10 round clip controversy

[Cruentus]

SteveBJJ,

Why thank you for the personal attacks. You've illustrated the reason why I don't usually do forums anymore. I just don't have the time to deflect all the BS ad hominum and ad nauseum tactics that prevail in these discussions. Archangel explained my point well, and your butt still got hurt. I am sure that the rest of my post will fall on deaf ears, but here it goes anyway...

It isn't about elitism, it's simply about having an informed opinion. I never said that everyone had to be an expert on firearms, but I do hope that people will have an informed opinion before they seriously weigh in. I don't care what terminology people use (so long as we understand each other) but if you are way off in some of your terminology, it points to the idea that you might be uninformed on the issue. And since you obviously missed the point - of course you don't need to know the parts of an AR or about det cord to weigh in on a gun control argument; I was obviously using those as examples of people who said they were an expert on a subject when their use and lack of understanding of simple verbage told otherwise.

All I am suggesting is that people research topics a little bit before they weigh in with a solid assertion. I am also saying that if you're off on your terms a little, just correct it and you'll be better off. It is too bad that the idea of learning about a topic before weighing in offends your sensabilities.

But don't worry; this is my last post on this thread.

FlyingCrane: You bring up an interesting point about the use for guns vs. cars or pools or other things. However, we need not confuse the issue of "ownership" and "behavior."

The prudent thing to do is legislate things when ownership or behaviors infringe on others rights. Speed limit laws, for example, is not a law against ownership, it is a law against a behavior, because arguably high speeds infringe on the safety of other drivers on the road. The law doesn't say that your car must have a governor so that it can't exceed 55 mph.

A high cap mag, for example, isn't going to hurt anyone. However, if I shoot in my backyard without proper distancing or backstop towards my neighbors house, that could hurt someone. We have laws regulating behaviors in regards to shooting; criteria for backstops and distancing for target practice, for example. There are many laws regulating what constitutes self-defense as well. If I shoot my weapon down the street, I will have to face the legal consequences of that behavior even if no one is hurt. That has nothing to do with how many rounds my mag holds.

It absolutely is OK and nessicary to have some regulation on behaviors in regards to shooting to keep people safe. Regulating the equipment, however, is a different story. I discussed this in greater detail in the other thread titled "more anti-gun stupidity" recently, but basically ownership of firearms that shoot bullets by itself is not infringing on anyone elses rights, regardless of the mag capacity, or if it is full auto, or if they are hollow points, or whatever.

 

[Flying Crane]

FlyingCrane: You bring up an interesting point about the use for guns vs. cars or pools or other things. However, we need not confuse the issue of "ownership" and "behavior."

The prudent thing to do is legislate things when ownership or behaviors infringe on others rights. Speed limit laws, for example, is not a law against ownership, it is a law against a behavior, because arguably high speeds infringe on the safety of other drivers on the road. The law doesn't say that your car must have a governor so that it can't exceed 55 mph.

A high cap mag, for example, isn't going to hurt anyone. However, if I shoot in my backyard without proper distancing or backstop towards my neighbors house, that could hurt someone. We have laws regulating behaviors in regards to shooting; criteria for backstops and distancing for target practice, for example. There are many laws regulating what constitutes self-defense as well. If I shoot my weapon down the street, I will have to face the legal consequences of that behavior even if no one is hurt. That has nothing to do with how many rounds my mag holds.

It absolutely is OK and nessicary to have some regulation on behaviors in regards to shooting to keep people safe. Regulating the equipment, however, is a different story. I discussed this in greater detail in the other thread titled "more anti-gun stupidity" recently, but basically ownership of firearms that shoot bullets by itself is not infringing on anyone elses rights, regardless of the mag capacity, or if it is full auto, or if they are hollow points, or whatever.

My intention in entering this discussion at all was to point out where the advocates of tighter gun control will poke holes in the arguments presented, and Bill's car analogy was the one that stuck out in my mind.

As to your comments above, I think where the gun control advocates will argue against this is in the very nature of firearms, that they are meant for killing, and that places them in a special category deserving of special regulation. As such, the car analogy that Bill raised is a moot point.

I actually understand the merits of your points above. I also understand the merits of the gun control advocates. I don't think either argument is nonsense, nor is either clear of fault. Hence my own position on the fence.

 

[Cruentus]

**Sorry... off topic but I gave Grenadier, Archangel, and Bill Maddox pos reps recently for these discussions but forgot to sign it... whoopsie; I always want people to know its me so I'm accountable, pos or neg.**

 

[Steve]

SteveBJJ,

Why thank you for the personal attacks. You've illustrated the reason why I don't usually do forums anymore. I just don't have the time to deflect all the BS ad hominum and ad nauseum tactics that prevail in these discussions. Archangel explained my point well, and your butt still got hurt. I am sure that the rest of my post will fall on deaf ears, but here it goes anyway...

I'm sorry you feel picked on. I don't think I've attacked you personally and have instead addressed your posts, but if you feel that way, I apologize.

As long as we're pulling out that card, if you say that the sky is blue, and I post without any qualification or support in response, "When someone says the sky is blue, they're clearly ignorant," that's an ad hominem. It's not attacking the idea, it's attacking the person. In subsequent posts, you've continued to avoid any kind of actual response and instead focus on your expertise (an appeal to authority, which is another issue), and stories about guys you met in a bar. Your entire contribution amounts to, "You should be informed. I am informed."

Look, I don't care whether you think that liability insurance for gun owners is a good idea or not. Lklawson thinks it's a bad idea and said so. In contrast to your own posts, he actually responded to the idea. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm butt hurt, I will admit that I respect and appreciate his approach, and it offers a convenient contrast to your own posts.

 

[Archangel M]

Argument:
Guns are MADE for killing!!!
Reply:
"OK. So your point is?"

People have been killing each other for all of creation. Even now, during probably the most "civilized" period of man, killing one another is so common and ordinary that you can't read a book or watch a movie without killing as part of the plot. I think whats more important than fretting about something that will never be eliminated is worrying about who has the power. Throughout most of history the strong got to dictate to the weak. With the advent of the personal firearm, the potential for the first real equality of force for the "common man" was achieved. As the saying goes "God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." Our forefathers knew that back when they wrote the 2nd.

The tyrants and the "nanny politicians" have never been able to accept this. Argue "its for the common good" all they want, they want control back. The bullies, the criminals and the usurpers can't extort, steal, control and intimidate at will if their victims have the ability to fight back with equal force.

Guns are the only effective way honest people can protect themselves from otherwise stronger predators, of either the animal or the "human animal" variety.

Criminals are bad. So: a) Rehabilitate the criminal (to a provable standard) b) kill the criminal so he's no longer a problem, or c) lock-up the criminal until he dies.

Unfortunately we seem to be opting for (d) and just let someone we know is bad loose into society. Which we are seeing recently in all these cops being killed by paroled felons and multiple conviction criminals that keep getting put back on our streets.

Guns aren't the problem. Criminals are the problem. Solve the right problem.

 

[Steve]

Argument:
Guns are MADE for killing!!!
Reply:
"OK. So your point is?"

People have been killing each other for all of creation. Even now, during probably the most "civilized" period of man, killing one another is so common and ordinary that you can't read a book or watch a movie without killing as part of the plot. I think whats more important than fretting about something that will never be eliminated is worrying about who has the power. Throughout most of history the strong got to dictate to the weak. With the advent of the personal firearm, the potential for the first real equality of force for the "common man" was achieved. As the saying goes "God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." Our forefathers knew that back when they wrote the 2nd.

The tyrants and the "nanny politicians" have never been able to accept this. Argue "its for the common good" all they want, they want control back. The bullies, the criminals and the usurpers can't extort, steal, control and intimidate at will if their victims have the ability to fight back with equal force.

Guns are the only effective way honest people can protect themselves from otherwise stronger predators, of either the animal or the "human animal" variety.

Criminals are bad. So: a) Rehabilitate the criminal (to a provable standard) b) kill the criminal so he's no longer a problem, or c) lock-up r the criminal until he dies.

Unfortunately we seem to be opting for (d) and just let someone we know is bad loose into society. Which we are seeing recently in all these cops being killed by paroled felons and multiple conviction criminals that keep getting put back on our streets.

Guns aren't the problem. Criminals are the problem. Solve the right problem.

Good post. A big part of the problem contributing to (d) is that we have many laws on the books that are pointless, clogging up the system so that those who are truly dangerous slip through the cracks. I know I sound like a broken record, but MJ is a perfect example, clogging up the courts and jails with hippies and college students.

 

[Archangel M]

Not to be flip... but the idea that weed smokers are the reason that 3 time life conviction felons get put back on the streets is laughable. It's not about who they are putting IN its about who they are letting OUT.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was going to reply to the various questions asked me, but Archangel really did a good job of stating what I would have.

When we compare firearms to anything else, there is almost always an automatic objection lodged - that being that X is not 'designed to kill' and firearms are.

First, that's not exactly a true statement. Firearms are designed to kill, yes, but that's not all they're designed for. And many things not designed to kill are in fact used for that. So there are no black and white lines to be drawn; comparisons are valid despite the 'intent' of the item in question.

Second, one must consider context. 'Designed to kill' sounds awful. But that means a lot of things. It means it puts meat on the table, by killing game. It means it protects people against human and dangerous animals that can threaten their lives or safety. It means it puts the means of conducting enforcing laws in the hands of police and the means of conducting war in the hands of the military. There are also numerous sporting non-lethal uses for firearms, ranging from target shooting to historical collecting.

When I say something is 'designed to kill', I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing. But when it is said by a person who has an anti-gun point of view, what I believe they see in their mind's eye is 'designed to murder'. And that is a very different thing.

Yes, guns are designed to kill. However, that fact alone does not link 'need' to 'restriction' in my opinion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would wager that car ownership far outstrips gun ownership, and people use their cars far more often than guns. If you look at the number of times that cars are actually used in one year in the US, and tally the number of car accidents, I bet you'd also find it statistically insignficant. I don't have numbers to point to, but I'd be comfortable making the wager.

Yet we allow and accept and embrace legislated limits on how we drive our cars, including speed limits...

Just as we have limits on where one may carry their gun.....you cannot possess and use either while intoxicated......not sure the point you're trying to make.

Also, we accept speed limits.....but NOT speed limiters, i.e. legislative restrictions on the speed a car is capable of going. We expect individuals to self-limit their speed, despite the fact that almost all cars are capable of going faster than that.

As for the insurance argument, it's fundamentally silly.......the reason we have automobile insurance is that automobile ACCIDENTS account for billions of dollars of cost in damage and injury every year. Quite frankly the level of death, injury and property damage created by automobiles so vastly dwarfs anything caused by firearms as to make the argument of mandatory automobile insurance legitimate.

As it is, however, you are only required to maintain automobile insurance for vehicles you DRIVE ON PUBLIC ROADS! You can buy any car, keep it in your house, and drive it on your property, without insurance.

If we apply the automobile analogy, that means, what that we're going to require those with CCW's to have insurance on their guns? Give me statistically support for ANY damage done by CCW holders that would remotely require that.

 

[Archangel M]

And "killing"...while never a good thing is many times the "right thing". Its right that an innocent homeowner killed a murderous intruder instead of the other way around.

 

[Archangel M]

I also find it interesting that the LEO's here (current and former) are standing together on this point. Especially how it's when we get killed that the gun grabbers make their moves. And it's us the paranoid gun owners fear as the evil arm of gvt.

Paradoxical eh??

 

[sgtmac_46]

The banning hi-capacity magazine argument is fundamentally silly. There is nothing 'magically safer' about 10 round magazines.

The only reason it's being brought up is that when a tragic, high profile, but statistically anomolous incident like Tucson occur, the natural emotional response is to start dissecting it and fabricating laws about every microscopic detail in some emotionally driven attempt to rhetroactively prevent THAT incident.

In this incident he happened to use a 30 round magazine (actually, 33?), and so some emotionally driven folks have fixated on that detail as some kind of aggravating circumstance to be targeted for legislation.

The irony of banning 30 round magazines for concealable handguns is that as anyone who has ever seen a 30 round magazine in a handgun, is that it becomes completely unconcealable! If you hated CCW's you'd pass a law REQUIRING them to have 30 round magazines in order to be carried!

Yet another example of what happens when you allow emotionally hijacked people to legislate.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I also find it interesting that the LEO's here (current and former) are standing together on this point. Especially how it's when we get killed that the gun grabbers make their moves. And it's us the paranoid gun owners fear as the evil arm of gvt.

Paradoxical eh??

Most line officers in this country are very pro-2nd Amendment, as you well know.

Yes, there are quite a few carpet cop administrators who are anti-gun, but then, that's how elitists are.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I also find it interesting that the LEO's here (current and former) are standing together on this point. Especially how it's when we get killed that the gun grabbers make their moves. And it's us the paranoid gun owners fear as the evil arm of gvt.

Paradoxical eh??

I hesitated to bring this up, given that two law enforcement officers were killed yesterday in Miami:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/01/21/two_miami_police_officers_killed_in_shootout/

I do not wish to use the tragic deaths of these two brave officers as an example, but the circumstances themselves are exemplary of the argument being advanced here.

The suspect in this case was also shot dead by police. He had a very extensive criminal record, including murder, and he was wanted on another homicide charge, which police were attempting to arrest him for. One could use this as an argument for why gun control is needed; one could also argue that the suspect, a felon, was armed even though the law did not allow him to be armed. So no law restricting *my* gun ownership is going to stop *him* and people like him from being armed. If one wanted to argue that if guns were outlawed, the criminal would not have access to them, I would point out that among his various criminal convictions were those for dealing drugs such as cocaine; a drug that is currently prohibited in all but a very few medical cases; yet he somehow got his hands on it and sold it. Prohibiting guns could be expected to work about as well as prohibiting drugs does.

There is nothing good about what happened in Miami. It's a tragedy for everyone but the suspect, whom I am actually glad is dead. But there is no cogent argument for gun control found in the situation. This is the core of the issue; banning or restricting will only restrict those who obey the law; and those people are not the problem.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The banning hi-capacity magazine argument is fundamentally silly. There is nothing 'magically safer' about 10 round magazines.

If we banned 30-round magazines, and someone committed an atrocity with a 25-round magazine, does anyone think that the gun-control advocates would say "Oh, well, at least 25 rounds is reasonable, unlike 30, so I have no issues with this." NO! They would foment against 25-round magazines. And 15. And 10.

The problem with 'reasonable' regulations is that there is never an end to it. And if pressed, most gun-control advocates will agree. Ask them to tell you EXACTLY how many rounds is OK in a magazine and how many is not. They won't. They can't. Because they know as well as you do that the NEXT time, they'll be in favor of banning magazines that hold X number of rounds, with X being the number used in that latest crime.

 

[sgtmac_46]

If we banned 30-round magazines, and someone committed an atrocity with a 25-round magazine, does anyone think that the gun-control advocates would say "Oh, well, at least 25 rounds is reasonable, unlike 30, so I have no issues with this." NO! They would foment against 25-round magazines. And 15. And 10.

The problem with 'reasonable' regulations is that there is never an end to it. And if pressed, most gun-control advocates will agree. Ask them to tell you EXACTLY how many rounds is OK in a magazine and how many is not. They won't. They can't. Because they know as well as you do that the NEXT time, they'll be in favor of banning magazines that hold X number of rounds, with X being the number used in that latest crime.

That's absolutely right........the 'Nobody needs 30 round magazines' argument is about incrementalism..........make a 'reasonable sounding' argument about something most folks don't really even want, ban that, and work your way down.........

Which is clear in this instance, because they are arguing against 30 round magazines, but wanting to skip arguing and 15 and 17 round magazines.........they want to frame the argument as simply 30 round versus 10 round magazines.......I guess they figure nobody will notice they're wanting to eliminate 15 and 17 as well.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would also like to point out that high-capacity magazines were banned for a number of years under the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban'. However, this law expired in 2004 under President Bush. Many gun-control advocates predicted blood in the streets.

For example:

Southeast Missourian - Sep 14, 2004
BY BETSY TAYLOR . AP . ST. LOUIS — City officials called the expiration of a 10year federal assault weapons ban a blow to public safety Monday...

New York Daily News - Mar 4, 2004
No, said the NRA, let there not be a renewal of the assault weapons ban. ... The only sport that requires, say, an AK-47 is a human blood sport.


democracynow.org - Sep 13, 2004
He doubles over and his blood splatters on the camera lens as he screams, "I'm a journalist. .... The 10-year federal ban on assault weapons expires today. ...

Did blood run in the streets? That was 2004, 7 years ago. Have there been a plethora of robberies and murders and rapes that occurred because suddenly people could buy 30-round magazines again?

There has been an extremely heinous incident. In 7 years. And no one is arguing that the murderer would have chosen to simply carry a protest sign instead of killing people if he could only have gotten a 10-round magazine for his pistol. He might not have killed as many; or as others have mentioned, he might have carried more than one gun or been faster or more successful on the reload.

But no one has pointed me to a situation that would not have happened - at all - if the ban had been continued.

So reinstating the ban now will do what, exactly?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would also like to point out that high-capacity magazines were banned for a number of years under the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban'. However, this law expired in 2004 under President Bush. Many gun-control advocates predicted blood in the streets.

For example:



Did blood run in the streets? That was 2004, 7 years ago. Have there been a plethora of robberies and murders and rapes that occurred because suddenly people could buy 30-round magazines again?

There has been an extremely heinous incident. In 7 years. And no one is arguing that the murderer would have chosen to simply carry a protest sign instead of killing people if he could only have gotten a 10-round magazine for his pistol. He might not have killed as many; or as others have mentioned, he might have carried more than one gun or been faster or more successful on the reload.

But no one has pointed me to a situation that would not have happened - at all - if the ban had been continued.

So reinstating the ban now will do what, exactly?

Those who wish to abolish private arms realized a long time ago they could not do it wholesale......so they must do it piecemeal.....

Cheap handguns 'Saturday night specials'
Easy to shoot guns designed only to kill lots of people 'GLOCKS'
Any rifle with a scope 'Sniper weapons'
Any semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine 'Assault rifles'

They have an argument against each one........and they will exploit any tragedy they can by fixating on the particular combination of weapons used in that tragedy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's absolutely right........the 'Nobody needs 30 round magazines' argument is about incrementalism..........make a 'reasonable sounding' argument about something most folks don't really even want, ban that, and work your way down.........

Which is clear in this instance, because they are arguing against 30 round magazines, but wanting to skip arguing and 15 and 17 round magazines.........they want to frame the argument as simply 30 round versus 10 round magazines.......I guess they figure nobody will notice they're wanting to eliminate 15 and 17 as well.

That's why I said that the term 'clip' was being intentionally misused for effect. "A 30-round clip" has a very ominous sound to it. The kind of thing that no typical gun owner with a squirrel rifle or a pheasant shotgun or even a deer rifle in the closet would have any use for. And many gun owners are persuaded in ways such as these. It's subtle, but it's there. You have to be on guard for it. Why 'clip' instead of 'magazine'? Because 'clip' has another meaning. It means 'fast'. Fast, in this instance, is being labeled as a bad thing.

It is the same reason - precisely the same reason - that anti-gun people call certain kinds of bullets 'cop-killer bullets'. Sounds awful, doesn't it? Who on earth would be in favor of or want to own a 'cop-killer' bullet? Good Lord, ban them immediately!

Smart people seize the language and make it serve their interests. It doesn't matter what the argument is, the smartest proponents of it always seize the language. It is the emotional impact and appeal of the words that convince huge swaths of people who are not thinking critically, but with their hearts. There is NEVER a statement issued by a federal politician that in which the words used are not chosen with care and designed to foster emotional appeal to their argument. No one is anti-life. People are pro-choice and pro-life. What, no anti-life or anti-choice? Nope, both sides are FOR something, not against. It's because no one identifies with the 'anti' side of things. For emotional impact, we don't talk about aborting a fetus, we talk abort an unborn infant.

Words, it's all words. You have to make sure you don't let them argue on their own terms; if you do, you've already given them half the argument.

 

[Flying Crane]

I was going to reply to the various questions asked me, but Archangel really did a good job of stating what I would have.

When we compare firearms to anything else, there is almost always an automatic objection lodged - that being that X is not 'designed to kill' and firearms are.

First, that's not exactly a true statement. Firearms are designed to kill, yes, but that's not all they're designed for. And many things not designed to kill are in fact used for that. So there are no black and white lines to be drawn; comparisons are valid despite the 'intent' of the item in question.

Second, one must consider context. 'Designed to kill' sounds awful. But that means a lot of things. It means it puts meat on the table, by killing game. It means it protects people against human and dangerous animals that can threaten their lives or safety. It means it puts the means of conducting enforcing laws in the hands of police and the means of conducting war in the hands of the military. There are also numerous sporting non-lethal uses for firearms, ranging from target shooting to historical collecting.

When I say something is 'designed to kill', I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing. But when it is said by a person who has an anti-gun point of view, what I believe they see in their mind's eye is 'designed to murder'. And that is a very different thing.

Yes, guns are designed to kill. However, that fact alone does not link 'need' to 'restriction' in my opinion.

aye, I don't dispute these points.

As I've stated before in this thread, I'm pointing out where gun control advocates will argue weaknesses in your position. take it as you will. I personally don't think they are exactly wrong, just as I don't believe your position is exactly wrong either. But neither do I see either position as completly right. Both sides actually have reasonable points in the argument, and I think that for any meaningful dialogue to take place, both sides need to acknowledge this of the other side.

Obviously it's a polarizing issue and often any "discussion" ends up with both sides calling each other crazy wingnuts and dismissing each other out of hand, instead of really considering what is being said. I see this happen on both sides of the argument, and it doesn't accomplish much. Nobody is willing to even look to see if there might be some legitimacy in the viewpoint of the other side, because by virtue of the fact that he's on the other side means he's not worth listening to. And so the arguments continue forever. Actually, this thread has so far remained fairly respectful and that's a good thing. I do notice however, that no serious gun control advocates have jumped in so most people here are preaching to the choir.

I don't really have a dog in the race. I'm not advocating either way. I just thought I'd throw in a different perspective, and you can take some education from that, or not, it really makes no difference to me.