The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Webleymkv · January 20, 2013, 12:50 AM

I find the "if it save just one life then it's worth it" argument to be irritating to no end. First and foremost, this argument is based on flawed logic and assumptions. There is no way that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that a ban on so-called "high capacity" magazines would save lives.

Take Sandy Hook for example: If we suppose for a moment that 30-round magazines were illegal at the time of the shooting, how do we know that the shooter would not have used illegally obtained/fabricated/modified magazines that held 30 rounds or simply carried more lower-capacity magazines? Even if he was restricted to lower-capacity magazines, how do we know that the number of people shot would've been any lower? Sturmgewehre has an excellent YouTube video in which he demonstrates the time difference between firing 20 rounds from one magazine and 20 rounds from two magazines loaded with 10 rounds each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CL...YliUQ&index=17

As you see in the video, the difference was only about half a second. That small amount of time is of little consequence to someone like the Sandy Hook shooter who has 20 minutes or more to exact his evil intentions on unarmed and helpless victims.

Furthermore, this argument completely ignores the fact that so-called "high capacity" magazines can and have been used in lawful self-defense thousands, if not millions, of times. There is absolutely no guarantee that 10, 7, or any arbitrary number of rounds will be enough to stop any threat that may present itself. If we take the 1986 Miami Dade Shootout as an example, it took several trained FBI agents 12 rounds to finally stop the murderous rampage of Michael Lee Platt. That was one man who was not under the influence of mind altering substances; multiple attackers and/or ones under the influence of strong drugs could potentially take even more rounds to stop. Because of this, a ban on magazines holding more than an arbitrary number of shots could potentially prove deadly for people trying to defend themselves if the circumstances are right.

More offensive still, this argument is a very subtle strawman that insinuates that anyone who opposes the proposed measure is against trying to save lives when nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the police, and society in general for that matter, have no legal duty to protect me, but there is no practical way for them to do so. Because of this it is my firm belief that the ultimate responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones rests upon me. I choose to mitigate the risk of violent attack to myself and my loved ones as much as possible by arming myself and preparing to defend myself and my family if necessary.

As such, the arguments for gun control basically tell me that my right to defend myself and my family is less important than the safety, or more accurately the feeling of safety, of a person who chooses not to take the same precautions that I have. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that I bear responsibility for the feelings of someone who has the same opportunity to provide for their own safety that I do but chooses not to do so. I'm sorry if I seem callous, but such people are not, nor should they be, my concern.

January 20, 2013, 12:50 AM	#28
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	I find the "if it save just one life then it's worth it" argument to be irritating to no end. First and foremost, this argument is based on flawed logic and assumptions. There is no way that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that a ban on so-called "high capacity" magazines would save lives. Take Sandy Hook for example: If we suppose for a moment that 30-round magazines were illegal at the time of the shooting, how do we know that the shooter would not have used illegally obtained/fabricated/modified magazines that held 30 rounds or simply carried more lower-capacity magazines? Even if he was restricted to lower-capacity magazines, how do we know that the number of people shot would've been any lower? Sturmgewehre has an excellent YouTube video in which he demonstrates the time difference between firing 20 rounds from one magazine and 20 rounds from two magazines loaded with 10 rounds each. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CL...YliUQ&index=17 As you see in the video, the difference was only about half a second. That small amount of time is of little consequence to someone like the Sandy Hook shooter who has 20 minutes or more to exact his evil intentions on unarmed and helpless victims. Furthermore, this argument completely ignores the fact that so-called "high capacity" magazines can and have been used in lawful self-defense thousands, if not millions, of times. There is absolutely no guarantee that 10, 7, or any arbitrary number of rounds will be enough to stop any threat that may present itself. If we take the 1986 Miami Dade Shootout as an example, it took several trained FBI agents 12 rounds to finally stop the murderous rampage of Michael Lee Platt. That was one man who was not under the influence of mind altering substances; multiple attackers and/or ones under the influence of strong drugs could potentially take even more rounds to stop. Because of this, a ban on magazines holding more than an arbitrary number of shots could potentially prove deadly for people trying to defend themselves if the circumstances are right. More offensive still, this argument is a very subtle strawman that insinuates that anyone who opposes the proposed measure is against trying to save lives when nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the police, and society in general for that matter, have no legal duty to protect me, but there is no practical way for them to do so. Because of this it is my firm belief that the ultimate responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones rests upon me. I choose to mitigate the risk of violent attack to myself and my loved ones as much as possible by arming myself and preparing to defend myself and my family if necessary. As such, the arguments for gun control basically tell me that my right to defend myself and my family is less important than the safety, or more accurately the feeling of safety, of a person who chooses not to take the same precautions that I have. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that I bear responsibility for the feelings of someone who has the same opportunity to provide for their own safety that I do but chooses not to do so. I'm sorry if I seem callous, but such people are not, nor should they be, my concern.