The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 17, 2012, 02:28 PM   #1
Mike-Mat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2010
Location: Phoenix area
Posts: 361
Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

Newspaper Poll.

Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

http://online.wsj.com/community/grou...gazines-rifles

Lets let them know what we think boys.

Mike
__________________
Mike Mattera - Tips For Mfg
Video Training For CadCam Systems
http://www.tipsforcadcam.com
Mike-Mat is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 02:35 PM   #2
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
68.5% in our favor as of now.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 02:36 PM   #3
ChasingWhitetail91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 336
No need for them in my opinion. If your hunting you don't need that many bullets and if your just target shooting just load a couple extra small capacity mags
__________________
Abraham Lincoln made all men free, Samuel Colt made them equal.
ChasingWhitetail91 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 02:43 PM   #4
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
if your just target shooting just load a couple extra small capacity mags
Well, I generally shoot a few hundred rounds each time I go and that’s a lot of reloading. I also have to pay for range time, so it ends up costing me money to sit there loading magazines. However, at the end of the day should anyone be telling me what I need? The size of the magazines had nothing to do with recent events and any logical person knows that.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old December 17, 2012, 02:47 PM   #5
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
It isn't about need. It's about rights. You really think it would make any difference if we banned them all tomorrow? A nutcase can load extra mags too. For that matter, he could kill two dozen people with a couple of 1847 Walkers and a Bowie knife. You think it hasn't happened before?
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 02:55 PM   #6
Mike-Mat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2010
Location: Phoenix area
Posts: 361
I saw a video of Jerry Miculek shoot 12 rounds, using a revolver, in 3 seconds. Certainly not everyone can do that. But with practice even a guy with a 6 shooter could do some damage.

What's important is that you voted on the poll.
They want to know what America thinks.
Let's tell them.
__________________
Mike Mattera - Tips For Mfg
Video Training For CadCam Systems
http://www.tipsforcadcam.com
Mike-Mat is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 03:08 PM   #7
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Back in 1928, the worst (most deaths) school killing in the US did not involve firearms (too good a chance someone else was armed) but a bomb.

If you removed all the firearms from all civilians, those that would want to use them criminally would either 1: Steal them from LE or the military, or 2: make their own.

If you want a mass tradigy, just look at 9/11...no firearms involved...many people died...If there had been one pistol in the hands of anyone, even if the terrorists had handguns themselves, 9/11 would not have happened.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 03:14 PM   #8
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 788
No, It's not about hunting or target shooting, it's about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution being a check and balance on government power, the intent of the amendment is well documented by the people who wrote it.

Only if we are willing to place the same restrictions on the government(excluding Military) will I accept these semi-automatics and high capacity magazines being banned.

Our police forces at every level are increasingly "militarized" and above the law, our government is increasingly corrupt and above the law, and some want me to lay down and take it, No way! I mean no disrespect to LE members and that was NOT an attack on LE, every barrel has a bad apple.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

Last edited by iraiam; December 17, 2012 at 03:24 PM.
iraiam is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 03:58 PM   #9
ChasingWhitetail91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 336
If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.
__________________
Abraham Lincoln made all men free, Samuel Colt made them equal.
ChasingWhitetail91 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:03 PM   #10
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,809
I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the government from being overthrown by violent means (by those who don't believe in a democratically elected government), not the other way round. Otherwise, you will basically have a government (for there will always be a government) of self-appointed strongmen. Even a feudal society worked better than that.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:21 PM   #11
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I dont see how 10 round magazines or a bullet button can slow anyone down in these situations, with the exception of intense combat situations (which these situations rarely if at all escalate to)
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

Last edited by Dr Big Bird PhD; December 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM.
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:29 PM   #12
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,006
If you have more than one browser, make sure and try to vote from each.
spacecoast is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:42 PM   #13
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 533
72+% saying "no".
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:54 PM   #14
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 416
Quote:
If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.
This argument fails on two levels.

First, this is a utilitarian argument against a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not subject to utilitarian (cost:benefit) analysis and are not subject to being dropped simply because they're too expensive. Fundamental rights are circumscribed only if there is a compelling (and legitimate) reason, there is no other way to achieve the end, and only to the minimum extent necessary. To dismiss an argument based on fundamental principles as "greedy" misses entirely the point of having a constitutional republic with fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.

Second, even if a utilitarian argument was appropriate, this argument fails on that level as well for two reasons. The benefit of the suggested "fix" is questionable and the real costs associated with the "fix" are ignored. There's no evidence that restricting magazine capacity affects the probability of mass killings. If anything, the fact that successful crimes of this sort are located in areas already having many of the restrictive laws commonly proposed suggests the opposite. 10 years of experience with the previous magazine ban showed no effect on crime rates. In more general terms, it is very difficult or impossible to affect the likelihood of very rare events by legislating around very common behaviors. This is because the behavior you are circumscribing, ultimately has little relationship with the events you are trying to affect.

Also, if you fail to recognize the cost of a proposal, a utilitarian argument always seems to be a reasonable solution. Framing your argument in this manner is disingenuous. You claim that your proposal "might" save a life and this justifies it:

Quote:
to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success
But you dismiss the possibility of costs with an ad-hominem

Quote:
Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.
Clearly, such a restriction could potentially result in lost lives as well as lives saved. Consider a self-defense situation against multiple attackers, perhaps self defense in a riot or natural disaster. These are situations where having larger capacity magazines may save lives.

I anticipate one might respond that such situations are "theoretical" or "extremely rare" and would point out that there are real examples of these sorts of events (witness the korean store owners during the Rodney King riots), and that the sort of event you are trying to prevent is also very rare. The reality is both sorts of things are exceedingly rare events and not really subject to being affected by legislating around very common behaviors.

One would also need to consider the cost of removing or limiting access to the sorts of individual weapons that would be of the most use in resisting a tyrannical government, admittedly also an event so rare as to be vanishingly unlikely to happen (again), but nonetheless a fundamental reason for the 2nd amendment's existence.

An honest analysis would not ask "Might one life be saved?" but would ask "Is this likely to save more lives than it costs, and are the lives saved worth the cost?"

I believe the fundamental dishonesty, or perhaps superficial thinking, that goes into proposals like this accounts for a large part of the dismissive reaction many have to such ideas.

And then there are those who believe fundamental principles have intrinsic value...
musher is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:59 PM   #15
Grizz12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2012
Posts: 272
I saw this someplace on the net

The only thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun
Grizz12 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 05:01 PM   #16
ChasingWhitetail91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 336
I do not believe theres is a value on human life, and if you oppose my arguement I have no problem with it. Why don't you post your own answer as the thread suggests and not take up a page calling someone's opinion superficial and dishonest
__________________
Abraham Lincoln made all men free, Samuel Colt made them equal.
ChasingWhitetail91 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 05:03 PM   #17
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The point of the 2A as I see it is to ensure that government will never impose tyranny, and that if it does the populace has a measure to resolve that tyranny. It is also for the protection of non tyrannical governments. It is factually an amendment that was passed with zero opposition.

Saying hi-cap mags are unnecessary misses the point. I would argue it was the intent of the founding fathers that you had military grade weapons available to the masses... I am unaware of single law during the founding of our nation that outlawed military grade weaponry in the hands of average citizens. (That is not to say their weren't restrictions in places) I would even venture a guess that minutemen who had better grade than average military weapons of the area fought with their own higher performing weapons.

The 2A doesn't exist for simply a sporting purpose, nor simply a self defense purpose, it in its heart was meant as a bastion against tyranny. If citizens did not have arms the minutemen might not have ever existed and we would not be the nation we are.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; December 17, 2012 at 07:11 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 05:11 PM   #18
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 416
ChasingWhitetail91, I did post my opinion. I'm sorry if you feel I picked on you, but the argument you presented is one that is very common and I hoped a dissection of the flaws in that argument might be helpful.

Please understand I did not call you superficial or dishonest, but I believe the argument presented is one or the other for the reasons I gave.
musher is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 06:18 PM   #19
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
i like how chasing whitetails had his argument systematically dismantled and then asks for the other side to play nicely and respect his opinion regardless of its inherent flaws or value.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:02 PM   #20
Odd
Member
 
Join Date: August 24, 2011
Location: Enjoying snacks by the fo
Posts: 15
Quote:
If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.
I think you missed the point. Whether there is an AWB or not the problem still persists: Other individuals with mental aberrations and violent tendencies won't magically disappear from society. In Asia the crazies stab children. But in the end, it's not "At least X isn't as lethal as Y" but rather how to effectively stop or mitigate the damage. In an ideal world, children should not be targets of violence. Yet is probably impossible to find every single individual with dangerous mental issues* and send them to be treated. With or without laws, these monsters will find ways to harm their intended targets. The solution is to put down the rabid animals as soon as possible.

*The truly dangerous and intelligent ones tend to have an effective persona hiding their true nature.
__________________
Victim: A hapless individual who waits for third party intervention and/or gambles their life on what little good remains in the heart of their attacker.
Odd is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:05 PM   #21
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,376
And the whole issue of "assualt weapons" is sort of pushed out the window when less than 2% of guns used in crimes are assault weapons as defined by the '94 ban.

What flies under the radar is the thug in Chicago or LA with his Lorcin .25 that is going to off another thug for selling crack rock on his street corner. That is the gun crime that we should address.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:19 PM   #22
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
Hunting is irrelevant to the argument. There is no right to hunt. In fact, whitetails are very pretty and the young ones are cute. It is hard for most recreational hunters to argue that they need to hunt for food. I would ban hunting for whitetails except in special circumstances. Pest control can be handled by agents of the state.

Those who need to hunt for food should be specially licensed after strict mental exams and only allowed to bow hunt as those weapons would be unlikely to be used in most crimes or rampages.

-- OK, see my point. Hunting is not a reason for the Second Amendment. Nor is bowling or being an artisan producer of cheese.

What rights must we sacrifice or don't people believe in?

1. All the young males diagnosed with mental illnesses MUST be incarcerated or committed. It might save a life.

2. No violence should be allowed in media, games, etc. as some might be affected by it. It might save a life. Rainbow Bright cartoons should suffice for entertainment. You might be interested in the study that showed that violent
Biblical passages make some violent. Certainly some religions preach violence and thus most religions should be banned. To save a life.

3. Only single shot rifles should be allowed. If you can't take a whitetail with a Ruger Model One and scope, you are incompetent anyway.

So to save a life and do something, we violate freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion and the right not to be imprisoned. These violations would be on massive levels.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:31 PM   #23
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 695
Odd, you have a good point:

Quote:
Whether there is an AWB or not the problem still persists: Other individuals with mental aberrations and violent tendencies won't magically disappear from society. In Asia the crazies stab children. But in the end, it's not "At least X isn't as lethal as Y" but rather how to effectively stop or mitigate the damage. In an ideal world, children should not be targets of violence. Yet is probably impossible to find every single individual with dangerous mental issues* and send them to be treated. With or without laws, these monsters will find ways to harm their intended targets. The solution is to put down the rabid animals as soon as possible.
Those with mental or violent tendencies are out there, and usually keep passing through the revolving door in either or both mental institutions, or jail/prison. There isnt the lasting help to try to keep them either on their meds, or to try to keep them somehow restricted. Thats just the ones that are generally known. The ones that fly under the radar are the most difficult to try to either get help for, or to get them secured so they cant hurt another.

Its sad that when someone with mental issues are shot in defense of oneself, or arrested for a crime, but instead its turned around that its not their fault, its the illness. If its indeed the illness, then perhaps that should cause a loss of rights, instead of law abiding people loosing some of their rights instead.

ETA:

Glenn.

I dont think we should sacrifice more rights for the hope of safety of those who abide by the law. Those who violate the law violently should have an increased punishment, and some form of monitoring when returning to society to ensure they stay nonviolent. Those with mental impairments should be treated properly, and with respect, but if given the choice I would prefer to remove rights of someone unstable and potentially violent either temporary or permanant depending on the circumstance.

Just one persons views

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; December 17, 2012 at 07:40 PM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:47 PM   #24
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
They want to know what America thinks.
Let's tell them.
Online polls really aren't a reliable indicator. Folks with serious investment in an issue will flood the poll in their favor, and has been pointed out, there will be single folks casting multiple votes.

In a similar vein, there have already been a couple of phone surveys which "prove" that Americans want stricter gun laws. The questions are phrased "do you think we should do more to reduce gun violence? Yes or no."

Well, that doesn't prove much. If the question were, "do you think all high-capacity magazines, including those 25-rounders for your 10/22 should be banned?" the result would be far different.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:50 PM   #25
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
Hey, I just bought some those Ruger mags on sale.

As far as the mentally ill, we need to help them. I was commenting on the idea that we would commit without regard to basic rights. Don't want to see that. However, we can't not act against those who are dangerous. It has to be a considered decision.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13467 seconds with 10 queries