[JohnKSa]

Excellent work on taking everything to the extremes.

The point is that if we set the goal of "saving one life", then it's possible to make virtually any restriction seem reasonable, and to make any opposition seem greedy/cold-hearted/unfeeling.

It's also true that that kind of justification for action has no obvious end. You can use the justification for further restrictions right up until the point that the restriction becomes a total ban.

We're afraid to use reason, because the other side isn't reasonable.

Reason (logic) is exactly what we WANT.

However, faced with those who are unreasonable, it is pointless to try to reason with them. It may result in concessions that are not particularly onerous, in and of themselves, but, at the very best it will result in concessions that are not based on logic. It should be obvious why trying to use reason when dealing with those who are unreasonable is seen by many as being a poor strategy.

It makes no sense to compromise with someone who is proposing something that is not based on reason in the first place.

For example, let's say that a town with a speed limit of 50mph on the main highway begins to see major problems resulting from people speeding through the town at 95mph or faster. The first group suggests that reducing the speed limit to 45mph will fix the problem. The second group says that since it's already illegal to speed, it doesn't make sense to penalize everyone by making them go 5mph slower when the problem has nothing to do with the people driving 50mph in the first place. But the first group says that it couldn't possibly hurt to reduce the speed limit by a paltry 5mph and that it would be foolish not to take such an action if it could save one life.

Now, it would be "reasonable" (a minimal compromise) for the second group to concede that a 5mph drop in the speed limit isn't really a major restriction. However, the action taken doesn't address the real problem, and it's restricting people who aren't the offenders. So, while it may seem reasonable in one sense, it's just plain foolishness in reality.

Do you habitually carry a 5.56mm for personal protection? Can you tell me that you can reasonably see a scenario where you will need 30 rds to stop the threat? If so, do you think the number of those scenarios outnumber the times that the same weapon is used for the advancement of evil?

These question are all based on the assumption that eliminating a particular caliber, or a particular size magazine will stop, or significantly reduce the impact of mass murders. This is called begging the question, that is, it conceals the fact that we are being asked to accept a premise without proof. Without, in fact, so much as an attempt having been made to demonstrate that it is a reasonable premise.

It's not even clear that they would stop/significantly impact mass SHOOTINGS, let alone mass murders. The worst mass murder at a school in the U.S. didn't even involve a gun. It was perpetrated with a bomb. In other words, making firearms a less attractive option for accomplishing school mass murders could actually result in the deranged perpetrators being driven to other means of accomplishing their evil purposes. Means that, based on past incidents, could very well be more effective/lethal and more difficult to counter.

Having to reload every 20 rounds instead of every 30, will have, at best, a minimal effect on the overall outcome, particularly when a person can equip himself with multiple firearms. Being forced to use a different caliber could actually increase the lethality of the attack, depending on what the substitute caliber was.