Originally posted by Kimio
Quote:
To be the devils advocate, the anti's can also use that same video to argue
"As you can see though, it only takes about half a second to switch magazines, so what's the problem if we limit them to 10 rounds or less? The difference in time doesn't make a difference then, so why are you complaining?"
|
The problem with that argument lies in the burden of proof. The burden of proof in this situation lies with the anti's to prove that banning >10 round magazines will benefit public safety to a degree that justifies the loss of liberty that said ban would represent. Because we've shown that >10 round magazines does not make a firearm substantially more deadly, and thus does not significantly increase the potential body count for a mass shooter, they cannot prove that such a ban would significantly improve public safety. This is why the anti's fall back onto emotionally-charged strawman arguments like "if it saves just one life," they cannot win a rational debate of the facts.