What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?
I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.
It's actually an excellent argument. Police do not shoot first and ask questions later like you would lead us to believe when you post: "expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them." There is a protocol for when they are allowed to shoot which closely resembles circumstances in which a private citizen would need to shoot to defend themselves. Last I checked the police's job is not to kill people it is to arrest people peaceable. If you are saying they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves from the bad guys then we should assume private citizens deserve the same rights given they may have to face the same bad guys in a home invasion.
 
Female in dark parking garage = victim. Same female in dark parking garage with a .357 = boss
I agree with you. I like the fact that women are armed; I think it's one of the best protections against assault and rape. It's another reason I've become skeptical of gun-free zones (partly because of some of the arguments made in this thread.) Are there any statistics regarding increased rape incidents in gun-free zones? I would think that would be a good argument against having them.
I have no stats to back it up, but college campuses seem to be a hotbed for such activities. Most of them are gun-free.
I don't believe colleges should necessarily be gun-free. We're dealing with adults now; it's reasonable for adult students who are trained to have CCW permits. I think it might make things safer. At least I'm open to the argument.But I don't want guns around children. Is that so unreasonable?
 
It's actually an excellent argument. Police do not shoot first and ask questions later like you would lead us to believe when you post: "expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them." There is a protocol for when they are allowed to shoot which closely resembles circumstances in which a private citizen would need to shoot to defend themselves. Last I checked the police's job is not to kill people it is to arrest people peaceable. If you are saying they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves from the bad guys then we should assume private citizens deserve the same rights given they may have to face the same bad guys in a home invasion.
It's amazing that you're not mad as hell that you can't have an operational B-16.
 
Attempted Gun Burglary tied to Journal News Gun Maps

Brewster, N.Y. – 1/13/2013 – Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) announced that a burglary has been reported on Davis Ave. in White Plains, New York that evidently ties into The Journal News gun maps. It is reported that the burglar used The Journal News’ interactive gun map to target a home included on the map. Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt.
Nothing to see here, just a bunch of paranoid psychotic musings shown to be true.
One irresponsible news source speculates about it. Another one says that it is reported as such. And you copy and paste it as gospel truth.Stellar.

 
'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?
I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.
It's actually an excellent argument. Police do not shoot first and ask questions later like you would lead us to believe when you post: "expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them." There is a protocol for when they are allowed to shoot which closely resembles circumstances in which a private citizen would need to shoot to defend themselves. Last I checked the police's job is not to kill people it is to arrest people peaceable. If you are saying they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves from the bad guys then we should assume private citizens deserve the same rights given they may have to face the same bad guys in a home invasion.
No, again I think it's a logical disconnect. I never said or implied that police need to shoot first; by "engage the bad guys" I meant that they are required to seek out situations in which the best response for a private citizen might be to run away. In response to your comments about a home invasion, I'll put the same question to you that I put to Dvorak: do you have an example in which defense of a home invasion was necessitated by the use of high capacity magazines? Are you expecting 20 gunmen to suddenly invade your home? Not buying it.

 
In the United States, two mass murder waves characterized the 20th century. One appeared in the 1920s and 30s and another in the mid-1960s, following a tranquil period in the 1940s and 50s. The two waves, however, were qualitatively different, according to Duwe. The author of "Mass Murder in the United States: A History," Duwe researched 909 cases of mass killing that occurred in the United States between 1900 and 1999.

"The first mass murder wave in the 1920s and 30s was comprised mainly of familicides and felony-related massacres, which, then as now, are less likely to garner extensive media coverage," Duwe said. The second mass murder wave from the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s consisted of a greater number of mass public shootings, similar to the recent Aurora movie theater shooting and Newtown school shooting. These incidents "have always captured a great deal of interest and concern," Duwe said. Marked by the 1966 Texas Tower shootings where student Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus shooting dead 14 people and wounding 31 others, the mid-1960s do not actually represent the beginning of an unprecedented mass murder wave in the United States. "Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.

According to the criminologists, the 1990s had the highest number of mass public shootings with a little more than 40 — an average of a little more than 4 each year. The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009. "This year, however, the U.S. has had at least seven mass public shootings, which is the highest number since 1999," Duwe said. Indeed, killing or trying to kill a mass of people is not a modern phenomenon. For as long as there has been history, there have been gruesome mass murders. "The terms amok, a Malayan word, and berserk, a Norse word, have been used to describe individuals going on killing sprees. Both terms have been around for centuries, which reflects the fact that mass murder is neither a modern nor a uniquely American phenomenon," Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, told Discovery News.

Defined as bloody events that occur within a 24-hour period and that involve a minimum of four victims, mass murders have occurred all over the world, in different times, societies and cultures. Some of the earliest recorded cases include the 1893 killing with guns and swords of 11 people (including an infant) in Osaka, Japan, the 1914 shooting of 7 people in the Italian village of Camerata Cornello, not to mention the case of German spree killer Ernst August Wagner. In 1913, he stabbed to death his wife and four children in Degerloch, near Stuttgart, then drove to Mühlhausen an der Enz where he opened fire on 20 people, killing at least nine, leaving two animals dead and several buildings burned to the ground. In 1927, South African farmer Stephanus Swart shot dead at least eight people and injured three others in Charlestown, South Africa, before committing suicide. In 1938 almost half of the population of the rural village of Kaio, near Tsuyama city in Japan, was murdered as 21-year-old Mutsuo Toi killed 30 people with a shotgun, sword and axe, injured three others and then shot himself to death. Between 1954 and 1957, William Unek murdered a total of 57 people in two separate spree killings in the Belgian Congo. He first killed 21 people with an axe, then shot dead ten men, eight women and eight children, slaughtered six more men with the axe, burned two women and a child, and strangled a 15-year-old girl.
What us "gun nuts" argue is that, aside from the 2nd Amendment and the political protection you can argue does or does not provide for protection of our lawful freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights, we are also allowed as common sense, to the right of self-defense. We do not trust you, our neighbor, the police, the UN, the Karate instructor on the corner, or the blessed political figureheads like Bloomberg, Feinstein, Boxer, Holder, Biden and the rest of the self-rightous, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do elitists on Capitol Hill to save us from violent criminals. I trust myself, my wife and my teenage girls to aid in the protection of our family. I am partially disabled, my wife is 5'3" in shoes and you make your own opinion on how tough two teenage daughters are but being partially disabled I think I could still take 'em both together. I think the only real chance we have against more than one home invading criminal with anything more dangerous than a Rubik's Cube is the equalizer known as a firearm. There is no question that there are people out there that are hell-bent on violence, killing, intimidation, rape, robbery, you-name-it. There always has been and there always will be. They will be doing what they do with guns. If we take away the guns (somehow), are we left with swords? Knives? Baseball bats? Left with hand-to-hand weapons, I'd bet even odds at best against the four of us vs two able-bodied 200+ pound men and I find that unacceptable. If you see no need for self defense, that's your prerogative but you have no authority to tell me to do otherwise with my life.There is no way to take our personal defense without chipping away at the outliers of our firearms freedoms until we hardly notice or care anymore and that is the only explanation for the attack on "assault weapons" that are functionally no different than deer rifles. That is the only explanation for attempting to ban magazines beyond an arbitrary capacity, as we have shown how little difference that makes. The real reason behind a gun registry has been admitted to by the very people trying to instill one. The excuse is going to be private sales loophole shutdown, but we know, from their own mouths, what the goal is and they are only preying on emotion about the very recent, very public, very exposed tragedies and act like it's something new that has to be stopped. It is not new. It can't be stopped. It has always happened and it always will. That doesn't make it any better, or any worse and in no way is justification for jumping on their agendas that they have been working on for their entire careers just because we all happen to be upset at the moment. They are using you, via media to push their methods. They are trying to cause you to see us as the bad guys by telling you that it's us via the NRA that is blocking what should be done for the good of society. Too bad there is no evidence that it is good for society, or we may be more inclined to listen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.

 
In the United States, two mass murder waves characterized the 20th century. One appeared in the 1920s and 30s and another in the mid-1960s, following a tranquil period in the 1940s and 50s. The two waves, however, were qualitatively different, according to Duwe. The author of "Mass Murder in the United States: A History," Duwe researched 909 cases of mass killing that occurred in the United States between 1900 and 1999.

"The first mass murder wave in the 1920s and 30s was comprised mainly of familicides and felony-related massacres, which, then as now, are less likely to garner extensive media coverage," Duwe said. The second mass murder wave from the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s consisted of a greater number of mass public shootings, similar to the recent Aurora movie theater shooting and Newtown school shooting. These incidents "have always captured a great deal of interest and concern," Duwe said. Marked by the 1966 Texas Tower shootings where student Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus shooting dead 14 people and wounding 31 others, the mid-1960s do not actually represent the beginning of an unprecedented mass murder wave in the United States. "Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.

According to the criminologists, the 1990s had the highest number of mass public shootings with a little more than 40 — an average of a little more than 4 each year. The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009. "This year, however, the U.S. has had at least seven mass public shootings, which is the highest number since 1999," Duwe said. Indeed, killing or trying to kill a mass of people is not a modern phenomenon. For as long as there has been history, there have been gruesome mass murders. "The terms amok, a Malayan word, and berserk, a Norse word, have been used to describe individuals going on killing sprees. Both terms have been around for centuries, which reflects the fact that mass murder is neither a modern nor a uniquely American phenomenon," Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, told Discovery News.

Defined as bloody events that occur within a 24-hour period and that involve a minimum of four victims, mass murders have occurred all over the world, in different times, societies and cultures. Some of the earliest recorded cases include the 1893 killing with guns and swords of 11 people (including an infant) in Osaka, Japan, the 1914 shooting of 7 people in the Italian village of Camerata Cornello, not to mention the case of German spree killer Ernst August Wagner. In 1913, he stabbed to death his wife and four children in Degerloch, near Stuttgart, then drove to Mühlhausen an der Enz where he opened fire on 20 people, killing at least nine, leaving two animals dead and several buildings burned to the ground. In 1927, South African farmer Stephanus Swart shot dead at least eight people and injured three others in Charlestown, South Africa, before committing suicide. In 1938 almost half of the population of the rural village of Kaio, near Tsuyama city in Japan, was murdered as 21-year-old Mutsuo Toi killed 30 people with a shotgun, sword and axe, injured three others and then shot himself to death. Between 1954 and 1957, William Unek murdered a total of 57 people in two separate spree killings in the Belgian Congo. He first killed 21 people with an axe, then shot dead ten men, eight women and eight children, slaughtered six more men with the axe, burned two women and a child, and strangled a 15-year-old girl.
What us "gun nuts" argue is that, aside from the 2nd Amendment and the political protection you can argue does or does not provide for protection of our lawful freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights, we are also allowed as common sense, to the right of self-defense. We do not trust you, our neighbor, the police, the UN, the Karate instructor on the corner, or the blessed political figureheads like Bloomberg, Feinstein, Boxer, Holder, Biden and the rest of the self-rightous, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do elitists on Capitol Hill to save us from violent criminals. I trust myself, my wife and my teenage girls to aid in the protection of our family. I am partially disabled, my wife is 5'3" in shoes and you make your own opinion on how tough two teenage daughters are but being partially disabled I think I could still take 'em both together. I think the only real chance we have against more than one home invading criminal with anything more dangerous than a Rubik's Cube is the equalizer known as a firearm. There is no question that there are people out there that are hell-bent on violence, killing, intimidation, rape, robbery, you-name-it. There always has been and there always will be. They will be doing what they do with guns. If we take away the guns (somehow), are we left with swords? Knives? Baseball bats? Left with hand-to-hand weapons, I'd bet even odds at best against the four of us vs two able-bodied 200+ pound men and I find that unacceptable. If you see no need for self defense, that's your prerogative but you have no authority to tell me to do otherwise with my life.There is no way to take our personal defense without chipping away at the outliers of our firearms freedoms until we hardly notice or care anymore and that is the only explanation for the attack on "assault weapons" that are functionally no different than deer rifles. That is the only explanation for attempting to ban magazines beyond an arbitrary capacity, as we have shown how little difference that makes. The real reason behind a gun registry has been admitted to by the very people trying to instill one. The excuse is going to be private sales loophole shutdown, but we know, from their own mouths, what the goal is and they are only preying on emotion about the very recent, very public, very exposed tragedies and act like it's something new that has to be stopped. It is not new. It can't be stopped. It has always happened and it always well. That doesn't make it any better, or any worse and in no way is justification for jumping on their agendas that they have been working on for their entire careers just because we all happen to be upset at the moment. They are using you, via media to push their methods. They are trying to cause you to see us as the bad guys by telling you that it's us via the NRA that is blocking what should be done for the good of society. Too bad there is no evidence that it is good for society, or we may be more inclined to listen.
I agree nearly 100% with your first paragraph, and disagree nearly 100% with your second paragraph, especially when you continue to paint your own sense of motivation upon those who have a different view on this topic. You'll have to take my word that, in wanting the restrictions I desire, I have absolutely no intention of taking away your right to self-defense. And I believe this is true of most of the people that agree with me on these issues.
 
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.
A sig 226 9mm which is used by numerous LAw Enforcement Agencies comes with a standard mag capacity of 18+1. Is that considered high capacity?
 
Attempted Gun Burglary tied to Journal News Gun Maps

Brewster, N.Y. – 1/13/2013 – Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) announced that a burglary has been reported on Davis Ave. in White Plains, New York that evidently ties into The Journal News gun maps. It is reported that the burglar used The Journal News’ interactive gun map to target a home included on the map. Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt.
Nothing to see here, just a bunch of paranoid psychotic musings shown to be true.
One irresponsible news source speculates about it. Another one says that it is reported as such. And you copy and paste it as gospel truth.Stellar.
Shocking, you are ignorant as ever.http://newyork.newsday.com/westchester/journal-news-gun-permit-map-used-by-burglars-to-target-white-plains-home-1.4441678

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/gun-permit-list-to-blame-for-white-plains-burglary/

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-burglary-attempt-tied-to-journal-news-gun-owner-map

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2977793/posts

http://gestetnerupdates.com/2013/01/13/cbsny-asks-gun-permit-list-to-blame-for-white-plains-burglary/

 
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.
A sig 226 9mm which is used by numerous LAw Enforcement Agencies comes with a standard mag capacity of 18+1. Is that considered high capacity?
:yes:
 
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.
A sig 226 9mm which is used by numerous LAw Enforcement Agencies comes with a standard mag capacity of 18+1. Is that considered high capacity?
For private citizens, I would say so yes. BTW, what does 18 + 1 mean? Is that the same as 19?
 
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.
A sig 226 9mm which is used by numerous LAw Enforcement Agencies comes with a standard mag capacity of 18+1. Is that considered high capacity?
For private citizens, I would say so yes. BTW, what does 18 + 1 mean? Is that the same as 19?
18 in the magazine one in the chamber, total 19. I think it's completely reasonable to have the same number of rounds police to carry. If they think in their professional opinion that is the amount needed to stop bad guys, isn't it reasonable for the private citizen to want the same level of protection against the same criminals? I don't get why you can't/won't understand that.
 
'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
Massad Ayoob. Check out his bio in the link I posted. This link is from his words. He has many more of these kinds of articles and even has his own forum on self defense at GlockTalk.com. He pretty much says what we are saying. If you think about it, a high-cap magazine makes more sense from a defensive standpoint than an offensive one. The man intent on a mass shooting could just as easily prepare by loading his bag full of 10 round magazines (Virginia Tech), where the home defender is more likely awakened in the middle of the night. A sudden intrusion that requires immediate response. Most of us probably sleep naked or in only underwear. We would be grabbing the closest weapon to us and wouldn't have hands free to carry extra mags or pockets available to fill - even if there were time to fill those pockets. I could make a case for limiting magazines in public to 20 rounds (as I don't like a 10 round limit for any weapon) but limitless in the house. Either way, the argument against high-cap mags makes no sense to me, but the argument for makes plenty. As long as we have guns (and nobody thinks there is any way to take them all), we are going to have mass shootings. Limiting magazine capacity will not limit the number of murders, only how many magazines the shooter went through on his rampage.
 
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.
Are you serious? Ever cop I know has an AR in their car. As my very good friend who is currently a Lt. in the SLC PD and was recently a sniper on SWAT says, a handgun is only really good for fighting your way to your rifle.
 
And I have a responsibility to protect my family from those same bad guys and as such, I want the same tools that law enforcement has proven to be the most effective in defeating said bad guys.There are only two people ultimately responsible for the safety of my family--my wife and myself.If you choose not to accept that responsibility, that is your choice.
Fair enough, Dvorak, I challenge you on this: I would like you to describe a situation of self-defense which would require you to have a 30 round magazine vs. a 10 round magazine. And please don't bring up the Korean store owners again. Give me something that might happen to YOU. tia.
Tim, Did you hear about the woman who shot an intruder last week while protecting her twins? She shot him five times and he was still able to get away. What if there had been multiple intruders? Are you really suggesting that there aren't home invasions with multiple armed intruders? Usually you're at least somewhat reasonable in your arguments. And why wouldn't an example of a store owner be relevant? Are you suggesting that bans on "high capacity" magazines not apply to store owners?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?
I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.
It's actually an excellent argument. Police do not shoot first and ask questions later like you would lead us to believe when you post: "expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them." There is a protocol for when they are allowed to shoot which closely resembles circumstances in which a private citizen would need to shoot to defend themselves. Last I checked the police's job is not to kill people it is to arrest people peaceable. If you are saying they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves from the bad guys then we should assume private citizens deserve the same rights given they may have to face the same bad guys in a home invasion.
No, again I think it's a logical disconnect. I never said or implied that police need to shoot first; by "engage the bad guys" I meant that they are required to seek out situations in which the best response for a private citizen might be to run away. In response to your comments about a home invasion, I'll put the same question to you that I put to Dvorak: do you have an example in which defense of a home invasion was necessitated by the use of high capacity magazines? Are you expecting 20 gunmen to suddenly invade your home? Not buying it.
It doesn't take 20. Are you suggesting that people should have exactly one bullet per perpetrator and that we should craft policy based upon how many perpetrators a person might have to defend themselves against? :lmao:

 
And BTW, I don't know this for sure, but I doubt that most police use high capacity magazines except in extraordinary situations. Certainly the local law enforcement that I'm familiar with don't carry that kind of firepower on their persons.
The Glock model 17 is probably the most common law enforcement pistol in the world, including the U.S. and has a standard capacity magazine of 17. Most law enforcement also carry two spare magazines on duty for a total of 51 rounds of 9mm. The Glock 22 is nearing the popularity of the 17 and has a standard capacity of 15 .40 caliber bullets. 45 rounds total for carry. The AR-15s commonly carried in patrol cars are stocked with 30 round magazines, and their Remington 870 12 gauge shotguns are a pump action with a capacity of 4+1 or 6+1.
 
'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?
I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.
It's actually an excellent argument. Police do not shoot first and ask questions later like you would lead us to believe when you post: "expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them." There is a protocol for when they are allowed to shoot which closely resembles circumstances in which a private citizen would need to shoot to defend themselves. Last I checked the police's job is not to kill people it is to arrest people peaceable. If you are saying they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves from the bad guys then we should assume private citizens deserve the same rights given they may have to face the same bad guys in a home invasion.
No, again I think it's a logical disconnect. I never said or implied that police need to shoot first; by "engage the bad guys" I meant that they are required to seek out situations in which the best response for a private citizen might be to run away. In response to your comments about a home invasion, I'll put the same question to you that I put to Dvorak: do you have an example in which defense of a home invasion was necessitated by the use of high capacity magazines? Are you expecting 20 gunmen to suddenly invade your home? Not buying it.
It doesn't take 20. Are you suggesting that people should have exactly one bullet per perpetrator and that we should craft policy based upon how many perpetrators a person might have to defend themselves against? :lmao:
I think it's well established that he watches too much TV. Every bad guy in the movies flips 5 feet backwards and is killed instantly by whatever firearm our hero is carrying that somehow has no recoil every time they fire.
 
And I have a responsibility to protect my family from those same bad guys and as such, I want the same tools that law enforcement has proven to be the most effective in defeating said bad guys.There are only two people ultimately responsible for the safety of my family--my wife and myself.If you choose not to accept that responsibility, that is your choice.
Fair enough, Dvorak, I challenge you on this: I would like you to describe a situation of self-defense which would require you to have a 30 round magazine vs. a 10 round magazine. And please don't bring up the Korean store owners again. Give me something that might happen to YOU. tia.
Tim, Did you hear about the woman who shot an intruder last week while protecting her twins? She shot him five times and he was still able to get away. What if there had been multiple intruders? Are you really suggesting that there aren't home invasions with multiple armed intruders? Usually you're at least somewhat reasonable in your arguments. And why wouldn't an example of a store owner be relevant? Are you suggesting that bans on "high capacity" magazines not apply to store owners?
^ +100She emptied the 6 round revolver and hit him 5 times. She emptied the gun and hit him an extremely impressive 5 of 6 (not common) yet he lived despite being hit in the lung, liver and stomach. He was found bleeding in his car in a neighbor's driveway. She was out of ammo, he was still alive, and he was acting alone. She was very lucky. Her twin daughters are even more lucky that their mom wasn't afraid of having a gun or using it.
 
Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too. But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.

 
'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?
I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.
And I have a responsibility to protect my family from those same bad guys and as such, I want the same tools that law enforcement has proven to be the most effective in defeating said bad guys.There are only two people ultimately responsible for the safety of my family--my wife and myself.

If you choose not to accept that responsibility, that is your choice.
Fair enough, Dvorak, I challenge you on this: I would like you to describe a situation of self-defense which would require you to have a 30 round magazine vs. a 10 round magazine. And please don't bring up the Korean store owners again. Give me something that might happen to YOU. tia.
I think it's pretty much been covered by other posters at this point.Multiple intruders.

Misses. Fortunately, I have not had to fight off a home invasion so I do not know how well my practice is going to hold up. I do not expect the adrenaline will cause me to turn into a sharpshooter however, so I expect to miss a couple.

If my firearm is made to hold 17 rounds, why on Earth would I want to limit myself to 10?

Are the bad guys obeying the law as well?

Also, I'm waiting to hear you downplay Cookiemonster's mention of Massad Ayoob as not being a real law enforcement professional.

 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too. But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
 
Also, I'm waiting to hear you downplay Cookiemonster's mention of Massad Ayoob as not being a real law enforcement professional.
Nope, I won't do that. I didn't know anything about him prior to these discussions, but he appears to be eminently qualified. I would very much like to see him engaged in a debate with the law enforcement officials that favor the ban.
 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
 
'timschochet said:
'Cookiemonster said:
Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?
I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.
If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?
I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.
It's actually an excellent argument. Police do not shoot first and ask questions later like you would lead us to believe when you post: "expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them." There is a protocol for when they are allowed to shoot which closely resembles circumstances in which a private citizen would need to shoot to defend themselves. Last I checked the police's job is not to kill people it is to arrest people peaceable. If you are saying they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves from the bad guys then we should assume private citizens deserve the same rights given they may have to face the same bad guys in a home invasion.
No, again I think it's a logical disconnect. I never said or implied that police need to shoot first; by "engage the bad guys" I meant that they are required to seek out situations in which the best response for a private citizen might be to run away. In response to your comments about a home invasion, I'll put the same question to you that I put to Dvorak: do you have an example in which defense of a home invasion was necessitated by the use of high capacity magazines? Are you expecting 20 gunmen to suddenly invade your home? Not buying it.
It doesn't take 20. Are you suggesting that people should have exactly one bullet per perpetrator and that we should craft policy based upon how many perpetrators a person might have to defend themselves against? :lmao:
I think it's well established that he watches too much TV. Every bad guy in the movies flips 5 feet backwards and is killed instantly by whatever firearm our hero is carrying that somehow has no recoil every time they fire.
I think an expert could also time his shots to drop 2 targets with each round.
 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
Extra amusing since it's not even a theoretical example, it's one that actually happened Mr "THAT NEVER HAPPENS".
 
Here is Mr. Ayoob's key statement, from the link Cookiemonster provided:

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

Again, while I respect Mr. Ayoob as an expert, I simply don't buy into this argument, and I have already explained why. Police have a very different purpose than private citizens protecting themselves from home invasion. Police are supposed to enforce the rule of law, and as such, their ability to use force is, IMO, greatly expanded from the ordinary citizen.

This may be a difference not of fact, but of philosophy. Essentially, I believe in a society in which the rights and security of the individual are protected by the rule of law. Many of you, and Mr. Ayoob, seem to believe that the rights and security of the individual must be ultimately protected by the individual himself. This is essentially a rural vs. urban argument, and also a conservative vs. liberal argument (in a classical sense.) We will probably never see eye to eye on it.

 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
What the heck are you talking about? I just gave you a REAL LIFE example from last week of a woman that emptied a standard cartridge in to a SINGLE intruder and he was able to get away, and you don't think it's reasonable?
 
This may be a difference not of fact, but of philosophy. Essentially, I believe in a society in which the rights and security of the individual are protected by the rule of law. Many of you, and Mr. Ayoob, seem to believe that the rights and security of the individual must be ultimately protected by the individual himself. This is essentially a rural vs. urban argument, and also a conservative vs. liberal argument (in a classical sense.) We will probably never see eye to eye on it.
It's neither of these. It's a practicality and legal argument. The cops aren't legally responsible for failing to protect you from being murdered, raped or robbed. And unless you want a police escort for every citizen in America, it's up to the person to defend themselves, at least as a first line of defense. You can't throw the rule of law at someone in the middle of a break in.
 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
What the heck are you talking about? I just gave you a REAL LIFE example from last week of a woman that emptied a standard cartridge in to a SINGLE intruder and he was able to get away, and you don't think it's reasonable?
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself and deter the threat?
 
Oh, and Tim, since you love to talk about how law enforcement needs the higher capacity magazines but homeowners don't, let me offer you a reverse justification. Law enforcement, as you noted, knows they're going in to potentially hairy situations. So they carry extra magazines. What you rarely hear about are homeowners having extra loaded magazines handy. It's more likely that if an intruders, or intruders, enters a home the homeowner is going to grab their gun and take cover somewhere. They're not going to have extra magazines. They're also not going to have a radio attached to their collar to call for reinforcements. So, it's more likely they'll need the extra capacity than law enforcement.

 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
What the heck are you talking about? I just gave you a REAL LIFE example from last week of a woman that emptied a standard cartridge in to a SINGLE intruder and he was able to get away, and you don't think it's reasonable?
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself and deter the threat?
Barely. And that was against a single, unarmed intruder.
 
Oh, and Tim, since you love to talk about how law enforcement needs the higher capacity magazines but homeowners don't, let me offer you a reverse justification. Law enforcement, as you noted, knows they're going in to potentially hairy situations. So they carry extra magazines. What you rarely hear about are homeowners having extra loaded magazines handy. It's more likely that if an intruders, or intruders, enters a home the homeowner is going to grab their gun and take cover somewhere. They're not going to have extra magazines. They're also not going to have a radio attached to their collar to call for reinforcements. So, it's more likely they'll need the extra capacity than law enforcement.
No it isn't.
 
Here is Mr. Ayoob's key statement, from the link Cookiemonster provided:

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

Again, while I respect Mr. Ayoob as an expert, I simply don't buy into this argument, and I have already explained why. Police have a very different purpose than private citizens protecting themselves from home invasion. Police are supposed to enforce the rule of law, and as such, their ability to use force is, IMO, greatly expanded from the ordinary citizen.

This may be a difference not of fact, but of philosophy. Essentially, I believe in a society in which the rights and security of the individual are protected by the rule of law. Many of you, and Mr. Ayoob, seem to believe that the rights and security of the individual must be ultimately protected by the individual himself. This is essentially a rural vs. urban argument, and also a conservative vs. liberal argument (in a classical sense.) We will probably never see eye to eye on it.
Police are not expected to shoot. They shoot when they have to to protect their own lives or others. Just because they are more likely to do so doesn't change the standards.
 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
What the heck are you talking about? I just gave you a REAL LIFE example from last week of a woman that emptied a standard cartridge in to a SINGLE intruder and he was able to get away, and you don't think it's reasonable?
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself and deter the threat?
Barely. And that was against a single, unarmed intruder.
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself against the threat with a standard cartridge? Don't get mad at me - you are the one that cited this example.
 
Sorry guys, I respect all of your arguments, and I know you're sincere, but I'm just not convinced that having a 30 round magazine is essential to your home defense. I also don't think it's logical that because the police have something, you should have it too.

But hey, you don't have to convince me; I'm just one guy in an internet discussion forum and what I think means absolutely nothing. Your main problem isn't me; it's that the general public isn't convinced either.
I like that you ask for examples of why higher capacities are needed, are given reasonable examples and come back with "I'm just not convinced".
Well, we differ as to whether those are "reasonable examples". I don't think they are.
What the heck are you talking about? I just gave you a REAL LIFE example from last week of a woman that emptied a standard cartridge in to a SINGLE intruder and he was able to get away, and you don't think it's reasonable?
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself and deter the threat?
Barely. And that was against a single, unarmed intruder.
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself against the threat with a standard cartridge? Don't get mad at me - you are the one that cited this example.
I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.
 
So, to be clear, she was able to defend herself against the threat with a standard cartridge? Don't get mad at me - you are the one that cited this example.
With a 6 shot revolver. No magazines. Yes. Most self defense shootings involve fewer shots than that from each party. It is also very uncommon to score 5 out of 6 hits. She was either very close, very good or very lucky. She was able to ward off the intruder, but didn't put him down, didn't incapacitate him, didn't kill him, and it was only him. Home invasions are very often team jobs. This was a single intruder. He was also either unarmed or unprepared for a firefight. Not every case is going to be the same, and while a 6 shot revolver can quite often do the job, it quite often can't. By the way, why is nobody making a fuss about revolvers? Good criminal weapon in that it doesn't leave shell casings behind. Less forensic evidence. No accurate count of shots fired, caliber bullet, extractor marks or firing pin indentations for weapon signature. Used MUCH more often to commit crime and kills MANY more people annually than an "assault weapon." Hmm... Guess they don't make the spectacular news story that runs for weeks on end and is step #10 on the anti-gun politician's lists.
 
I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.
Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.
 
So, just to be clear, having a weapon with 6 or 7 shots is not adequate for home defense because of the chance that there will be multiple intruders wielding weapons?

 
By the way, why is nobody making a fuss about revolvers? Good criminal weapon in that it doesn't leave shell casings behind. Less forensic evidence. No accurate count of shots fired, caliber bullet, extractor marks or firing pin indentations for weapon signature. Used MUCH more often to commit crime and kills MANY more people annually than an "assault weapon." Hmm... Guess they don't make the spectacular news story that runs for weeks on end and is step #10 on the anti-gun politician's lists.
:goodposting: Yet another good argument against banning assault weapons. The more I hear arguments like this, the more I'm convinced that it's a useless idea.
 
I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.
Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.
Obviously she didn't need it. The guy collapsed and she and her children escaped. Against a single, unarmed intruder. What you're supposed to be able to do is extrapolate the example. What if there had been two intruders? Or three? What if they were armed? The last thing I'd want to do is run out of shots against the second intruder after taking out his accomplice. He might be a little pissed. Again, if you're either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that many home invasions involve more than one intruder, and that those intruders might be armed, thus making 6 rounds fairly inadequate, that's ok. I'm just adding to the conversation.
 
I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.
Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.
You continue to bring this up as some kind of proof that limited capacity magazines would save lives yet you continue to ignore the two examples when limited capacity magazines were used and no lives were saved. Why? Why do you continue to ignore this? here it is again:Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]
VA Tech:
Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]
As you can see (hopefully this time), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.
 
And I have a responsibility to protect my family from those same bad guys and as such, I want the same tools that law enforcement has proven to be the most effective in defeating said bad guys.

There are only two people ultimately responsible for the safety of my family--my wife and myself.

If you choose not to accept that responsibility, that is your choice.
Fair enough, Dvorak, I challenge you on this: I would like you to describe a situation of self-defense which would require you to have a 30 round magazine vs. a 10 round magazine. And please don't bring up the Korean store owners again. Give me something that might happen to YOU. tia.
Tim,Did you hear about the woman who shot an intruder last week while protecting her twins? She shot him five times and he was still able to get away. What if there had been multiple intruders? Are you really suggesting that there aren't home invasions with multiple armed intruders? Usually you're at least somewhat reasonable in your arguments. And why wouldn't an example of a store owner be relevant? Are you suggesting that bans on "high capacity" magazines not apply to store owners?
:crickets: :whistle:

 
Looking for a specific incident to reply to Tim, I came across this interesting set of stats regarding officer shootings:

Most Deadly States

California 183 total (102 fatal)

Florida 96 (49)

Illinois 64 (26)

Texas 58 (26)

New York 49 (23)

Pennsylvania 49 (23)

Ohio 45 (28)

Arizona 45 (27)

Maryland 41 (16)

Washington 39 (29)

Hmm... States with strictest gun laws bolded.

Least Deadly States

Delaware 0

Vermont 0

North Dakota 1

Wyoming 2 (1)

Alaska 2 (2)

Montana 3 (2)

South Dakota 3 (3)

Hawai 4 (3)

Conneticut 6 (1)

West Virginia 6 (5)

New Hampshire 6 (5)

Idaho 7 (2)

Kansas 7 (5)

Most Deadly Cities

Chicago 46 total (10 fatal)

Los Angeles 22 (14)

Philadelphia 17 (7)

Las Vegas 17 (15)

New York City 16 (6)

Phoenix 15 (10)

Baltimore 15 (5)

Columbus, OH 14 (8)

Atlanta 12 (4)

St. Louis 11 (3)

Cleveland 10 (7)

Miami 10 (6)

Houston 10 (3)

Least Deadly Cities

Boston 1

New Orleans 1 (1)

Portland, ME 1

Buffalo 2

Detroit 2 (1)

Seattle 2 (1)

Denver 2 (2)

Pittsburgh 3 (1)

Cities with High Per Capita Shooting Rates

Fresno, CA 9 total (4 fatal)

Tucson, AZ 8 (6)

Aurora, CO 7 (6)

Oakland, CA 7 (6)

San Jose, CA 7 (3)

Albuquerque, NM 6 (5)

Mesa, AZ 6 (2)

Jacksonville, FL 5 (4)

Syracuse, NY 5 (3)

Orlando, FL 5 (2)

N. Miami Beach, FL 5 (2)

Little Rock, Ark. 5 (1)

Yakima, WA 4 (1)

Bakersfield, CA 4 (3)

Long Beach, CA 4 (2)

Garden Grove, CA 4 (3)

Redding, CA 4 (2) - So proud of my hometown! :mellow:

 
I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.
Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.
Obviously she didn't need it. The guy collapsed and she and her children escaped. Against a single, unarmed intruder. What you're supposed to be able to do is extrapolate the example. What if there had been two intruders? Or three? What if they were armed? The last thing I'd want to do is run out of shots against the second intruder after taking out his accomplice. He might be a little pissed. Again, if you're either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that many home invasions involve more than one intruder, and that those intruders might be armed, thus making 6 rounds fairly inadequate, that's ok. I'm just adding to the conversation.
I appreciate the honest discussion, I do. But the argument goes off the rails for me here. Ok, she needed six shots against one unarmed guy...maybe she'd need 12 against two guys with guns. What would she need against 3...6...9 armed assailants? Do we just legalize however-many-rounds-possible for the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of home invasions where you MIGHT fare better with more than 6 rounds in a clip?
 
Looking for a specific incident to reply to Tim, I came across this interesting set of stats regarding officer shootings:

Most Deadly States

California 183 total (102 fatal)

Florida 96 (49)

Illinois 64 (26)

Texas 58 (26)

New York 49 (23)

Pennsylvania 49 (23)

Ohio 45 (28)

Arizona 45 (27)

Maryland 41 (16)

Washington 39 (29)

Hmm... States with strictest gun laws bolded.

Least Deadly States

Delaware 0

Vermont 0

North Dakota 1

Wyoming 2 (1)

Alaska 2 (2)

Montana 3 (2)

South Dakota 3 (3)

Hawai 4 (3)

Conneticut 6 (1)

West Virginia 6 (5)

New Hampshire 6 (5)

Idaho 7 (2)

Kansas 7 (5)

Most Deadly Cities

Chicago 46 total (10 fatal)

Los Angeles 22 (14)

Philadelphia 17 (7)

Las Vegas 17 (15)

New York City 16 (6)

Phoenix 15 (10)

Baltimore 15 (5)

Columbus, OH 14 (8)

Atlanta 12 (4)

St. Louis 11 (3)

Cleveland 10 (7)

Miami 10 (6)

Houston 10 (3)

Least Deadly Cities

Boston 1

New Orleans 1 (1)

Portland, ME 1

Buffalo 2

Detroit 2 (1)

Seattle 2 (1)

Denver 2 (2)

Pittsburgh 3 (1)

Cities with High Per Capita Shooting Rates

Fresno, CA 9 total (4 fatal)

Tucson, AZ 8 (6)

Aurora, CO 7 (6)

Oakland, CA 7 (6)

San Jose, CA 7 (3)

Albuquerque, NM 6 (5)

Mesa, AZ 6 (2)

Jacksonville, FL 5 (4)

Syracuse, NY 5 (3)

Orlando, FL 5 (2)

N. Miami Beach, FL 5 (2)

Little Rock, Ark. 5 (1)

Yakima, WA 4 (1)

Bakersfield, CA 4 (3)

Long Beach, CA 4 (2)

Garden Grove, CA 4 (3)

Redding, CA 4 (2) - So proud of my hometown! :mellow:
You should probably adjust for population. Of course CA has more shootings than DE. I think 5 people live in DE.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top