Why do gun control advocates constantly prattle about "high capacity magazines"

Since when has the media focused on inner city killings? Isolated mass shootings get ALL the attention, especially if a "racial overtone" can be presented. That is the focus of anti gun politicians.

 

unwilling to address the criminals? aren't they the top priority, or is this just a feel-good solution that has no actual merit?

 

OK. I may catch some flack on this from both sides but I don't really care. When I purchased my AR-15 over 40 years ago I did so PRECISELY because of it's potential firepower! Why should I, as an American citizen, in the event of a natural disaster or civil unrest, with the accompanying breakdown of lawful authority, be forced to to defend myself, family, and property with a single barrel shotgun, bolt action .22 rifle, or pellet gun? Those who choose to sacrifice themselves and families to preserve their precious "moral authority" are MORE than welcome to do so. I choose not to, nor will I be compelled to do otherwise.

 

What you say -might- happen; the near-theoretical possibility of such does not in any way demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.

 

*Looks at the basic idea behind machine guns vs. muskets*.

Yeah maybe you have a point but I still think my argument is right.

 

News Headline:

Tragic boating accident claims 95% of standard capacity magazines after ban, turn in dismal less than 5%; Biden has a sad.

Real Headline:

Gun control bills gutted by Supreme Court.

Only question will be whether the rulings are 6-3 or 5-4. Either way, we win.

 

The fact you 'think" your argument is right doesn't mean much.

 

I'm sorry I was too busy studying WW1 and how devastating machine guns were in that war, were you trying to make an argument?

 

I did.
What you say -might- happen; the near-theoretical possibility of such does not in any way demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.

 

Well the death rates of wars seems to indicate that would be the case. More bullets in a short period of time will more likely hit more people than less bullets in same amount of time.

 

The highest number of American deaths came in war fought with muskets.
That aside - the argument is smaller magazines = moire reloads = more chances for the victims to fight back.
While that -might- happen; the near-theoretical possibility of such does not in any way demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.

 

I never felt the need for a large magazine(s) for possible self defense/home defense until this November when left wingers appeared to be planning an insurrection/riot of some sort if trump won. A few hundred antifa/BLM types arrived two days before the election and set up a campground in the rain. They left two days after the election. These people were located a few hundred yards from my house. With a Summer of riots condoned by law enforcement I was glad to have 30 round rifle magazines and not need them than need them and not have them. So my primary concern is my own self defense. Not very liberal of me I know. But it is what it is.

 

Quite simply, the idea to ban standard capacity magazines is based upon the combination of ignorance of firearms and the desperate need to voice a solution that sounds simplistic and easy. The failure, even if they succeed, is that is has zero impact upon the ability of the dangerously mentally ill or the criminal to obtain whatever they want. Or, to use multiple magazines. The idea that it takes long enough to change a non-standard capacity magazine for bystanders to intervene is also one of ignorance. There are no examples of this ever working in real life.

Mass shootings are not a problem of too many guns, magazine size or type of action.

Stopping these events is not a matter of needing more guns in the hands of good guys. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Stopping these horrors is a matter of recognizing that it is the human being that is violent, not the thing the human being uses in carrying out the violence. This is the key, the root cause, the clue to preventing mass murder. If you look at all non-terrorist mass killings in our history you find the same story over and over again. There were warning signs, they were known. Often, they were reported. Nothing was done. Or, under existing laws and existing mental health infrastructure, nothing could be done.

I am reminded that the first murder in the Sandy Hook case was of Mrs. Lanza. Who for years had struggled to get mental health care for her increasingly deranged child. She was constantly rebuffed and grew desperate. Finally, her son killed her first and then attacked a place she dearly loved.

The story repeats over and over. Virginia Tech. Tucson. Sutherland Springs. Aurora. Boulder. Over and over again with variation but always deeply similar facts. A progressively worsening, dangerously mentally ill person is known of, feared and inadequately responded to. Laws and facilities are inadequate to address and contain the person.

Failing to focus on the crucial element in violence, the human being doing it, assures failure.

Every ******ned time, ignore the human element and fail.

It's kind of a rule. Write it down.

 

And why limit to American deaths when WW1 happened with better medical technology?

That's not my argument, my argument is more reloads-->fewer bullets being sprayed all over the place-->more chances for people to escape. Though I think that's what you're saying and we're just emphasizing different things.

 

Have you ever used a firearm before?

 

Yup. I live on a farm. Someone has to shoot the foxes that prey on the chickens.

 

so it's ok to blame the fox for his actions, but not the criminal for theirs?

 

That’s a really dumb argument but yeah I’m pretty okay with that. You need to have high virtuous standing to own a gun, and 70% of Americans commit crimes that can warrant jail time.

 

While that -might- happen; the near-theoretical possibility of such does not in any way demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.

 

I don’t see anything in the constitution that agrees with that random “standing” and you’re never going to remove them from citizens.

 

Thats just as great an argument as it is for why armed law-abiding citizens might need the couple extra seconds on their side vs an armed violent criminal attacker.

 

I also don’t see the word privacy in there either. Go figure.

 

You keep saying that, but I don’t really think you know what that means. Simply restating your position isn’t a response to mine.

 

And yet, "Privacy" is the basis for Roe v Wade.

 

I do, and you have yet to meaningfully address it.