|
Just to be clear, I actually think that recreation is a perfectly good and sufficient reason for continuing the legal private ownership of guns and accessories. Of course, there are certainly other important beneficial factors to gun ownership, and, even more to the point, we don't have to explain why we need guns to justify owning them because our right to own them is not based on having to provide a need.
That said, when a person says that they believe that gun ownership should be allowed so that people can defend themselves and then state that no one needs more than ten (or 7) rounds to accomplish the goal, the argument I have presented is useful.
Basically it makes it clear to a person who believes in the right to own guns for self-defense that restricting the round count of the firearm can significantly impair a citizen's ability to mount an effective defense.
It never hurts to demonstrate to a person that one of their preconceived notions is badly in error. If that person is at all disposed to rational thought, such a demonstration will force them to acknowledge that there is a possibility that their other preconceptions may also be wrong.
Not only is it tiresome to keep hearing the talking heads repeatedly chant the mantra that no law-abiding person needs more than 10 rounds without anyone ever showing why it's absolutely not true, it also encourages fence-sitters to join the antis because it appears that they have a point when no one can answer the question directly and decisively. While we know why it's a red herring, not everyone cares about the philosophy of the founding fathers as it applies to private gun ownership.
In short, while it is true that they are wrong to imply that "need" is the criteria that should be applied to go beyond what they consider to be a reasonable round count, it is also true that they are badly mistaken as to what a reasonable round count really is.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out both errors--in fact, it strengthens the argument considerably because effectively attacking what they believe to be "reasonable" with hard facts often resonates much more strongly than a discussion of the real meaning of the constitution and the philosophy of the founding fathers which they fundamentally disagree with anyway.
Some people aren't ever going to give any weight to the idea of inalienable rights--but it's pretty hard for them to ignore the fact that taking 5 rounds out of a law-abiding homeowner's gun could reduce his chances of surviving a home invasion by two persons from 70% to 35%.
|