There is no Analogy for a Gun

Read the original post here: http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/there-is-no-analogy-for-a-gun/

Why do people defend the use of semi-automatic gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds? That is a question I wonder when the guns before life crowd comes out of the wood work after yet another tragedy like we had in Tucson on Saturday, at Va. Tech, Columbine and other places.

One of the arguments is that knives kill people, so why not ban them. First, this is a technique used when one can’t defend their position. It’s called “distraction”. If you can’t defend the use of semi-automatic guns with high capacity magazines (more than 10 or 15 rounds), then make a false analogy to show how ridiculous banning weapons is. Do I really have to explain how a knife is different from a gun? Really? I have yet to see a semi-automatic hunting knife that could shoot 30+ rounds form a distance in about two minutes. A knife is a poor substitute for a gun. If it wasn’t, the U.S. army and the Taliban would bring a knife to a gun fight. Alas for some, this distinction is not obvious.

Then there is the other false analogy: automobiles kill people, so why not ban them? First, I have never called for the banning of guns. That is the first error in the logic. Second, a car was not created to kill. A car was invented as a mode of transportation for people and goods. Outside of personal protection and hunting, both involving killing or wounding, guns have no other legal uses other than target practice, skeet shooting and so forth. I suppose you could use a gun as a hammer, but that would not be what the gun was designed for. I think using a hammer to kill would be more effective (as one gun defender suggested) than using a gun as a hammer. However, there is that trouble with the reloading the hammer to shoot at a crowd. Moreover, why don’t the people comparing automobiles to guns ever suggest gun insurance (like for cars) be mandated and what we have to take a gun use test and register our guns like we do our cars? It’s because people only use the analogies when it suits their defense of guns. If they actually thought it through, they would see the analogy is not apt.

Why can’t gun advocates admit that guns were created to kill? Isn’t that the point of a gun, to kill or wound an intruder or take down your dinner, deer, rabbit, quail or other game animal? That is the primary function of a gun. I don’t see a problem with that fact or admitting that fact. However, those that feel compelled to come to the defense of guns at all costs can’t admit it. Even those that would support Democratic issues such as health care for all and are against the war come out to defend gun with false analogies. Guns don’t need the help; they can defend themselves. It’s okay, no one want to take your gun away. We want to reduce gun violence.

Why this disconnect with the reality of what a gun does? Is it that gun advocates on the left or middle of American politics are ashamed of their stance and have to deny the real purpose of a gun? Will it create cognitive dissonance to say that guns were created to kill? Most on the right have no such shame.

Yes, seatbelts can kill too, as one gun defender suggested. Really? Is that where our discourse has devolved, comparing seat belts to guns because sometimes a person dies wearing a seatbelt? Why discuss what a gun is at all then if it is like everything else? In reality, there is no analogy for a gun.

Now that we have learned that guns were created to kill, we must ask ourselves what is the best and most effective way to regulate the use of guns and how to reduce gun violence without interfering with the legal use of the tool that can kill. We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes. The NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers, and other guns first people don’t want you to ask those question because it means that the paranoia will subside, a rational discussing will ensue, gun manufacturers will sell fewer weapons, and the influence of the gun lobby in D.C. will be reduced.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

you put into words what I feel.......nicely done.

He reloaded 4 times and likely could have killed dozens more except he chose to take his own life rather than face capture.

Gun control advocates aren't attempting to solve the problem. They are attempting to pass feel good do nothing laws.

Show me some sensible gun control:
* something making it easier to flag mentally ill and dangerous persons and thus use existing NICS to block firearm transactions.
* something that mandates reporting of potentially dangerous behavior by authority figures (teachers, employers, Police) rather than just push the issue down the road (school being able to kick suspect out but notify nobody)
* something that connects the very manual, fragmented, slow, and error prone mental health record system into an electronic database that can more rapidly and accurately update NICS with current statuses.
* something that greatly boosts funding for public mental health system

I don't have the answers but these are complex issues and gun control advocates are making mockery of the complexity of the real issue. We have gun control advocates pushing the same tired bills and the same tired lies and myths. Year after year, decade after decade.

I am not going to support gun control just so you can feel better.
A bill that bans all mags with 11 rounds isn't acceptable.
A bill that makes law abiding citizens criminals if they get within 1000ft of a Politician with a legally carried and owned firearm isn't acceptable.
A bill that treats politicians and Police differently then us common serfs isn't acceptable.
A bill that bans "scary looking guns" regardless of their functionality (and ignoring the fact they are almost never used in crime) isn't acceptable.
A bill that tries to do it again despite there being no evidence the first bill had ANY effect on crime rates.

Also if you are trying to reach out to gun owners using the terms "hunt" or "need" isn't a good idea. It isn't a bill of "needs" it is a bill of rights. Please have respect for that. The question isn't what is needed. That is a bogus question. The real question is what does the government have the authority to regulate/restrict without overstepping strict scrutiny. If you don't know what strict scrutiny is then look it up before having a "real" discussion on infringing upon Constitutional rights.

4 out of 5 gunowners don't hunt. The word hunt shouldn't appear in any discussion about gun control. Period.

clever use of language though.

But you avoid the real question. Do people need more than 10 rounds?

Once you have answered that, than we can talk.

Did I say anything about banning guns? No. So why do you avoid the issues I addressed by posting issues I didn't mention?

20% of gun owners hunt? Why ignore them? What's your point, other than to avoid the real issues I addressed and then try to blame me for trying to take away your precious rights. Boo hoo. Keep your guns, but think about how, what and why they should be used, please. What about my right to be secure in my person in public? Do you care about public safety at all? Do you think anyone anywhere should be able to use a gun? If not, that's a starting point for discussing solutions instead of misrepresenting by position.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

This is why cops have standard capacity (15 to 20) round magazines, plus extra magazines, plus backup.

So cops need that (despite having backup) but a homeowner should be limited to only 10 rounds when facing multiple intruders so you can "feel" safe.

Sorry no dice.

What about my right to be secure in my person in public?
You have no right to have others provide safety for you. The courts have been very clear of this. You have the right to ensure your OWN safety and self defense is a viable method.

Do you think anyone anywhere should be able to use a gun? If not, that's a starting point for discussing solutions instead of misrepresenting by position.
Of course not. The current prohibited persons list is a good standard. Nobody supports giving guns to anyone, anywhere. That is what is called a strawman.

Do you care about public safety at all?
Of course I do but I also know that homicides are lower today than at any point in the last 46 years. I know passing "feel good do nothing" laws based on emotion and not statistical evidence is not a good policy.

I honestly have seen no gun control measure in the last 20 years that would promote public safety.

But you avoid the real question. Do people need more than 10 rounds?
You still don't get it. I DO believe they are needed however even if they aren't the government has no right, no authority to ban things based on "need". It can only infringe upon rights based on due process. That due process is called strict scrutiny. A limit to 10 rounds is not only ineffective it violates strict scrutiny IMHO and thus is Unconstitutional.

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

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

The idea that you can divorce the subject of gun control from Constitutional rights is flawed. They are connected. There exists a Constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms. Thus in crafting any gun control law one needs to look not at what you "want" (I want all mags >10rnds banned) but what is necessary for the government to accomplish its "compelling governmental interest". The two are intimately tied. Any discussion of gun control that doesn't look at the Constitutional aspect isn't "sensible gun control".

serve and protect? Isn't that what they are hired for? Did I say ban larger magazines from police? Nope.

I only used a straw man because you insisted on contradicting any reasonable gun regulations.

It also helps people realize that this is what I am looking for, a safer public former where lunatics and other out of control people don't have the fire power to kill so many people in a short time span.

Was it easier for Cho to kill people because he had to reload or was it more challenging? Isn't it easier to do massive damage with one large magazine?

How about not allowing people to own one 10 round magazine? Ever thought of that simple solution? How about regulations the purchases to keep us all safer?

And when I say "people" I am not including the police.

So, the government, of the people, shouldn't care if we are safe and thus regulate semi-autos? If the government "of the people" is there to protect the people, what the hell are they there for?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x333329


Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)

Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Regardless of what the oath they take says, police cannot be held liable for protecting you, John Q. Public from harm. Even from a well-defined threat. Even from a threat for which you obtained a protective order. This isn't new doctrine, either.

The police are hired to protect and serve. The government was designed to protect citizens. They aren't doing what they were created to do, and they're abusing the power We the People have lent them. Give me an armed populace over a police department any day of the week.

You don't "need" anything more than air food and water...

OTOH, Yes.. I need those magazines... No... I don't need to explain why...

Just that easy. Thanks Constitution...!

why do people have more than 10 rounds if they aren't going to go out and kill people?

Is that question easier for you to understand? You don't NEED more than 10 rounds to shoot an intruder or a rabbit or skeet.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Why, quantitatively, has 10 rounds been determined that it is the proper amount of rounds I should be allowed to carry?
Why not 6? Why not 12? Why 10? I'm interested in your answer.

To answer your question, my reason for why I feel I might need 31 rounds:
Using a firearm under duress can be difficult. While a good shot at the firing range (95%+ on a human target in a competitive environment) my combat accuracy may only be 40% depending on lighting, moving targets, and evasive maneuvers. Also, a good practice is to fire two shots into the target in rapid succession (double tap) and assess the situation. Because 9mm is a fairly diminutive round a determined attacker or home intruder, especially one under the effects of narcotics, may need engaged up to twice with a "double tap" to quickly end the threat. It's also not unreasonable to expect that there may be a second or third accomplice engaged in the home invasion or robbery. Four attackers may be on the fringe of imagination, but three is more within the realm of possibility.
Added up, that's 12 successful shots/hits requiring 30 total expended rounds (at a 40% hit rate).

Personally, I don't carry my 30 round mags because they stick out of the gun awkwardly but I have carried a 30 round as a spare mag in my pocket (or keep it in my glovebox of the car). More typically, I carry 15+1 rounds in my Glock and a spare 15 round magazine for a total of 31 rounds.

Also, keep in mind that common shooting competitions may allow allow extended magazines. I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting "9 major" in the open class had upwards of 29 rounds in a magazine. In a competition, not having to swap a mag is a HUGE advantage.

What if I'm a Korean grocer sitting on top of my store in LA in 1992 w/ a Mini 14 watching a mob of well over 100 rioters approach my store?

What if I'm stuck in my home after Katrina and the looters (including police) are getting closer?

What if we already tried banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and in 10 years could show absolutely no discernable affect on crime?

What if we want the Palin - Huckabee ticket to win in '12 (cause if you pull this gun control shit it will)

How many would you allocate to a home defender?

of a cop needing to shoot a man 22 times, 17 of which were in the center of mass, even a few in the face, over the course of several minutes. The man continued to fight back even after being shot 22 times. Of course, drugs can make people feel no pain or operate even while being considered "the walking dead". Know what the man was on?

Nothing. He was just really pissed off. Thats just one guy. What if a regular citizen was in his place with just ten rounds? The officer was even using excellent quality hollow points which expand reliably and do a lot of damage. A regular joe could have been screwed.

Besides, Ive never had to shoot at anyone with my 17 round magazine, 18 with one chambered. My last carry gun only held ten but that was by choice. I can tell you I prefer 17 to 10 when I hit the range. I go there to shoot, not reload. Reloading is rough on the fingers and less fun.

Also I dont care if I use a AK47 with a 75 round drum, I still wont be able to shoot skeet. Well not if I expect to hit a clay bird. Skeet guns only hold a few shots. I dont shoot skeet much maybe someone else can chime in. Semi auto trap gun holds what... 5 shots?

Really? You can make that guarantee?

If your talking about guns, and legislation, you most certainly ARE talking about the bill of rights. Even if youd rather not see it framed that way.

which is what the Constition protects against. It does say, and the courts have decided that there should be some reguation.

What I was talking about is the nonsense of people that think there should be NO regulation and that a gun is just like a knife or a car.

That's not a constitutional issue, it's a material issue.

Why do you insist on thinking I want to ban guns?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Before we can flag 'mentally ill and dangerous' people, we need to
1. Demonstrate that mental illness leads to 'dangerousness', or else we will be limiting the rights of a lot of irrelevant people inappropriately. So far there's pretty much no evidence to support this - we just label the violent as 'mentally ill' after the fact. I don't know about you, but if my neighbor's dog started telling me to go and shoot John Lennon, I'd go straight to a doctor and tell them I was having hallucinations. Buying a gun and ammo would be, at that point, a choice having little to do with mental illness.

2. Come up with some more reasonable, less faddish definitions of 'mental ilness' than the pharmaceutical industry and the social control industries have done so far. It wasn't that long ago that being homosexual was mental illness, and currently, being obsessed with healthy food is mental illness. Read the DSM - a fair amount of it is as wacky as Sarah Palin.

3. Figure out how to include repeat violent offenders in 'mentally ill and dangerous', as laws preventing them from easily acquiring new weapons in bulk quantities keep getting attacked as 'unreasonable'.

4. Create some kind of 'authority' with the ability to be HUGELY more rational than Congress, the Supreme Court, existing mental health institutions, etc. so they can be trusted with doing something about what they're 'notified' about. Personally I'm not convinced this is possible.

5. Fix the problem with our 'error prone' mental health records - that being that the majority of errors are large conceptual or ideological errors, and not trivial errors of fact or paperwork.

6. re funding - why throw more money at a system that doesn't work, in ways that more money can't fix?

Show me real-life cases where someone needs 11 rounds in a hurry to defend themselves - MORE CASES than there are of criminals using 11 rounds in a hurry.

You're right about politicians - you shouldn't be armed within 1000ft of ANYONE who isn't voluntarily on some sort of shooting or hunting expedition with you. I have no reason to think you're any more mentally healthy than any other random American, and even less so if you're packing a gun in this political climate.

Personally I've never seen, nor heard of, a law or potential law mentioning 'scary looking' guns. Sounds like a red herring to me.

re rights - show me that you're a member of a militia whose internal organization and bylaws are a matter of public control as well as accessibility, and I'll grant you have a constitutional right. Otherwise, it's a legitimate argument, and I'm against individuals claiming the right. So I'll keep arguing against it.

Show me real-life cases where someone needs 11 rounds in a hurry to defend themselves - MORE CASES than there are of criminals using 11 rounds in a hurry

That isn't the burden of proof. Scrict Scrutiny is. We are a nation of laws not feelings. How you feel is irrelivent. What the government can PROVE is the deciding factor.

re rights - show me that you're a member of a militia whose internal organization and bylaws are a matter of public control as well as accessibility, and I'll grant you have a constitutional right. Otherwise, it's a legitimate argument, and I'm against individuals claiming the right. So I'll keep arguing against it.
The right to keep and bear arms exists and predates the Constitution.

The SCOTUS has ruled the 2nd amendment protects and individual right:
So Held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. D.C. v. Heller (2008)

I have no interest in debating established law. Law that is also supported by a super majority of Americans (70%+). You can pretend it doesn't exist but since there is nowhere near the support for a repeal what you feel is rather meaingless. It would be like a RWer feeling Blacks should be slaves. Established law. That isn't going to happen so debating it is pointless. You can think the 2A doesn't protect an individual right. I can't change your mind but it will be a futile pursuit.

"Personally I've never seen, nor heard of, a law or potential law mentioning 'scary looking' guns. Sounds like a red herring to me"
The assault weapons ban banned "Scary looking rifles". It banned rifles based on cosmetics, not functionality. It has no effect on crime rates and results in Democrats losing control of Congress for a decade.

"Personally I've never seen, nor heard of, a law or potential law mentioning 'scary looking' guns. Sounds like a red herring to me."

Research the assault weapon ban. It was all about "scary looking guns" even if it didn't mention them as such.

Beyond that, You can go on and on about heller or mcdonald being right wing decisions, but theres no escaping or whitewashing away the truth of the matter, which I'll lay out for you clearly.

First, by your post, you do not appear to know what the second amendment is.

The reason I say that, is you claim that "show me that you're a member of a militia whose internal organization and bylaws are a matter of public control as well as accessibility, and I'll grant you have a constitutional right. Otherwise, it's a legitimate argument, and I'm against individuals claiming the right. So I'll keep arguing against it."


Heres the truth of the matter. And keep in mind, this is not my opinion, this is fact, and I'll verify that for you here and now:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Do you understand what that says?

It says in simple terms, that to prevent the federal government from abusing or misconstruing its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

With me so far?

The second amendment is a restrictive clause telling the federal government what it SHALL NOT do. "A well regulated militia" is WHY it shall not do what the amendment says it shall not do.

If it said "fried green banannas" instead of "well regulated militia", it would still tell the government what it shall not do.

If you doubt that the original bill of rights was a "the government shall not" document, I'll simply refer you to the first amendment that says "congress shall make no law".


The meaning of the second amendment is crystal clear, should the person reading it bounce it off the preamble as the framers intended.


Argue against it to your hearts content, but the document says what it says, and you are wrong.

"No matter what the situation, a guy with a gun, is a guy with a gun."

And that's exactly what Loughner was - a guy with a gun. A crazy guy with a gun, but he was still a guy with a gun.

Sometimes deadly force is an appropriate response to a threat.

but the question remains, do we give up, or try to find better ways to keep guns safe in the United States.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Like keeping known violent criminals in prison.

but what about the types of guns available, the easy access, and the skirting of the existing laws so that undiagnosed crazies can easily get them.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Please look it up.

Easy access was addressed in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, which has been enhanced and expanded several times.

Undiagnosed crazies have the right to own a gun.

We deny that that is their sole intent and purpose.

have you?

So how do you know people haven't tried to avoid the fact that guns kill when talking to me?

Other than target practice and perhaps as a threat when in dangers, aren't guns used to inflict damage? What other purposes are there?

Your comment indicates to me that you are one of the deniers.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Edit: But you are still trying to ascribe a sole purpose use to a multi-use tool.

Competition, hunting, collecting, display, target shooting, and, yes, self-defense. Not all of these involve destruction, injury or death.

I do know people who have exposed a firearm to deter a would be criminal. Thats self defense without injury. Many times thats how police get a criminal. Simply by an armed presence, or drawing a firearm. No need to fire most of the time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I also choose to exercise my right to keep and bear arms.

What many of the gun control advocates don't seem to understand is they are pushing many away from the party who might otherwise vote Democratic..

I am not here to promote guns nor support taking them away, but it seems to me to be correct to say that if guns were outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

My thinking is that the killer in AZ would have gotten a gun somehow because I see the intent in his writings.

I don't see him obeying a gun law.

Yes he could have gotten a gun if he was really determined.

But the more things in his way would mean the harder it would be for him to do so, the more flags he may raise when doing so and possibly the less lethal the weapon he may have ended upw ith would be.

That there will always be be criminals doesnt' mean we shouldn't try to prevent them.

You also put road blocks in the way of law abiding citizens. That seems to me to be the idea that we have to lessen our choices because someone may make the wrong choice.

I just don't agree with the idea that more laws will make us safer. I'm sure many people would feel safer.

I think that act of violence is so repulsive that we feel we must react in someway. Whether it gets us the desired result or not, we often make laws that satisfies that desire to react.

We need to work on the climate of fear and ignorance before we need to work on new gun laws.

I don't.

If we didn't manufacture these weapons, criminals would get them.

That's one of dozens of possible solutions to the "if we banned guns" myth.

Also, banning some guns would prevent some people from getting semi-autos, like perhaps Jared Loughner? Sure, criminals will get the semi-autos, but do you need one? Not unless you are a cop, in the military, or a criminal.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

How is need a factor unless someone plans to commit a crime?

We have laws that say lunatics are not allowed to have guns.

A lunatic went to a store and bought a gun because the list of lunatics did not have his name on it. So nobody told the clerk not to sell the lunatic the gun.

The TV is now crawling with people who are telling anyone who will listen THEY knew he was a lunatic all along.

Five hundred FBI agents are busy sifting through everything from the lunatics bronze baby shoes to the present.

The East German Secret Police had one informant for every seven citizens. East German Border Guards were screened for reliability. The Stasi had to organize a special unit to try and keep Border Guards from defecting.

Do you think that level of government scrutiny would have discovered the lunatic in time to have prevented his attack? If you are confident it would have would you willing live under such a system?

You do know that semi-automatic handguns are the most common type out there, right? That there are hundreds of models from dozens of manufacturers, in calibers ranging from .22 to .50? That they are used for hunting and target shooting as well as self-defense? That millions of people around the world participate in shooting sports, often using semi-auto handguns, rifles, and shotguns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports

You talk as though semi-automatic weapons are the font of pure evil, yet JFK was killed with a bolt-action rifle and RFK and Ronald Reagan were shot with .22 caliber revolvers. You say you don't want to ban all firearms, but the reality is that any gun can kill. A determined homicidal maniac will be able to wreak havoc with just about any weapon or combination of weapons. So where does that lead the gun-control conversation? I know where many would take it: to a total ban. Yet this ban would do nothing to eliminate and little to mitigate the type of killing spree that we just saw in Arizona. Google the "Akihabara massacre." He killed seven with a motor vehicle and a knife.

As for the "one ten-round magazine" limitation, it's virtually unenforcable and would only lead to criminals being better armed than their victims. Do you really think that a spree killer or gangbanger would pay the slightest heed to any such limitation? Those are the people you need to fear, not the sport shooter, hunter, collector, or other armed citizen.

Then you say we dont need semi autos...
Which is pretty much all guns. You then go on to say criminals need guns. Im hoping you didnt mean that the way it sounds. Either way, the cops I know well are prefer civilians to be armed.

we should all have guns at the ready for the Zombie Uprising.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

first off, many people don't realize that a car doesnt have be registered or insured; neither does the driver need a license to own it or operate it. It only needs to be registered, insured, and be operated by a licensed driver if it goes on PUBLIC roads. You dont need to register or insure a car that doesnt leave your personal propery. My grandparents used to live on a farm and at age 13 they let me drive the pickup around the farm- and it was 100% legal (plus it wasnt registered or insured).

Now when it come to guns this is a similar situation. Not many restrictions to own a gun and keep it on your property but if you want to carry it in PUBLIC- most states require you to get a permit, get some training, and show competency in the use of the firearm.

"We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes. The NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers, and other guns first people don’t want you to ask those question because it means that the paranoia will subside, a rational discussing will ensue, gun manufacturers will sell fewer weapons, and the influence of the gun lobby in D.C. will be reduced."
So...you can predict the future; are you a fortune teller? By just stating this you admit that in your mind their hasnt been a rational discussion. By that logic you are saying "said discussion" never happened; yet you claim to know the result of that discussion? how can that be?

Want to have a discussion on this matter? Okay i'll give you my two cents- The litmus test for weapons of self defense logically should be correlated to what an average beat cop carries. I say this because the situations that will warrant gun use by civilian and police are essentially the same. Both are going to be defensive situations in which you are defending against an attacker. So what do police officers carry? They usually carry a semi-automatic handgun of medium calibre with magazine capacities of about 15. I find it funny that it is said that any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is only good for killing lots of people- yet we give them to police officers- the military maybe. Last time i checked police use of firearms isnt to "kill alot of people". So if we admit that police use 15 round magazines for uses other than "killing lots of people" than the first statement is false. This would open up a rational discussion on WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE MAGAZINE CAPACITY LIMIT. Something the pro-gun control crowd doesnt seem to want to have. They keep putting the number 10 out there- why? Why is 10 rounds enough? Who deemed 10 rounds enough? Why is anything over 10 rounds considered high capacity. By using the phrase "high capacity" you incinuate that such magazine carries more ammunition than a normal or standard magazine. What is considered a standard/normal magazine? Logically, i would believe standard would be what the gun was initially designed to take and what it initially and most commonly shipped with. So the Glock 19's (which was designed and sold almost everywhere with a 15 round mag- magazine) standard magazine capacity should be 15? So why am i being told by the gun control crowd that is is an extended magazine? again, WHO MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT 10 ROUND MAGAZINES WERE STANDARD/NORMAL CAPACITY?

So if we are going to have a discussion we need to include these things too.

sure, there are some similarities between a car and gun. But that doesn't mitigate the differences.

15 rounds was the Brady Bill limit. Ten or Fifteen rounds is standard and most handguns without extended magazines, and how much more do you need. That's why 10 or 15, plus it put a limit on death for whackos that shoot up the public.

I don't think 33 is needed, do you?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

So someone takes 3 additional magazines giving them 40 shots. They change magazines in under 2 seconds and continue on.

Why do YOU think someone would only go to commit mass murder with 10 shots?

Said otherwise, 17 rounds IS STANDARD capacity for a fullsize 9mm pistol. The following pistols are probably the most popular pistols in the US... all carry 17+ rounds internally: Glock 17, Smith & Wesson M&P9, Sig Sauer P250, Beretta M9, CZ SP01 (18rnds), Springfield XDm (19rnds)

Just about the only 9mm handguns that don't carry 17 rounds are revolvers and compact/subcompact pistols. Compact 9mm pistols (scaled down for smaller hands or easier concealment) will have 12-15 rounds.

How about a law that says a magazine cannot extend X.XX" beyond the base of the grip of the pistol?
That's a little more reasonable than the arbitrary "you only need 10 rounds" limit.

and it holds 18 when its +1

... most notably a radio.

from Kurt Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions"

I concur.

It's sad and touching to see Gaby's picture there. Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

"Why do people defend the use of semi-automatic gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds? That is a question I wonder when the guns before life crowd comes out of the wood work after yet another tragedy like we had in Tucson on Saturday, at Va. Tech, Columbine and other places."

People defend the use of semi-automatic handguns with with magazines that hold more than ten rounds, because theyre under attack, by someone like you, after yet another tragedy like we had in Tucson.

"Then there is the other false analogy: automobiles kill people, so why not ban them? First, I have never called for the banning of guns. That is the first error in the logic. Second, a car was not created to kill. A car was invented as a mode of transportation for people and goods. Outside of personal protection and hunting, both involving killing or wounding, guns have no other legal uses other than target practice, skeet shooting and so forth. I suppose you could use a gun as a hammer, but that would not be what the gun was designed for. I think using a hammer to kill would be more effective (as one gun defender suggested) than using a gun as a hammer. However, there is that trouble with the reloading the hammer to shoot at a crowd. Moreover, why don’t the people comparing automobiles to guns ever suggest gun insurance (like for cars) be mandated and what we have to take a gun use test and register our guns like we do our cars? It’s because people only use the analogies when it suits their defense of guns. If they actually thought it through, they would see the analogy is not apt."

What difference does it make what something was invented or designed for, to the dead and thier families?

Beyond that, you just stepped in it. For one, cars are not a protected constitutional right. Second, Cars are not required to be licensed insured or registered UNLESS theyre going to be used in public - JUST LIKE GUNS.

Thats right, I can take a vehicle, take all the doors off, put bald tired on it, remove the seatbelts and airbags, transplant a 3000 horsepowert nitromethane burning dragster engine into it, daisy chain 3 high amperage alternators into it so that it will power the aircraft landing lights on the roof, and do 125 miles per hour across my own property with a broken winshield, should I so desire. The same more or less applies to guns.

"Why can’t gun advocates admit that guns were created to kill? Isn’t that the point of a gun, to kill or wound an intruder or take down your dinner, deer, rabbit, quail or other game animal? That is the primary function of a gun. I don’t see a problem with that fact or admitting that fact. However, those that feel compelled to come to the defense of guns at all costs can’t admit it. Even those that would support Democratic issues such as health care for all and are against the war come out to defend gun with false analogies. Guns don’t need the help; they can defend themselves. It’s okay, no one want to take your gun away. We want to reduce gun violence."


Why can't you admit that it doesnt matter. As far as "no one wanting to take your guns away", do I really need to provide to links that prove that assertion false? Have you not been paying attention the last 3 or 4 days?


"Now that we have learned that guns were created to kill, we must ask ourselves what is the best and most effective way to regulate the use of guns and how to reduce gun violence without interfering with the legal use of the tool that can kill. We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes. The NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers, and other guns first people don’t want you to ask those question because it means that the paranoia will subside, a rational discussing will ensue, gun manufacturers will sell fewer weapons, and the influence of the gun lobby in D.C. will be reduced."

No, I don't think so.

The golden age of gun control has come and gone, and we - the pro-gun - are still here.

I'll not contribute in any way shape size or form to the anti-gunners gaining any sort of foothold or legislation - a beachhead - from which they can further restrict what the law abiding have access to - or not.

You want to work on better mental health reporting or services, and I'll be right there with you.

Hands off the guns. Enough is enough. You used the word rational, and its a fact, that the anti-gun lobby - those that will be empowered if the influence of the gun lobby is weakened - is the point rational is farthest from.

Might as well consider banning certain caliber. If you can't defend yourself with a .380, you're an idiot. So ban everything higher? This is where the stupid begins.

The handgun that stays next to my head every night as I sleep is only a 6+1, but I have multiple magazines. All loaded with .45 Black Talons. Sometimes I wish I could keep 19 rounds "at the ready" without clicking and switching, but I really don't expect a shootout of any sort of Die Hard fashion in my home (plus with 1,000 pounds of dog ready to protect me, my gun is probably the least of any crims problems). I don't think anyone wanting to protect their family should be limited by the number of rounds a magazine has.

Oh, and as far as "gun violence" goes, the appropriate term is "human violence." Start with wtf is wrong with us, maybe.

but without the tool called a gun, it's harder to shoot holes in people.

Even if you have the 40 rounds in your gun at one time, the question remains, how many you need when you walk in public.

Call me crazy, but I think some consideration of public safety, safety from those totting guns, should be considered here.

Why do so many people fight for the gun and not consider public safety?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

or harming anyone really improve public safety?

Since defensive use far outnumbers accidents, I'd say, no, it doesn't.

I wasn't talking about intent.

Having such a weapon in public makes us all less safe.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

I don't think anyone is defending guns. Rather, we're defending people who choose to own guns. I think that people who carry guns on their persons in their day-to-day lives serve a vital role in preserving public safety. This is the point where we diverge. When I fight for gun owners, I'm fighting for public safety.

okay, you are not defending guns first, but many people here and especially the right-wing nuts at Freeper and elsewhere are hopeless.

More guns=more safety? I disagree.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Again, you do not support your contentions. Yet another straw man: "More guns=more safety? I disagree." Few here have contended that this is the case. Maybe Lott argues this case, but I have seen few who have stated that here.

I'll try to explain this to you.

The right of the "people" (that is "people" as written in the first amendment, in case you get confused) to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. "Need" doesn't enter into the equation. "Desires" don't either.

Having said that, the Supreme court was clear on the fact that it isn't a completely unrestricted right. However, any restrictions have to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which has been covered elsewhere in this thread.

As for public safety, that applies to everyone, not just you. If I feel safer walking the dog in my neighborhood with a concealed weapon, that is my right. ( I happen to carry a golf club right now, but I do have the right to move up the weapons food chain). As long as my actions do not endanger others, their rights don't trump mine.

And in case you can't comprehend why we tend to get touchy when the "public safety" card is played, try to fly out of a U.S airport and tell TSA you refuse to let them search you before you board your flight. I can guarantee you won't be leaving the ground for a while. It's a blatant invasion of privacy as well as being pretty much useless, but is tolerated in the name of "public safety". Well, I for one am determined to prevent the government (meaning the political elite in power at any particular time, from any and all affiliations) from further eroding the quality of life in my country.

And from threads like this one, it is apparent that I am not alone.

and you can ignore the courts and right to regulate use of guns all you want.

Good job. Thanks for promoting less safety in public.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

You have accused someone of "promoting less safety in public" without showing how his opposition to your gun-control proposals does this. You have only seized what you think is a moral high ground and made gun-control proposals synonymous with some notion of "public safety." But you have NOT shown how this is the case.

"...how many you need when you walk in public."

No one really knows, which is why a ban on so-called extended mags would override those who wish to have more rounds. And frankly, that is more important than your personal definition of "need," a definition without substance or meaning.

"Call me crazy, but I think some consideration of public safety, safety from those totting guns, should be considered here."

I won't call you crazy, but you are not making a good argument. You have shown very little history or little in the way of examples which would point to a "public safety" problem with regard magazine capacity. Where was such a magazine used before Tucson? If there isn't any real social problem, then enacting bans and regulations is meaningless for social policy.

"Why do so many people fight for the gun and not consider public safety?"

Not to be tendentious, but people fight for the right to keep and bear arms. Public safety is a concern, but you have shown nothing to link the two: magazine capacity and "public safety." I think it would be the highest folly to enact some magazine capacity ban, and say with a straight face that this will reduce violent crime, or even homicides by gun.

If the two things weren't different in some significant way, then the comparison wouldn't be an analogy.

I think some of those analogies you dismiss have merit.

I can live with saying the one of the purposes of firearms is to used in legally justified shootings. In some cases that will involve killings. There is little or no evidence that gun manufacturers design their weapons for criminal activity. On the other hand, some guns were created as target shooters primarily.

Millions and millions of magazines with a capacity over 10 are used legally everyday by people who either want them or think they may need them.

However, I'm pretty certain that you want the attack to stop before the ammunition runs out. So, carry as much as you reasonably can.

:shrug:


Here's the real issue. There are literally tens millions of magazines floating around this country that hold more than 10 rounds. Probably hundreds of millions. After World War Two, lots of M-1 Carbines were sold as military surplus, as well as the 15- and 30-round magazines for them. In the 70's the double-stack 9mm (15 rounds or so in the magazine) came to prominance as a result of US Army trials for a new military pistol. In the 80's, surplus civvie-legal AK-47 clones and their 30-round magazines came to America, and the Glock Model 17 and the Beretta Model 92 (the Army's new pistol) was introduced as well. In the 90's, the fall of the Soviet Union led to lots more magazines for AK-47s coming into the country as the AWB made millions aware of so-called "assault weapons" and people began buying them in larger numbers. As the innovative Glock and the new Beretta spread across America, other gun makers begin selling lots of double-stack pistols as well. The gun world was shaken up by the popularity of the new .40 S&W cartridge, and police began changing over to the new cartridge with new handguns. Also in the 90's, the police and civilians began shifting away from shotguns and towards tactical rifles, notably the AR-15 clones. In the 2000's, other Glock-inspired guns came to the market and the ban on new high-capacity magazines was lifted. AR-15 manufacture soared as the versatility of the design let to countless configurations and accessories.

And yet, despite a hundred million weapons that can take 11+ magazines, and despite hundreds of millions of magazines for those guns, and a billion rounds of ammo to feed those magazines, situations where criminals murdered lots of people are very rare.




I'm not particularly hot to end GUN violence; I'm keen to end OVERALL violence. The British have been very effective at ending GUN homicides, for example. Of course, their homicide rate is up 40% or so the last couple of decades, but, dammit! GUN deaths are down.






If you want to decrease GUN violence, then the best way to do that is... not go after guns. Legalize drugs instead. Not only would it be more effective than trying to take away hundreds of millions of magazines, but it would be far cheaper, more effective, and more politically popular.

Namely that you're completely unwilling to so much as entertain counter-arguments to your points, since all of them have been addressed in this forum before, many in the past few days.

One definition of "analogous" is "similar or equivalent in some respects though otherwise dissimilar." Whether or not an analogy is apt depends on whether the aspects in which the two things are similar is relevant within the context of the discussion. Since this particular discussion was presumably prompted by last Saturday's shooting of Rep. Giffords and various others, the question has to be whether an attack by one armed amok individual on a group of unarmed, unsuspecting and thus unprepared and defenseless victims can be prevented--or if not, whether the harm done can at least be minimized--by restricting private possession of firearms. That is presumably your objective.

When we're talking about a mass/spree killing like this, it is entirely irrelevant to point out that armed forces (whether regular or irregular) use firearms as their primary weapon rather than blades and bludgeons, since armed forces aren't expecting to go up against unarmed, defenseless opponents (not without knowingly committing a major war crime, anyway). This isn't about "bringing a knife to a gunfight," it's about whether using a gun to commit mass murder is significantly more lethal than using a knife.

Historical examples abound illustrating that this is generally not the case, with mass knifings producing numbers of dead and wounded victims comparable to Loughner's. There's really only one measure of time that counts in these incidents, and that is "until the assailant could be overpowered"; it doesn't matter how quickly you can pull the trigger on this or that pistol, or how quickly you can stab people with this or that knife, because as a rule of thumb, the number of victims primarily depends on the amount of time "until the assailant could be overpowered." Yes, I acknowledge that there are a handful of incidents with especially severe body counts that could only have been committed with firearms--Virginia Tech, Port Arthur, Luby's, Gyeongsangnam-do--but those are atypical even for mass/spree shootings.

In short, it cannot be plausibly argued that stricter controls on privately owned firearms will definitely prevent mass/spree killings; you cannot say with any degree of certainty that "if only we prohibited X, the Giffords shooting wouldn't have happened." There are places with much stricter guns laws than the US--such as Germany and the UK--where mass/spree shootings have taken place, despite those countries having much stricter gun laws than the US, even at the time, and there are places with less strict gun laws than that where mass/spree shootings have not taken place.

If we want to address the problem of mass/spree shootings, we would do better to focus on the mindset that drives a person to kill a bunch of people more or less at random than on whatever particular objects they use to do it.

-*-*-*-

The analogy with motor vehicles applies to a different aspect, namely the number of casualties inflicted every year with the class of devices. The context in which this is relevant is when some gun control/prohibition proponent brings up the fact that there are around 30,000 gun deaths annually in the United States, implying that this statistic in and of itself forms all the justification needed to restrict or prohibit certain aspects of private firearms ownership. To this particular argument, it is highly relevant to bring up the fact that motor vehicle collisions claim half again as many lives every year. If we define an object as a social ill solely on the basis of the number of casualties inflicted by it (which is an implicit assumption in the "30,000 gun deaths" argument if no further context is provided), then motor vehicles are indisputably a greater ill than firearms.

If this response seems facile, that's because the "30,000 gun deaths" argument is facile, and frankly, does not merit a more sophisticated response. Going on to argue that motor vehicles are "not created to kill" doesn't cut it, for the simple reason that in a very real sense, they are. Even the humble Honda Civic is a two-ton bludgeon, typically traveling at dozens of miles an hour; that aspect of its design, by simple dint of physics, makes it potentially lethal to any creature that strays into its path. This effect is not ameliorated in any way by the fact that the driver didn't intend to inflict injury.

What you can legitimately argue is that we should engage in a cost/benefit analysis, weighing the annual cost in dead and injured against the benefits granted by readily available individual mobility, especially in a society like the United States, where the distances involved and the lack of public transport, particularly outside the north-east, make motor vehicles a necessity rather than a luxury. And you can argue that, on aggregate, the benefits provided by having motor vehicles outweigh the costs. We should, of course, seek to lower those costs, but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That's fair enough, but that being the case, it follows that a cost/benefit analysis should similarly be applied to privately owned firearms, and in particular, we should look whether proposed policy measures risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or possibly even throwing out the baby while leaving the bathwater behind!

For starters, on average, something in the order of 55% of those "30,000 gun deaths" are suicides; given that the American suicide rate is unremarkable compared to that of other rich industrialized nations in spite of the more ready availability of firearms to private citizens here, there is absolutely no reason to assume that tightening restrictions on private firearm ownership would prevent any significant loss of life to suicides, as opposed to leading at best to method substitution (e.g. any reduction in suicides by firearm would be compensated for by an increase of suicides by hanging).

Another 40% of those gun deaths are criminal homicides. Now, criminological evidence indicates that an overwhelming majority of perpetrators of homicides--something in the order of 90%--are individuals who are either legally prohibited from possessing firearms, or would be if their prior activities had resulted in capture and conviction; in other words, we're talking about the kind of people with a history of breaking the law, who are not, or would not be, deterred from acquiring a firearm by the fact that there's a law prohibiting them from doing so. You might argue that they'd be less likely to be able to acquire a firearm if restrictions on private gun ownership were tighter, but there is very little evidence to support such a contention. Firearms trafficking is a demand-driven business: it's not that criminals resort to guns because someone's shipping them into the city; someone's shipping them into the city because there are people eager to buy them.

Moreover, a very large percentage of homicide victims meet the same description as their killers. Bluntly put, an awful lot of American homicides are cases of thugs killing other thugs*, but those aren't the homicides the news media focus on, because the news media's objective is to keep you scared so that you'll keep watching, so they spend an inordinate amount of attention to spousal killings, mass shootings, etc. because you're more likely to identify with the victims. We're hard-wired by evolution to want to gain as much information as we can to things that threaten us personally, and the news media play into that by working the "it could happen to you" angle for all it's worth. As a result, basing one's perception of homicide in America on what what sees on the news will result in a skewed perception.

-*-*-*-



Well, you've gone a large part of the way to answering your own question in very next sentence. By acknowledging that "the point of a gun" is "to kill or wound an intruder" (to which I would add "or assailant" if outside one's residence) you've added a purpose for a defensive firearm that does not consist of killing. Now, if take into account that, according to the best available evidence, over 90% of defensive gun uses (DGUs) take place without a shot being fired (and that the military doctrine for most personnel issued handguns is to make the enemy take cover while you book it towards the nearest friendlies with decent firepower), you will understand that "to deter an assailant" (without necessarily inflicting injury on him) should also be added to the purposes of a defensive firearm.

Let's be honest: the "guns are created to kill" argument is a setup for a mishmash of logical fallacies, not least in that it's an affirmative form of the loaded question (aka "Have you stopped beating your wife?" http://fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html). If the respondent agrees, that statement is (willfully mis)interpreted to be an admission that guns are only good for killing, whereas if the respondent denies it, he is accused of dishonestly refusing to acknowledge that killing is a purpose of firearms (even though what he's actually denying is that killing is the only purpose of firearms). Heads I win, tails you lose. The very statement (in all its variations) is evidence of intellectual dishonesty, as is rhetorically asking why nobody will give a straight answer to a loaded question.

-*-*-*-


When all else fails, invoke a conspiracy: "they" don't want you to ask those questions, "they" don't want you to know those answers. Who are you, Kevin Trudeau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Cures_%22They%22_Don%27t_Want_You_to_Know_About)?

You're more than welcome to ask the questions, just don't expect whatever answers you come up with to be taken as gospel, especially if there's so much as a hint that you skewed the research to support a predetermined conclusion. We know that cops tend to carry 15+1 rounds in their sidearm (assuming they're carrying a Glock 22, which is the most popular police handgun in the U.S.), plus two spare mags, plus whatever they've got in the cruiser (assault weapon--excuse me "patrol rifle", shotgun, or both) if things get ugly, plus the rest of the department (and neighboring agencies) on call, and they're wearing at least level II body armor. So if you produce some finding that, no really, all you need is one mag with a maximum capacity of ten rounds, you're going to meet with a lot of entirely justified skepticism.


* - Which is, admittedly, a symptom of a societal problem, but it has less to do with the availability of firearms, and more with the fact that the best option for a lower-class inner-city youth, especially one from an ethnic minority, to gain upward socio-economic mobility is to go into the illicit drugs trade, and that is an extremely homicidal subculture.

to have a logical discussion. They don't counter logically a persons statement.

that's a joke. I discuss things with people that disagree with me. Try that a freeper or Red state reader and see where it gets you.

The false equivalency is perpetuated even here.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

I entertain logical arguments in defense of large magazines. I have yet to see any except the use of statistics to justify something that is not needed for self defense or hunting or target practice. Do you see how defending these magazines makes us less safe? If not, then we disagree on a fundamental reality. I am supposed to entertain what I see as illogical? Really? Do you do that?

Very few children die from poisonous cleaning chemicals each year, but shouldn't you lock them up if you have a child in the house?

Doesn't the fact that public mass murder happens at all in the United States give you pause? Don't you think something should be done about it? That's all I am asking.

Uh oh, I asked a question so I could understand your position. Shame on me, eh?

The reason I point out that "guns are made to kill" is because so many people who defend guns want to ignore the reality of guns. Regardless of your discussion of fallacies, the fact remains, gun advocates and the gun only crowd constantly ignore this fact about guns. They are made to kill. If I take the time to shoot holes in that, forgive me.

Now, do you agree that guns kill? Do you agree that the shootings in Tucson and other mass shootings in the United States are tragedies? If so, what are we going to do to prevent these in the future?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

See: http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Or perhaps more accurately, you're "JAQing off": http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off


I have yet to see you present any evidence that magazines with a capacity over ten rounds aren't needed--or at least legitimately useful--for self-defense or target practice, and I certainly haven't seen you present any empirical evidence that they make us less safe (let alone that defending them "makes us less safe").

Am I concerned about mass murders occurring? Yes, as a matter of fact I am, not just in the United States, but in various places around the world. However, I am far from convinced that focusing on the specific tools used in any particular instance of it will have any appreciable result, given that mass/spree killings occur elsewhere in the world without the use of firearms at all, facilitated by strict weapons laws which leave the prospective victims unarmed and defenseless. I think it's more productive to focus on why people run amok and attempt to address that, because unless we find a way to do that, the killings will continue to happen, just using different weapons.

If we look at the Stockton schoolyard shooting in 1989--the incident that provided the impetus behind California's ban on so-called "assault weapons"--it's been pointed out that the shooter could have inflicted a comparable (or even larger) amount of injury using a pump-action shotgun. That's quite a plausible claim. Similarly, if Loughner had not been using an extended magazine, but instead been using, say, two handguns both loaded with 10+1 rounds, it would have been perfectly feasible for him to inflict as much damage. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the perpetrator of the "Akihabara massacre" in Tokyo in 2008 inflicted a number of casualties comparable to Loughner's using a rented two-ton truck and a dagger.

It's not that I'm not concerned about these kinds of incidents; it's that (I reiterate) I think it's more productive to focus on why they happen in the first place, rather than thinking we can fix the problem by banning the latest perpetrator's weapon and hoping the next guy won't be inventive enough to come with a different weapon.


I don't believe you asked the question for the purpose of understanding my position. Rather, I think you posed the question to imply that, if one does not support banning magazines with a capacity over ten rounds, one is callously unconcerned about incidents like the Giffords shooting (i.e. JAQing off).


That is your interpretation. I'm more inclined to think they disagree with your specific wording because they suspect you're trying to pull a bait-and-switch. As do I, not to put too fine a point on it, given your peculiar insistence on that specific wording.

Guns can kill, obviously, but it's precisely this capability that also makes them effective as tools of deterrence and coercion. One can use a firearm to produce a desired result (e.g. forcing a suspect to surrender, or an assailant to flee) without having to kill, or even to shoot. And ultimately, for military, law enforcement or self-defense purposes, the point of a firearm is primarily to stop the enemy/suspect/assailant from being able to continue resisting or attacking, either by forcing him to flight or surrender, or by inflicting an amount of trauma sufficient to incapacitate him. Unfortunately, current technology provides no means of reliably incapacitating an opponent without a serious likelihood of killing him in the process. But that isn't quite the same as saying that "guns are made to kill."

"Why do people defend the use of semi-automatic gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds?"

The police use them.

When I made the decision to carry a firearm, I also made the decision to take a class. The class was taught by a police officer. One day, after class I simply asked the question of my instructor "What firearm would she recommend that I carry?". We had a long discussion covering many topics, but at the end of the day her recommendation was to carry what a police officer carries.

So when making my purchase, I bought a modern, dependable firearm that holds more than 10 rounds. The ammunition I purchased also matched what her police department issued.

My problem with having a law that would prohibit the use of a magazine that holds more rounds than 10 is simply because the police carry anywhere from 15 to 19 rounds on average. And, since you are looking at this from a "need" perspective. Name me one thing that a police officer would have to encounter, that a citizen would not, where you could justify the police "needing" more rounds in their magazines than the citizenry?

I guess we had best get on dealing with Roe v. Wade then?