Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Yeah I forgot about the old selective fatalism argument

[mainiac]

If guns are used for murder, even if you insist that murder would happen anyway, then yes they do enable murder.  Are you going to contest that guns are used for murder?

[Owlbread]

Let's not forget that this legislation is primarily directed at people running amok. Those guys aren't hardened criminals; they're basically normal people who went a little bit crazy. Denying them the opportunity to do that much damage goes hand in hand with denying normal people the opportunity to obtain weapons with which they could do that much damage.
Claiming that banning high-capacity magazines will not stop bank robberies or gang warfare and is therefore useless is plain BS and, to be honest, a pretty bad strawman argument.

But in both cases of the worst school shootings (people running amok) that happened over the last year or so that caused Obama to look at gun control, the guys were very well prepared indeed and, at least in James Holmes' case, were able to purchase some pretty high-end weaponry off the internet. I can't quite remember if the site that Holmes was using to get all that ammunition was completely illegal but I'm sure his useage of it was. The crazies that are going to go out and shoot people are either going to be (in my opinion) hardcore enough to get whatever they need off the internet, or if they're too unstable to plan stuff, they'll just use your common household shotgun/handgun like the last few kids we've had in New Mexico/Taft. Notice Obama is doing zilch to regulate those.

Ask yourself how many times people that run amok in the USA have actually needed to use a magazine with 50+ ammo capacity? When compared with the number of mass murderers who use handguns. I'm telling you - this is a half-assed law designed to appease the masses and make the Obama administration look good without actually making any real impact on American gun culture.

[fqllve]

Guns don't enable murder either.

Regardless of your position on gun regulation I don't see how you can say that when the primary purpose of a firearm is to fire lethal projectiles. They have literally no other practical use other than to kill, and they have limited recreational use compared to say, a ball. They may not cause murder, but certainly they are particularly well-suited for it.

[GreatJustice]

Uh, well the real reason banning high capacity magazines is dumb is because it's trivially simple to bypass these days. I'm not entirely sure of the legality, but chances are a ban would result in (serious) criminals just printing themselves high capacity magazines using 3D printers while law abiding citizens would have none.

Oh, and the other reason is because they're a red herring. They've got a tendency to jam more frequently and have a variety of downsides besides that. It's about as effective as banning gun metal grey paint.

[Owlbread]

Uh, well the real reason banning high capacity magazines is dumb is because it's trivially simple to bypass these days. I'm not entirely sure of the legality, but chances are a ban would result in (serious) criminals just printing themselves high capacity magazines using 3D printers while law abiding citizens would have none.

Oh, and the other reason is because they're a red herring. They've got a tendency to jam more frequently and have a variety of downsides besides that. It's about as effective as banning gun metal grey paint.

Exactly, it's bullshit. I'm surprised some of the people here are apparently letting themselves get duped by it. The problem with the Sandy Hook shooter's weaponry too is that most standard magazines for the gun can hold about 25-30 rounds. Adam Lanza however did that thing where he tied two clips together so he could reload more quickly. How are you going to stop that?

[Leafsnail]

I wasn't talking about high capacity magazines, and 3D printed guns are really shitty.

[fqllve]

Exactly, it's bullshit. I'm surprised some of the people here are apparently letting themselves get duped by it.

Well that's a condescending attitude to take. It is bullshit, but it's bullshit that has an immediate and obvious appeal. People would want to avoid reloading during mass killings. That's why people will support the measure even though it wouldn't be effective regulation. And there is at least one reasonable argument against them, which is what legitimate purpose is there for a civilian to own a 100 round magazine? Especially since they suck.

[Leafsnail]

No but you see owning a 100 round magazine is exactly the same thing as using the internet.

Fuck it I'm completely lost, I'll just go make an analogy-land thread.

[Owlbread]

Exactly, it's bullshit. I'm surprised some of the people here are apparently letting themselves get duped by it.

Well that's a condescending attitude to take. It is bullshit, but it's bullshit that has an immediate and obvious appeal. People would want to avoid reloading during mass killings. That's why people will support the measure even though it wouldn't be effective regulation. And there is at least one reasonable argument against them, which is what legitimate purpose is there for a civilian to own a 100 round magazine? Especially since they suck.

But there's no good reason to ban them. What, are we going to ban swords now? Bayonets? The only purpose of those objects is to hurt people/kill them. Why would an ordinary civilian ever need them?

Mass killers will barely, if ever, use 100+ mags; we'd be looking at another North Hollywood Shootout if they did, which is both unlikely and of the sort that involves criminals so hardcore they won't give a damn about a law like that. The real problem is that it lets the Obama administration off the hook when they could be implementing some kind of meaningful legislation; like increased psychological testing and heavy regulation of handguns.

[Nadaka]

If guns are used for murder, even if you insist that murder would happen anyway, then yes they do enable murder.  Are you going to contest that guns are used for murder?

No, I would not argue that guns are not used for murder. But the number of circumstances where murder is enabled by guns where no alternative weapons suitable is vanishingly small.

Uh, well the real reason banning high capacity magazines is dumb is because it's trivially simple to bypass these days. I'm not entirely sure of the legality, but chances are a ban would result in (serious) criminals just printing themselves high capacity magazines using 3D printers while law abiding citizens would have none.

Oh, and the other reason is because they're a red herring. They've got a tendency to jam more frequently and have a variety of downsides besides that. It's about as effective as banning gun metal grey paint.

Exactly, it's bullshit. I'm surprised some of the people here are apparently letting themselves get duped by it. The problem with the Sandy Hook shooter's weaponry too is that most standard magazines for the gun can hold about 25-30 rounds. Adam Lanza however did that thing where he tied two clips together so he could reload more quickly. How are you going to stop that?

High capacity magazines are not that significant of a problem to a dedicated shooter. The columbine shooter didn't have 30 or higher round magazines, he just brought more 10 round magazines with him.

Exactly, it's bullshit. I'm surprised some of the people here are apparently letting themselves get duped by it.

Well that's a condescending attitude to take. It is bullshit, but it's bullshit that has an immediate and obvious appeal. People would want to avoid reloading during mass killings. That's why people will support the measure even though it wouldn't be effective regulation. And there is at least one reasonable argument against them, which is what legitimate purpose is there for a civilian to own a 100 round magazine? Especially since they suck.

If one accepts the concept of property, you don't have to demonstrate a legitimate purpose to own an object.

[Leafsnail]

No, I would not argue that guns are not used for murder. But the number of circumstances where murder is enabled by guns where no alternative weapons suitable is vanishingly small.

Crimes of passion exist blah blah blah blah blah

[fqllve]

But there's no good reason to ban them. What, are we going to ban swords now? Bayonets? The only purpose of those objects is to hurt people/kill them. Why would an ordinary civilian ever need them?

Bayonets are obviously historical and therefore relevant to collectors. Also, I won't be surprised if bayonets are put on the chopping block too. Weren't they included in the ASB? Anyway, I'd figured you'd gotten the point of my post until that edit, but I wasn't arguing for high capacity magazine bans, just pointing out that people aren't stupid because they support them.

I agree with the real problem with legislation like this is that lawmakers get to look like they've done something. But honestly I think the chances of us passing actually effective regulation are exceedingly small.

No, I would not argue that guns are not used for murder. But the number of circumstances where murder is enabled by guns where no alternative weapons suitable is vanishingly small.

Ok that is a really minor quibble over wording. Also, the word enable doesn't mean that there couldn't have been any other alternatives, generally it just means "provided the means to accomplish," which hey, guns do.

But hey! Semantics!!

[GlyphGryph]

And there is at least one reasonable argument against them, which is what legitimate purpose is there for a civilian to own a 100 round magazine? Especially since they suck.

Here's a hint-  if even the people that want to BAN GUNS think your argument is insulting bullshit antithetical to the very concept of a free society, lacking any sort of coherent reason or real justification, then your argument is probably bullshit

"Why shouldn't it be illegal" is a terrible point of view, and never the right question to ask. If you have to fall back on it, it means you've conceded defeat, that you can't possible conceive of a reason that could justify banning them so you have to push the burden of "necessity" onto the opposition.

So stop it - you're making anti-gun folk look bad. "With friends like you, who needs enemies?"

But the number of circumstances where murder is enabled by guns where no alternative weapons suitable is vanishingly small.

This is... a powerful claim, that doesn't seem to jive with most of the evidence I've seen. Do you have any actual sources for this claim? I'll look for some details on it when I get a chance later, but it does seem contrary to what I've heard so far.

[Owlbread]

Bayonets are obviously historical and therefore relevant to collectors. Also, I won't be surprised if bayonets are put on the chopping block too. Weren't they included in the ASB? Anyway, I'd figured you'd gotten the point of my post until that edit, but I wasn't arguing for high capacity magazine bans, just pointing out that people aren't stupid because they support them.

I agree with the real problem with legislation like this is that lawmakers get to look like they've done something. But honestly I think the chances of us passing actually effective regulation are exceedingly small.

But so too are 50+ ammo magazines. I'm sure that was the figure Biden was referring to. If you take them away then gun collectors (who are just as nutty as people who collect swords and bayonets, that includes myself) will suffer all the same.