ago.
It’s not really ‘spare’. I think you know I’m building a semiautomatic replica of an early-pattern M16. My Colt SP1 represents the later-pattern M16. The A2 is a semiautomatic version of the M16-A2. There’s a gap in there. Where’s the A1? My ‘spare’ is a carbine with an A1 upper (teardrop forward assist, no brass deflector). I’m thinking that rather than selling it, I should get a more period-correct lower receiver (the one that’s on it now is a pre-1989 California ban one I picked up at the time) and putting on a rifle-length barrel and triangular handguards. Then I’ll have a spare, stripped lower receiver and a carbine heavy-barrel assembly.
What is it with you guys and an admitted paucity of the type of weapons that are being proposed to be banned? If its a tiny number, then banning it won’t make a difference to your rights. Also, you didn’t ask me a question so I guess we really are done 
Who said only severity should be the benchmark? The police face threats BOTH numerous and severe. I think that deserves consideration when talking about who needs what types of weapons. In every instance, the average definitely faces less threats, and probably less severe threats, than the average policeman. They need better weapons, you do not
I believe it is dishonest because since there is no possible way to move you from your position, you come into the discussion without an ability to be swayed. This isn’t a discussion then, its a lecture, from you to me. In science, often a theory must have some element that could be verified and some element that would prove the theory false. If the deck is stacked on one side by having a theory that cannot be falsifiable, it is a bad theory, because you are left with either acceptance or rejection without evidence. Therefore, it is dishonest to engage in a gun debate admitting that no amount of evidence would move you from your position. And hypocritical, because you expect the same from me, or else you would not have asked that question, and had I said that nothing would sway me, you would probably have the same reaction I’m having.
I simply object to what you characterize as a “job”. A job implies the things I listed: accountability, someone to answer to, a way of measuring success and failure not simply defined arbitrarily by you. We’re not so different that you want to protect your family and I do not. I simply do not call that my job. It is my desire, just as it is my desire to watch TV and eat pizza. By calling it a job, you attribute characteristics to it that it doesn’t have and elevates your desire, though noble, into something of a universal duty
I don’t believe all LEOs have equal accessibility to firearms. If a detective wants to carry around an M-16 in the course of his normal duties, I would suspect he’d run into some issues. So no, I would not support that. I still believe that the minimum that should be done is registration, licensing, etc. I believe the government does have a right to restrict your firearms and has a justification for doing so.
One clarification: you said you would not support the psych test because it impacts the 2nd Amendment. Setting that aside for a moment, do you think a mandatory psych test would cut down on gun ownership by people who are deemed psychologically unstable or whatever the medical term is for crazy?
Would you like to take back your claim that the police have “absolute immunity” in the course of their duties? Remember that my claim was that the police do face responsibility, so therefore would be more responsible than the average person who does not face the same restrictions.
I think people need to abandon the whole “you’re going to take all our guns” argument. I think we would see more eye-to-eye if you judge each proposal by itself without resorting to the kind of conspiratorial fears that the pro-gun side is always spouting. Really, enough, we get that you don’t trust us, but what do you think of this particular law we’re discussing right at this moment?
I’ll tell you what I believe, and I suspect you might be surprised by my answers. I don’t know all of the rights you say that current laws are taking away. For me to answer what rights I’d be willing to give you, I need to know what rights you think we are currently violating. Off the top of my head, I know that many of you feel any ban of any type is wrong. I am not willing to give that up. I feel that banning types of guns has no impact on your rights. To me, banning types of guns is not an issue of rights, but an issue of the power of the government. As long as you have alternatives, the government has the power to ban types of guns. Other rights that people have said are being violated are things like Shall Issue, which I think you should have, barring the types of guns that are banned or pieces of weapons (like high capacity clips) that are restricted. But ultimately, if you have psych tests and things of that nature, I don’t see why you still need to get your local sheriff’s permission to have concealed carry. Another issue I’ve heard that gun people have problems with is multiple background checks when buying more than one gun at a time. If that exists as stated, and that’s a big IF because I’ve heard different interpretations of it, I think we can eliminate that if people don’t try to loophole their way around it. However, if you, like some other poster said, want to sell a gun to your nephew, I still think you need to do a background check and everything that is required of buying a gun. I don’t agree with the recent dropping of restrictions on guns in national parks, HOWEVER I will not fight it and consider it of little importance (snarking a bit: unlike gun people I don’t need to defend to the death every single little thing. some things are small potatoes, if you want guns in the park I think its a bad idea and should be illegal, but I can’t get worked up about it, so take it). What other rights would you like me to answer about?
Call the police 
I asked to to agree ot the fact that two people have been killed in 80 years by the guns that you were discussing banning before we went any further. If you want to ban guns that cause no trouble whatsoever, your version of “reasonable” and mine are miles apart.
You claim to want to affect gun violence, yet you are taking shots at the guns that are used the least in said gun violence: assault weapons and full auto guns. How is one to take your proposals seriously when you continue to wade in your ignorance of guns, gun technology and simple statistics?
Same response, only replace my name with yours and your name with mine. Raises hand :rolleyes:
I believe they do. In some of the examples I gave, I would say that authorities contend that moving large amounts of cash through customs is usually the MO of drug dealers and other unsavory types. The government has a vested interest in preventing that from happening, thus the need for you to justify your right to carry around cash. With guns, I believe the government has a vested interest in preventing gun violence, and thus is their justification for restricting firearms. You may not like it, or think it works, or believe its legal, but the justification is there
Its more than that, I think its really unfortunate you’re resorting to that type of back-and-forth sniping and juvenile debating tactics. The belief behind restricting a type of gun used in a small number of crimes is that it doesn’t impact the 2nd Amendment (since you have alternatives, and the government has the power to restrict rights, both unassailable facts) and some small decrease in the type of guns will lead to some small decrease in the types of mass murders we are becoming so accustomed to seeing. It does NOT follow that doing this will disenfranchise people in the opposite direction (ie. violating their rights). With voter fraud, the “solutions” offered by the Republicans do more to increase voter fraud than prevent it (by disenfranchising legitimate voters). Unlike the gun debate, voters do have their rights impacted (they can’t vote vs. you can get a different type of gun) and it affects more people than it hurts (disenfranchising more people is bad vs. some small amount of people will be preventing from going on a rampage). There is basically no way that banning these guns will lead to an INcrease in gun violence where there is every evidence to suggest that voter fraud laws will lead to an increase in voter fraud. Get the difference now?
Gotta start somewhere
It is both your goal and your right. I objected to Bone calling it his “job” for the reasons I stated
And it naturally follows that those in the government are the final determinants of what is considered reasonable self-defense. They have determined that you do not need a tank. That same power allows them to determine you do not need an AR-15. You may not like it or agree with it, but too many times I end up arguing with people who simply don’t believe the government has that power.
The types of guns we were discussing isn’t something we all agree on, so don’t act like we’re all using your definitions when we’re talking about guns. I want the AR-15 banned. And it just so happens I know for a fact that it has slightly more than 2 casualties in the last 80 years. Some number of them, in fact, happened a few months ago.
As for my stance on guns that are little used, I have made that clear. You have alternatives, and I believe the government has the power to restrict rights without eliminating them. Therefore, it matters little that it would reduce gun violence by 2 in 80 years or 1 in 100 years. You don’t need certain types of guns to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights so you should not have access to them.
Any others?
We were talking about full auto NFA guns. It’s not my fault you can’t keep it straight. Those are the guns held mostly by collectors, used in no crimes in the last 80 years, yet you threw out the idea of banning them too. Now you are talking about AR-15s. If you can’t keep up, try limiting your arguments…
Even before Heller, those guns (NFA) were protected. But rather than attack actual gun violence, and try to make a difference, you would rather just ban stuff because you say so.
If they are crazy enough to give you the time to unlock your gun cabinet, get out your gun, and shoot them, that’s one way. But it’s so unusual that when it happens, it’s news.
Normally, you don’t stop them. Instead, your body stops their bullet. Gun owner or otherwise.
I think you are using the word “dishonest” in a non-standard way. I have been as clear as possible in stating my position. Disagreement with someone doesn’t make the other person dishonest.
This isn’t science. It would be a mistake to treat it as such. This is about ethics, morality, the type of world you wish to live in.
Again, I think you are using the word “hypocritical” in a non-standard way. I asked you a question, you gave me an answer. You asked me a question, I gave you an answer. If you told me nothing would sway you, I would believe you. I have no notion that I can convince you, that would be foolish. This isn’t about you and me. This is about being advocates for our position to sway those who may be reading. I’m not calling you names or questioning your motives. I believe you to be sincere. I’d expect you to do me the same courtesy.
So you are making a semantic argument. In any case, this came about because you said it is the police’s job to enter dangerous situations, etc. I contend that’s not really their job. My personal safety and that of my family are not the job of the police, far from it. The vastly outnumbered police force makes this perfectly clear, along with well established case law that holds the police have no obligation to protect me in any fashion. So it is my job, or my duty, or my goal, or my moral obligation, or however you want to characterize it, to defend and protect my family. My obligation is supremely greater than any police. My need to provide for defense is no different.
Police routinely have access to semi automatic rifles. I doubt that select fire rifles are as common, but probably exist for certain units. But I wasn’t talking about specific arms of police, just the freedom to carry what is otherwise legal where they do. So, would you support that?
It probably would. Though I believe the cost would be too great. That setup would be to ripe for abuse and I would never support it.
I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said qualified immunity. The point still remains however, that the police face far less responsibility than an average citizen would if they ever deploy force, both criminally and civilly. Citizens enjoy no such qualified immunity. Do you stand by your claim?
This is where you lose me. The logical progression of this would be to ban everything except a narrow set of approved firearms. This would be unacceptable, but perfectly within the framework you’ve laid out. A perfect example of incrementalism.
(my bold)
I’m really glad you’re not the arbiter of what I and others need. Like I mentioned earlier – when you start trying to me what I need, I think you’re crazy. Not in the clinical sense, but just in the sense that I can’t take you seriously and everything else is suspect.
I think federal shall issue with little to no place restrictions and state preemption is a worth while trade off for having all sales go through an FFL, and universal license and registration. But you have to admit the current political conversation is talking only about additional restrictions, with no additional freedoms. I’m hoping that will gain no traction.
Please flesh this out. How would you do that? Just to give you some background – in CA, the AR-15 is already banned by name. I believe Colt has a trademark on the AR-15 name. Of course, there are umpteen other manufacturers that make an identical platform. So you ban an AR-15, then manufactures may make a new model, the AR-15^Y (YogSosoth version). How do you ban that?
This could lead to some nonsensical results. Like in CA, where one pistol in black color is legal, and the exact same pistol in two –tone tan color is banned. Yay CA is stupid as shit.
And when I asked you how to stop a crazy person with a gun:
You call them because they have guns. Bad guys with guns, they are stopped by good guys with guns.
Let me actually try to persuade you about magazine capacity. Like I stated earlier, I don’t think I need to justify the exercise of any constitutional right, but there is a reason behind it. I don’t have magazines strewn about the house. I carry 1 magazine in the quick access gun, and one backup. In a home defense situation, I will have limited time and I expect I will not be able to get to other magazines I have in other less convenient locations. Bad guys usually take multiple shots to stop. People miss under stressful situations. Bad guys don’t always come alone. If a person is intent on committing mass murder like Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, they will be prepared and carry multiple magazines and an abundance of ammunition. A magazine limit, even if adhered to by crazy people, wouldn’t hinder them much if they carry extra mags. I however, will always only have 1 magazine, and possibly one as a backup. Limiting that capacity severely limits my ability to defend myself and family. This is why I will never support any limit to magazines. Each person should be able to decide for themselves what is worth the tradeoff in both convenience, safety, and security.
You mean just like mass shootings?