How to Defend High Capacity Magazines Without Looking Like An Insensitive Moron.

[Justin]

In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, there have been calls for reinstating a federal ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.


Arguing for the right to own these magazines is something that can be problematic, as even many gun owners see no issue with restricting access to them.


Furthermore, I've seen a lot of pro-gun folks try to make a case for these magazines, and come off as either insensitive, buffoonish, or just downright stupid, and it makes me cringe every time I watch it happen.


So, in the interest of preserving our second amendment rights, here are my thoughts on arguing against bans on >10 round magazines.


**Know Who You're Debating**


Most of the people reacting to Sandy Hook (and other rampage shootings) are not gun people. For the most part, they aren't anti-gun people, either. They are, however, completely ignorant about guns and how they work, and have a general level of fear associated with guns and people who own them.


What they're looking for is an answer to the question of "how do we stop rampage shootings" and they're grabbing at the first straw, gun control, that seems like a good idea. You have to convince them that gun control is not the answer.


**Arguments That Don't Work, and Why**


*• It's my right to own them because 2nd Amendment.*
-This argument is true, however it makes you look stupid and selfish. After all, to the people you're speaking to, you come off sounding like you put your right to own a dangerous product above the safety of their kids.


*•I own them because I can.*
-Again, this is a stupidly weak argument, and a tautology on top.


*•I own them because I may need them for self-defense.*
-Remember, the people you're talking to have not spent any time at all studying personal defense, much less defense with a firearm. By and large, most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate. Furthermore, statistically speaking, for the vast, vast majority of defensive encounters, they're right. The number of self-defense incidents where capacity of the defender's gun was what won the day are, in truth, vanishingly small. As a result, most people, who've spent no time reading up on the current state of self-defense will dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic with delusions of having to fend off an army.


*•I own them because we may need them in case of invasion/the US government turns on its own people/The Revolution/Wolverines!*
-Most people in this country live comfortable lives, and they rarely pay attention to historical precedent. As a result, they don't believe that things could come down to a situation where things go all Warsaw Ghetto, and even if they *do* entertain the notion that such a thing could happen here, they cannot and will not consider the idea of actually picking up a gun and fighting against an existential threat. Any argument that follows the revolutionary line of reasoning will be dismissed out of hand as paranoid fantasizing. You will be painted as a lunatic preparing for an event that will never happen. The assumption is that you're so delusional that you are putting your right to a revolution that will never come up against the protection of children.


*•I own them because it makes it easier for me at the shooting range or because having them reduces amount of time I have to waste loading magazines.*
-Again, this argument makes you look completely unsympathetic. After all, if a ban on magazines would reduce these shootings, then who cares if it means you're slightly inconvenienced during a range trip?


*•I own them because I compete in USPSA/3 Gun/some other form of competition.*
-This argument can help to counter the "you don't need a high capacity magazine to hunt" or "why would anyone have these things?" and pointing out that you're involved in a competitive sport may confer some legitimacy, but it's still a weak argument, because you sound like you're putting the enjoyment of a game above the safety of kids.


**Arguments That Should Work, With Explanation**


The best way to voice your opposition to a magazine ban isn't by asserting your rights. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the 2nd Amendment, rights-based or possession-based arguments are not going to sway someone who is on the fence about the 2nd Amendment, and/or already believes that no reasonable person owns such an item.


The best way to make the case in favor of >10 round magazines is from a policy perspective. As gun owners we should all be actively engaging in the public discussion over these items, and offering our unique knowledge to help guide policy in a direction that will actually be effective at stopping these sorts of shootings from happening in the future.


***The best arguments against a ban on these magazines is to point out that such a ban SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.*** It's thoroughly terrible policy that will absolutely not stop the next rampage killer from taking out as many victims as his tortured mental state demands.


Here's a breakdown of the arguments that are bound to be the most effective, at least with people who aren't being completely emotional about the situation.


*•The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban*
-The US had a ban on these magazines that lasted for ten years, and during that time, there was not one trustworthy study that showed the ban had any effect whatsoever on rates of violent crime, regardless of the type.


*•The technology is already "in the wild."*
-With the exception of the ten years during the federal assault weapon ban >10 round magazines have been sold with hundreds of millions of new guns, and available on the market to anyone who cares to purchase them. These magazines are mechanically simple (about as complex as a well-constructed travel mug), small, and completely untraceable. Any attempt to regulate these magazines will essentially be DOA because there are already so many of them in private hands.

*•Consider the implications of enforcing a ban*
-Everyone wants to get behind the idea of a ban without putting any thought into actual enforcement costs. Ask them to explain how they would enforce a ban.
Would they be willing to ok warrantless searches to find these magazines?
Would they be willing to arrest, try, convict, and imprison for ten years anyone found to possess one?
How much would it cost to imprison all of these millions of people?
Would we have to construct new prisons for them?
Would it really be worth it?


(The nice thing about this line of reasoning is that it's an extremely easy litmus test to see if you're dealing with someone who's halfway rational or not. No rational person would actually agree that locking up tens of millions of people who've harmed no one would be a good idea. And if the person says they're ok with it, you know they're a nut. This argument also has the potential to work well if you're talking to people in favor of legalizing pot, as the comparisons between marijuana users and magazine owners are actually pretty clear-cut.)


*•How to enforce a ban?*
-How would you keep people from importing unmarked magazines from outside of the US, or squirting them out of a 3D printer?


*•Point out that other mass shootings have taken place without >10 round magazines*
-3 of the 4 guns used by the Columbine shooters did not use high capacity magazines. Specifically, Eric Harris had to reload his Hi-Point Carbine ten times, and the double-barreled shotgun used was reloaded over twenty times. [ur=http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html]Source[/url] The Walther used by Seung-Hui Cho could not hold more than ten rounds. The Beltway "snipers" never fired more than one shot at any given murder attempt. Charles Whitman used no high capacity magazines.


-Changing magazines is an action that even an amateur can easily complete in under four seconds. Even if the killer is limited to ten round magazines, it won't matter. They will simply carry more magazines and reload more often. Furthermore, there is not one instance where that extra reload time made a difference in the outcome of a shooting. (Some may try to claim that it did in the case of the Giffords shooting, but Loughner's gun jammed, which is what provided the time to others around him to react.)




Finally, if you're a parent and a gun owner, voice this fact. Having a kid means you've got skin in the game, and gives you additional legitimacy. Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children. As gun owners, we have not only a unique perspective and specialist knowledge on the subject, but we've also got the most to lose. Therefore it is extremely important for all of us to present the best arguments we can.


I hope that this post is useful. I've been making a number of these arguments on public news forums with some success. I'd appreciate any feedback.

[cysoto]

I wish Wayne LaPierre would have read this post before going on National TV and making a fool of himself.

[hatidua]

Over the past five days, I've given up caring if I look like an insensitive moron. You cannot reason with the anti-gun crowd. In their minds, you are the devil if you own so much as a Daisy BB gun.

[cysoto]

Over the past five days, I've given up caring if I look like an insensitive moron. You cannot reason with the anti-gun crowd. In their minds, you are the devil if you own so much as a Daisy BB gun.
The battle that lies ahead is not to be fought with logic but with emotion.

[HoneyBadger]

Thanks for putting this together. Hopefully lots of members will read this and then be equipped with the proper tools to protect our freedoms in conversation.

[Busta Prima]

I simply remind people that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting or collecting. It's the ultimate check, balance and force against a foreign or domestic invasion. With the state of the world today (collapsing economies, gross overpopulation, energy depletion) only an idiot thinks everything is going to remain status quo. It's not going to be pretty going from 8 billion people to 3 billion or less (maybe even 1 billion). That might seem shocking but what's shocking is how few people see it.

[Fromk]

Here's a good argument that I haven't seen floating around yet. They are "standard magazines" in a very real way. The military has been ordering 30 round mags in great quantities for quite a while. That means several companies are set up to produce them through contracts. It's just not practical for them to change their entire production line to cater to the civilian market when they can sell what they are already making. It's also why they are so plentiful and cheap.

When they are required to be modified to 10 rounds it really is a modification. They often don't work very well because they're changing the design of something that's been working pretty well for many years. I know when I was in California I didn't run across too many people that would call their 10 round magazines "reliable."

A similar argument of practicality can be made for pistol magazines. The standard capacity of a handgun is how many rounds can be put into a space the size of the grip. Some are 8. Some are 17. Some are less and some are more. The only time a magazine should be labeled "high capacity" is when it exceeds the design of the gun. That's how I think of it, anyway.

[Rooskibar03]

I saw it posted somewhere the other day "It's the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs"

[Danimal]

Thank you for posting this. I am getting tired of watching people try to make an argument based off of their own beliefs. If you are going to change someones mind in an argument you need to first appeal to something that they believe to be true, or an undeniable fact that they can reference to see your point of view. You have to build a foundation for an argument that will stand on its own that the other person believes to be true. Then from there you add arguments that stand on that base that support your argument. For this case you can use any of the arguments above, and just apply them differently based on the specific person that you are engaging in a debate with. Plan your argument several steps ahead before starting the argument, and always attempt to be the more calm collected individual in the argument. The hot headed screaming ass always loses the fight in the eyes of those that actually matter in the argument.

[thebriarman]

Just wanted to thank you for giving me some additional perspective and info that I can use to rationally discuss this issue with people. As you said, rational people will contemplate the info, irrational/emotional people won't. The emotionals will simply not listen to reason, logic, fact, etc., sadly.

[hammer03]

You can also cite stories like this: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-say-1-dead-3-wounded-in-sac-home-invasion/

Where 3 rounds per bad guy just kinda seems like asking for trouble. He was in CA, and lived to tell about it which is impressive.

[Justin]

The battle that lies ahead is not to be fought with logic but with emotion.

I see no reason why we shouldn't have some emotion-based arguments in our quiver, however, I think emotional arguments should be the frosting and data-backed arguments should be the cake.

After all, if you're a parent, Sandy Hook probably hit you right in the emotional gut. There's no reason to suppress that in a debate, especially when debating whether or not a particular law would be effective.

[whichfinger]

Thanks for posting that, Justin. Well written and logical. Will you give permission to copy this and use it on other sites? (With the proper attribution, of course.)

[rgburdie]

very good read and great info... thanks

[CareyH]

Great stuff Justin. Its been to long friend, we need to meet up for lunch sometime.

[centrarchidae]

Over the past five days, I've given up caring if I look like an insensitive moron. You cannot reason with the anti-gun crowd. In their minds, you are the devil if you own so much as a Daisy BB gun.

You can't reason with the anti-gun bastards. You can (sort of) reason with the 20-40% of voters who don't care a whole hell of a lot either way. Like it or not, our future depends a lot on people who don't care all that much either way.

I've fallen back on emotional arguments myself: As a parent, recent events taught me that in the end, I may be the one who has to protect my kids. If I have to use force to protect my children, I need every advantage I can get. Which, like Justin said, is nice frosting right on top of the logical argument cake.

[Tinelement]

Great thread OP!
Great info here.
Thanks!

[GearHead]

Nice job, Justin

[hatidua]

I saw it posted somewhere the other day "It's the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs"

That's one of the best I've heard in a very long while.

[DOC]

I don't think of them as "High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices" they are just standard magazines. But that doesn't help the argument either.

[<MADDOG>]

I agree that you make valid counter-arguments for some anti-gunners, but it appears to be more defensive than offensive. I personally find whipping out the 2nd is productive; as most libtards believe heavily in the remaining Bill of Rights, especially the 1st Amendment. I find myself successfully asking the question "why do your rights as an American over-ride mine?". That can lead, and does, into a plethora of other questions and/or arguments which I'm sure most on this forum can counter. It will end at the same point: those that wish to do evil, will do evil, regardless of the tools he or she uses.

[battle_sight_zero]

We are far beyond sensitivity when talking with liberals when it comes to the 2nd. I avoid talking to them most of the time about anything regarding the 1st,2nd or anything going on in society. If I am instigated into talking I tell them that the 2nd will insure that I am protected from their side. Basically don't talk to them and you won't look like an idiot. I don't believe we will change any views of a liberal and its not worth the effort or the frustration. It's hard enough these days to keep a smile and be upbeat as a conservative as every thing you see that you loved about the USA is destroyed around you. I will say that i am allways surprised about how ignorant liberals are about the facts and the things going on in the world around them. I guess if they did not hear about it on CNN or MSNBC it did not happen.

[NightCat]

..allow me to make a counter point to the very purpose of this thread and the OP's first post...


The people we are arguing too are left winged brainless imbeciles and regardless of how GOOD or how VALID or how FINANCIALLY unreasonable our points are to them....they will not care.

These are the same type of idiot's who voted for Obama and despite very piece of evidence and well laid out plan Gov. Romney spread out for them in a Barney Style break down, these dipshits still voted for this idiot....this is who we are arguing against and its absolutely pointless....save your breath, and save your bullets.

For further evidence, View the "Obama phone" Video on YouTube to give you an insight as to who it is for some reason was given power to vote.

I'm sorry gentleman, I'm all for a good argument, however I've learned that more often than not its not worth getting red in the face trying to argue a point with these people, because you will find that these people are Not a damn thing like us, the sense of logic and financial impact is not something these people understand.

It just simply isn't. You are better off arguing with a brick wall because regardless of what any of us do, all they see is "free" and "what I get" and how we're all crazy and that the oh holy glory known as Obama is going to fix this all...and he only has to fix it cause (enter GOP PODUS here) fucked up.

Sorry to piss on the Parade gents....but you cant argue with these idiots....they simply dont think.. and vote for whatever this dumb ass handing out "free" shit says..

Margaret Thatcher once said, "What do you do when you run out of other people's money?" and Obama's answer is "print more"...that is the type of people we're dealing with.


/rant

I understand I come off very sinical, and OP while I appreciate the very nature of this thread to educate and help your fellow shooters on how to approach this problem...Its just not a battle we can win with the government we have today.. I thought your post was fantastic, a great read and well constructed...it would be great if the people opposing this law thought like that...spread out in a logical fashion with discussion points, key bullet points and other such factual information...but...that just isn't who we're going against..

[DOC]

All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. I still think its worth fighting. Getting the message out is worth looking into.

[Bailey Guns]

I get what you're saying but I have to take issue with some of it:


In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, there have been calls for reinstating a federal ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.


Arguing for the right to own these magazines is something that can be problematic, as even many gun owners see no issue with restricting access to them.


Furthermore, I've seen a lot of pro-gun folks try to make a case for these magazines, and come off as either insensitive, buffoonish, or just downright stupid, and it makes me cringe every time I watch it happen.


So, in the interest of preserving our second amendment rights, here are my thoughts on arguing against bans on >10 round magazines.


**Know Who You're Debating**


Most of the people reacting to Sandy Hook (and other rampage shootings) are not gun people. For the most part, they aren't anti-gun people, either. They are, however, completely ignorant about guns and how they work, and have a general level of fear associated with guns and people who own them.


What they're looking for is an answer to the question of "how do we stop rampage shootings" and they're grabbing at the first straw, gun control, that seems like a good idea. You have to convince them that gun control is not the answer.


**Arguments That Don't Work, and Why**


*• It's my right to own them because 2nd Amendment.*
-This argument is true, however it makes you look stupid and selfish. After all, to the people you're speaking to, you come off sounding like you put your right to own a dangerous product above the safety of their kids.

I see. When I want to argue about my Constitutional rights I'm stupid and selfish but they're not for wanting to restrict my rights. And frankly, yes, my Constitutional rights are above the safety of their kids...or anyone else. Lots of parents have sent sons and daughters off to war to fight for our Constitution and their children haven't come home to them. I think your argument against this is stupid and selfish.


*•I own them because I can.*
-Again, this is a stupidly weak argument, and a tautology on top.

Why is it you're so worried about looking stupid to an anti-gun person when presenting them with facts but you're willing to call a gun owner who uses the facts, even in very simplified "tautological" form like this, stupid when presenting them? Weak argument? I guess that depends on your perspective. To me it isn't really that weak because it's the truth. It's no different than saying you bought a car with a top speed of 200mph - which you'll never have a need for - because "you can". From my perspective the anti-gunner is "stupid" if they can't understand this most basic premise.


*•I own them because I may need them for self-defense.*
-Remember, the people you're talking to have not spent any time at all studying personal defense, much less defense with a firearm. By and large, most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate. Furthermore, statistically speaking, for the vast, vast majority of defensive encounters, they're right. The number of self-defense incidents where capacity of the defender's gun was what won the day are, in truth, vanishingly small. As a result, most people, who've spent no time reading up on the current state of self-defense will dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic with delusions of having to fend off an army.

Thanks for not calling anyone "stupid" on this one. However, I'd point out that having a few ready examples of where they were used defensively is also a good idea...and there are plenty. Furthermore, you could also point out that many guns that use these magazines come with them as standard equipment. You could also make the argument that a 6-shot revolver will have some redundant ammunition capability in most encounters. In other words, having them doesn't necessarily mean you have to use them. That might not mean a lot but the 200-mph car analogy works here, too. For the most part I agree with your line of reasoning on this one.


*•I own them because we may need them in case of invasion/the US government turns on its own people/The Revolution/Wolverines!*
-Most people in this country live comfortable lives, and they rarely pay attention to historical precedent. As a result, they don't believe that things could come down to a situation where things go all Warsaw Ghetto, and even if they *do* entertain the notion that such a thing could happen here, they cannot and will not consider the idea of actually picking up a gun and fighting against an existential threat. Any argument that follows the revolutionary line of reasoning will be dismissed out of hand as paranoid fantasizing. You will be painted as a lunatic preparing for an event that will never happen. The assumption is that you're so delusional that you are putting your right to a revolution that will never come up against the protection of children.

Again...I get what you're saying. I don't think this is a very likely possibility, either. But generally I'm against having to "dumb down" the truth.


*•I own them because it makes it easier for me at the shooting range or because having them reduces amount of time I have to waste loading magazines.*
-Again, this argument makes you look completely unsympathetic. After all, if a ban on magazines would reduce these shootings, then who cares if it means you're slightly inconvenienced during a range trip?

In this case I guess I'd have to ask the person if they'd feel better if their child, or anyone else they cared for, was shot with a gun that held less ammunition. And I'd point out that banning them is really immaterial since many of the shootings have taken place in locations where these items are already banned or were banned at the time.


*•I own them because I compete in USPSA/3 Gun/some other form of competition.*
-This argument can help to counter the "you don't need a high capacity magazine to hunt" or "why would anyone have these things?" and pointing out that you're involved in a competitive sport may confer some legitimacy, but it's still a weak argument, because you sound like you're putting the enjoyment of a game above the safety of kids.

I don't think this automatically equates to putting competition above kids. There are many ways to explain this where you can avoid doing that if you think about what and how you say it.


**Arguments That Should Work, With Explanation**


The best way to voice your opposition to a magazine ban isn't by asserting your rights. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the 2nd Amendment, rights-based or possession-based arguments are not going to sway someone who is on the fence about the 2nd Amendment, and/or already believes that no reasonable person owns such an item.


The best way to make the case in favor of >10 round magazines is from a policy perspective. As gun owners we should all be actively engaging in the public discussion over these items, and offering our unique knowledge to help guide policy in a direction that will actually be effective at stopping these sorts of shootings from happening in the future.


***The best arguments against a ban on these magazines is to point out that such a ban SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.*** It's thoroughly terrible policy that will absolutely not stop the next rampage killer from taking out as many victims as his tortured mental state demands.

May be the best argument but it's also the most oft-repeated argument. I've seen this argument fail almost every time I've seen this argument.


Here's a breakdown of the arguments that are bound to be the most effective, at least with people who aren't being completely emotional about the situation.


*•The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban*
-The US had a ban on these magazines that lasted for ten years, and during that time, there was not one trustworthy study that showed the ban had any effect whatsoever on rates of violent crime, regardless of the type.


*•The technology is already "in the wild."*
-With the exception of the ten years during the federal assault weapon ban >10 round magazines have been sold with hundreds of millions of new guns, and available on the market to anyone who cares to purchase them. These magazines are mechanically simple (about as complex as a well-constructed travel mug), small, and completely untraceable. Any attempt to regulate these magazines will essentially be DOA because there are already so many of them in private hands.

*•Consider the implications of enforcing a ban*
-Everyone wants to get behind the idea of a ban without putting any thought into actual enforcement costs. Ask them to explain how they would enforce a ban.
Would they be willing to ok warrantless searches to find these magazines?
Would they be willing to arrest, try, convict, and imprison for ten years anyone found to possess one?
How much would it cost to imprison all of these millions of people?
Would we have to construct new prisons for them?
Would it really be worth it?


(The nice thing about this line of reasoning is that it's an extremely easy litmus test to see if you're dealing with someone who's halfway rational or not. No rational person would actually agree that locking up tens of millions of people who've harmed no one would be a good idea. And if the person says they're ok with it, you know they're a nut. This argument also has the potential to work well if you're talking to people in favor of legalizing pot, as the comparisons between marijuana users and magazine owners are actually pretty clear-cut.)


*•How to enforce a ban?*
-How would you keep people from importing unmarked magazines from outside of the US, or squirting them out of a 3D printer?

Do you really think someone who isn't a "gun person" is really going to understand something so complicated as 3D printers and import/export regs? I think you're reaching here. Not disagreeing...I just don't see them understanding this if they can't understand some of the more simple arguments.


*•Point out that other mass shootings have taken place without >10 round magazines*
-3 of the 4 guns used by the Columbine shooters did not use high capacity magazines. Specifically, Eric Harris had to reload his Hi-Point Carbine ten times, and the double-barreled shotgun used was reloaded over twenty times. [ur=http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html]Source[/url] The Walther used by Seung-Hui Cho could not hold more than ten rounds. The Beltway "snipers" never fired more than one shot at any given murder attempt. Charles Whitman used no high capacity magazines.


-Changing magazines is an action that even an amateur can easily complete in under four seconds. Even if the killer is limited to ten round magazines, it won't matter. They will simply carry more magazines and reload more often. Furthermore, there is not one instance where that extra reload time made a difference in the outcome of a shooting. (Some may try to claim that it did in the case of the Giffords shooting, but Loughner's gun jammed, which is what provided the time to others around him to react.)

Again, I don't disagree. However, raise your hand if you've seen these very simple and valid arguments fail time after time when talking to an anti-gun person. (Raises hand)


Finally, if you're a parent and a gun owner, voice this fact. Having a kid means you've got skin in the game, and gives you additional legitimacy. Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children. As gun owners, we have not only a unique perspective and specialist knowledge on the subject, but we've also got the most to lose. Therefore it is extremely important for all of us to present the best arguments we can.


I hope that this post is useful. I've been making a number of these arguments on public news forums with some success. I'd appreciate any feedback.

Frankly, I think you're giving the anti-gun type too much credit. You may have had some luck with the very valid and complex arguments but I haven't. I've used the simple and complex and it generally just equates to pissing in the wind. Furthermore, I'm really tired of having to make excuses for exercising my rights and liberties considering I've never been a criminal and have no intentions of being a criminal.

[villageidiot]

My take on the current political climate is that many people want feel like they are doing "something" and a rehash of the AWB fells like something. It does not matter if it worked, makes sense, addresses the problem at hand, or even addresses the right problem. The gun control lobby understands that people want to feel like they made a difference and are offering that feeling. I did not like some if the NRA's arguments (i.e. violent movies and video games), but I think the strategy is good.

At least Obama is President. Romney actually signed an assault weapons ban, while Obama has struggled to accomplish anything big.

[Great-Kazoo]

You can't reason with the anti-gun bastards. You can (sort of) reason with the 20-40% of voters who don't care a whole hell of a lot either way. Like it or not, our future depends a lot on people who don't care all that much either way.

I've fallen back on emotional arguments myself: As a parent, recent events taught me that in the end, I may be the one who has to protect my kids. If I have to use force to protect my children, I need every advantage I can get. Which, like Justin said, is nice frosting right on top of the logical argument cake.

I've done this with a few people. OK so someone can no longer posses a 30 round magazine. Me having 3 10 round mags changes what dynamic in an equation where Evil is intent on killing people? 99% have went mmmmmmmm makes sense. the 1% well fuck them their shrill voices screeching how bad guns are, they're victims. They don't know it yet, but they're victims.

[Bailey Guns]

At least Obama is President. Romney actually signed an assault weapons ban, while Obama has struggled to accomplish anything big.

Your username makes a lot of sense now.

[ChadAmberg]

Play their own typical games back against them.

"Shut up you fascist"

"Collective punishment is banned by the Geneva Conventions"

"You just want to take guns away from black people you racist"

[dwalker460]

At least Obama is President. Romney actually signed an assault weapons ban, while Obama has struggled to accomplish anything big.


Romney DID NOT sign an AWB, he mediatted between the gun and anti-gun factions to come up with a compromise. He introduced nothing, signed nothing. Get your damned facts straight you liberal poc

[TFOGGER]

I just ask them if they are willing to shred the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to infringe on the Second... Surprisingly, a number of them have actually thought about it and asked me what I meant. It got them thinking...

[dwalker460]

Also, the first post in this thread is wrong.

"Why do you need high cap magazines?"

A: I am not really a very good shot, so I need as many chances as I can get. Kinda like those extra lives in vidia games.
A: High cap magazines are actually standard capacity magazines, I cannot afford high cap magazines so I just buy the standard ones.

"High cap clips just make it easier to shoot more people at once, there is no other reason for them"

A: Magazines dont shoot people, people shoot people. A higher capacity magazine honestly has nothing to do with it. Swapping magazines takes not even a single second and has no bearing on the number of rounds these nutjobs manage to get off downrange, except in the movies. Look, I get it, its easy to blame the tools, but the fact is that even with single shot weapons these whackos would have done what they did. Yeah sure, they chose military style weapons because they look cool, but in the Aurora shooting the rifle jammed and the sicko switched over to a shotgun, which is what he used for the majority of the shooting. No high-cap mag there.

"We need some sort of gun control so the public is safe and a mag limit will help"

A: No, it wont. There is no evidence that even points in this direction. Even if the mags are banned or limited, it stops nothign. In the middle of the last mag ban/AWB the LA bank robbery/shootout happened and those guys had completely illegal weapons and mag capacity had nothing to do with their rampage. The only way the cops were able to stop them was to go to a sporting goods shop that provided them with AR-15 rifles and magazines, which they were able to sue to stop the shooters. Had those weapons not been available, things would have gone differently.

"Well once banned it will be easy to control who has what"

A: your on crack. Drugs are banned and you can get them on virtually any street corner. Drinking and driving is banned, and every year thousands manage to be arrested for it, and thousands more kill people doing it. Banning accomplishes nothing except to upset honest hardworking Americans.

"Well only violent people even want high cap magazines and assault rifles. so who cares, its not what the average American wants."

A: lets back that bus back up there sunshine. The average American owns a firearm, and usually more than one. As an "anti-gunner" you are in the minority, not the majority. it is completely wrong to believe that your neighbors do not or should not own guns because you dont, and even worse to believe that gun owners are potential criminals. The best thing you can do as an anit-gunner is to ask a gun owner to take you to the range so you understand what the reality is, and part of that reality is that there are more guns in private US Citizens hands than in most countries standing armies.

"Well I hate guns, they only have one purpose and thats to kill people"

A: Once again, for an open mind you are sure closed up. Guns are simply tools, like cars, medicines, machinery, etc. and are only as good or bad as the human being using it. They are not inherently evil, nor do they somehow have the ability to make someone evil. If someone is going to kill people, they will find away with or withut a gun. In fact, more people use knives to kill people than any other weapon, period.

"But the guns and these high cap magazines make it so easy to just stand there and kill lots of people"

A: Ok cupcake, if someone wants to kill lots of people a gun is not the easiest way to do it. Arson is probably the easiest but poison- remember the Tylenol thing years back?- bombs- Oklahoma trade center?- etc. are actually easier and have a higher probability of killing more people. The REAL problem is the "GUN FREE ZONE" the second you remove the publics ability to protect itself is the second they become victims. Oh sure it might not happen today, but it will hapen. Why are police stations, military bases, gun clubs, gun stores, gun shows, hunting cabins, gun ranges, etc. NEVER targeted by these nutjobs? Because they will be shot, with a high probability of being shot before they can fire more than a shot or two. Why? Because those folks are armed. Period. Schools, malls, etc that restrict the carry and possesion of firearms just make a better target. You wont see a guy walk into a biker bar and open fire like you did at Newtown, because he would be dead after the first shot.

Play all the word games you want with the leftist idiots, but in the end they will just twist whatever you say, especially if your trying to be clever and make them "think". The best thing in dealing with a leftist moron is to be honest, use small words, with illustrations if necessary.

[Brock Landers]

OP, this is one of the best posts I've seen on this forum. I am so tired of hearing gun owners make their case after Sandy Hook and sounding A) stupid, B) deranged, C) selfish, and D) all of the above.

Wayne LaPierre is paid nearly $1 million annually by the NRA and as far as I can tell they'd be better paying that money to you because he came off as a fucking idiot in the aftermath of this and seriously damaged the NRA's brand in my opinion.

[spqrzilla]

During the last capacity "ban", Glock magazines went from ... what, about $30 apiece to $60.

That's what I say to people.

[spqrzilla]

Wayne LaPierre is paid nearly $1 million annually by the NRA and as far as I can tell they'd be better paying that money to you because he came off as a fucking idiot in the aftermath of this and seriously damaged the NRA's brand in my opinion.

I'm not a LaPierre fan but no one was going to look good with the entire MSM setting you up. No one.

[lowbeyond]

Since gun control has its genesis in racism. Just call them racists. If they are black call them race traitors.

What is good for the goose...

Seriously. These people are not interested in a facts, nor a genuine debate on the merits. So why bother.

[XDMan]

Great post, IMO. STICKY, please.

To those saying this won't work on full left wing anti-gun folks, you're correct. They've got their minds made up & nothing is likely to change their minds (unless you save their life with a gun & for some, not even then). Go with the other, emotional statements posted here. Or save your breath and sanity & just walk away...

But, for those that will listen, starting off with the reasoned approach, such as the OP's 1st post, is a great way to start. Again, IMO.

Sturmgewehre has a pretty good statement here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R5VxAebCng&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&index=3

Keep up the fight.

Leo

[Big E3]

Here's the argument I use, and it seems to get them into quiet thought.

"If a group of Muslim extremists went into any school and shot the kids we would be talking about why AR15's and thirty round mags are not part of the 2nd amendment as a right and if the government should be handing them out like Obama phones."

[NightCat]

I just ask them if they are willing to shred the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to infringe on the Second... Surprisingly, a number of them have actually thought about it and asked me what I meant. It got them thinking...

Touche!!!!

[cysoto]

Romney DID NOT sign an AWB, he mediatted between the gun and anti-gun factions to come up with a compromise. He introduced nothing, signed nothing. Get your damned facts straight you liberal poc
Not that it matters anymore since Romney did not win his bid for the Presidency of the United States but he did sign a Permanent Assault Weapons Ban as Governor of Massachusetts in 2004 and, more importantly, during the sign in ceremony, he proudly made the following statement: “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

[dwalker460]

Check your facts please:

http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/10/17/the-romney-assault-weapons-ban-that-wasnt/

The Romney Assault Weapons Ban That Wasn’t (http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/10/17/the-romney-assault-weapons-ban-that-wasnt/)
Being very close personally with someone who worked at GOAL (http://www.goal.org/) during the Romney Administration, there is a lot to like and a lot to dislike about Mitt Romney’s record on our issue. What’s not to like has gone largely undiscussed. What’s been discussed far more often is the assault weapons issue, which alternately has people or the media suggesting Romney made Massachusetts’s assault weapons ban permanent, or accusing him of being the Governor who passed Massachusetts’s Assault Weapons Ban in the first place. Both are untrue. The ban passed and signed (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180) by Governor Cellucci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cellucci) in 1998 never had an expiration. The problem came about in 2004 because Massachusetts Law makes several references to the federal ban. Without the supporting language from the federal ban, the definition of what exactly an assault weapon is in Massachusetts would have become uncertain. Fine, right? Well, no. Massachusetts is not a state where ambiguity in the law is decided in favor of a gun owner. The definition of assault weapon contains the language “shall include, but not be limited to,” which is like music to the ears of a prosecutor wanting to warn the fair citizenry that they exercise their right in his fiefdom at their peril. The limiting language in the Massachusetts definition was tied to a Federal Law which was about to disappear.
In 2004 that anti-gun leaders of the Massachusetts Legislature started to raise false concerns about needing to make Massachusetts’s assault weapons ban permanent, given that the federal ban was about to expire. This was never true, but presented an excuse to convince other legislators to revisit, and simultaneously greatly expand the definition of what an assault weapon is in Massachusetts, making the ban cover far more firearms. They went ahead and drafted a bill. Fortunately for gun owners in Massachusetts, GOAL was able to essentially gut the bill, and preserve the existing language in the definition, which included the federal list of exempted firearms. In addition they got a number of other easements to the bill which are detailed in their press release speaking about Romney’s record on guns (http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html). The anti-gun sponsors of the original bill were not pleased, but the rest of the Massachusetts Legislature went along with the GOAL plan of preserving the existing definition in the law, and slipping in some easements through under the radar. This wasn’t about making the ban permanent. Massachusetts Law would have still made assault weapons illegal, just with a far more nebulous definition of what exactly an assault weapon is.
While the anti-gun sponsors were not happy about what their bill had turned into, they got a lot happier when Governor Romney was misadvised about the bill he was signing and made the now infamous signing statement:

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
That was essentially cover for them, especially given that the media ran with this, and has kept running ever since. GOAL was inundated with calls from angry gun owners, who took the media and anti-gun legislators word on what the bill actually did. No one, not reporters, anti-gun folks, or angry citizens, bothered to read the actual law (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150). While it takes some work to follow, but it’s pretty easy to see the effect of the first three sections of the law, if you look at the statute it is modifying (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121), by inserting a concrete reference to the federal law with the addition of a date. The rest you need a deeper understanding of Massachusetts gun law to follow, but the “assault weapons” parts aren’t hard.
So Romney has never signed a gun ban, and anyone who suggests he has is missing the facts. He did other things, such as raising fees to try to balance Massachusetts’s budget, rather than raising taxes. Massachusetts has long required people to obtain licenses to possess firearms. Among those fees he raised were gun licenses, and the price hike was not trivial. The price was quadrupled (http://www.fairhavenpolice.org/firearmslic.pdf) without concern to what effect this would have on the exercise of people’s rights. The burden is not minor for someone who doesn’t have much money. That’s enough reason to distrust Romney on the issue as much as a gun ban is. I don’t blame gun owners who are wary of Mitt. But I’d like to see that wariness based on facts, and not bullshit peddled by the media.

[cysoto]

Well, like I said, not that it matter anymore since Romney did not win his bid for the Presidency but the "facts" are that there was a sign-in ceremony to a Permanent Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts in 2004 and then Governor Romney proudly stamped his signature on said bill so, whether or not his signature made a legal difference, is irrelevant. In 2004 Romney's actions clearly demonstrated that he approved of this bill and, in November 2012, an overwhelming majority of US voters demonstrated that they disapproved of him; end of story.

[Bailey Guns]

An "overwhelming majority"? I think not.

[cysoto]

An "overwhelming majority"? I think not.
You are right! "Overwhelming" wasn't the right term here but he did get spanked pretty good in the Electoral Vote.

[dwalker460]

You sound pretty happy about that, bought any mags lately?

[cysoto]

You sound pretty happy about that, bought any mags lately?

I cannot say that I am happy though I will say that I was not surprised with the outcome of the election. Luckily, when the AWB ver. 1 expired back in 2004 (and since then), I bought more standard capacity magazines than what I will need in two lifetimes. What makes me happy is that I didn't need to pay $90 for a Magpul mag.

[wreave]

IMPORTANT: We have to STOP calling them "high-capacity magazines". So long as we allow the antis to call them "high-capacity magazines", we have lost. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But we WILL lose.

Anything up to 30 rounds, i.e. the magazine that is normally used with the weapon, is STANDARD CAPACITY.

15 in a Glock 19? Standard capacity.
30 in an AR-15? Standard capacity.
13 in a Browning Hi-Power (a design almost 100 years old)

Etc.

In contrast, a magazine that has an artificially-reduced capacity should be referred to as such.

Being fair, a magazine which is not the standard capacity for a weapon could be referred to as high-capacity. Drum magazines, the 60- and 100-round surefires, etc. We should still support their legalization for all the reasons already mentioned, but those are the high-capacity magazines. Not the 30-rounds for ARs and AKs.

-------------------------

Side note: I think it's funny that the liberals who are lining up to tackle the gunman as soon as he hits his mythical 10-round reload are the same ones saying that an armed citizen (e.g. CC permit holder) has no chance against a raging maniac.

[dwalker460]

IMPORTANT: We have to STOP calling them "high-capacity magazines". So long as we allow the antis to call them "high-capacity magazines", we have lost. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But we WILL lose.

Anything up to 30 rounds, i.e. the magazine that is normally used with the weapon, is STANDARD CAPACITY.

15 in a Glock 19? Standard capacity.
30 in an AR-15? Standard capacity.
13 in a Browning Hi-Power (a design almost 100 years old)

Etc.

In contrast, a magazine that has an artificially-reduced capacity should be referred to as such.

Being fair, a magazine which is not the standard capacity for a weapon could be referred to as high-capacity. Drum magazines, the 60- and 100-round surefires, etc. We should still support their legalization for all the reasons already mentioned, but those are the high-capacity magazines. Not the 30-rounds for ARs and AKs.

-------------------------

Side note: I think it's funny that the liberals who are lining up to tackle the gunman as soon as he hits his mythical 10-round reload are the same ones saying that an armed citizen (e.g. CC permit holder) has no chance against a raging maniac.


I already covered this-



"Why do you need high cap magazines?"

A: I am not really a very good shot, so I need as many chances as I can get. Kinda like those extra lives in vidia games.
A: High cap magazines are actually standard capacity magazines, I cannot afford high cap magazines so I just buy the standard ones.

[wreave]

I already covered this-

"Why do you need high cap magazines?"

A: I am not really a very good shot, so I need as many chances as I can get. Kinda like those extra lives in vidia games.
A: High cap magazines are actually standard capacity magazines, I cannot afford high cap magazines so I just buy the standard ones.

Yes.

I don't love the video game answer for the reasons covered in the OP, but I like the second answer.