re: Man Shoots AR-15 Against His Nose To Show How Little Kick It Has

quote:

---

I think it is a reasonable bone to throw to critics. Let's say 11 or more rounds.

---

So, you suggest a 10-round limit?

quote:

---

You don't think high capacity magazines are relevant.

---

I didn't say they were "irrelevant" per se (or I didn't mean to), but any limit is arbitrary. And, I also assume you exempt law enforcement?

My response is that - we face the same threats they do. Any arbitrary limit, in response to these fairly rare acts of evil, is a surrender of our rights, IMHO.

quote:

---

It seems like an incredibly reasonable place to compromise and build some good will.

---

Except that it is never enough. They anti gun jurisdictions all try to out do each other. That's why NY state has a beyond silly limit of 7 (which was overturned).

I assume you think that's more reasonable than my suggestion that we regulate offenders, not inanimate objects.

quote:

---

It seems like an incredibly reasonable place to compromise and build some good will.

---

You don't even know what this word means do you?

quote:

---

how more clearly do you want us to explain to you that we don't give a frick about building "good will"? The 2nd amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court has upheld it, and attempts to (further) infringe upon our rights are getting smacked down

---

What does magazine capacity have to do with the 2nd amendment? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinely asking.

if we "compromise" and give up "high capacity magazines", what do we get back?

since this is a compromise, right? and not just taking from one side, right?

or is the "compromise", we give up this and the other side leaves us alone till the next mass shooting?

quote:

---

The "compromise" is that we give up this and the other side leaves us alone till the next mass shooting

---

:boom:

quote:

---

So because a lot of stupid people agree on something it is less stupid? Do you even think about that statement before typing it?

---

Huh? Many people in this very thread have argued that standard magazines (10 rounds or less) are just as effective as high capacity magazines in semi-automatic weapons if they're in the hands of a moderately capable shooter. Do you disagree with that statement?

quote:

---

And what will be conceded the next time a mass shooting happens and such law is in place (Does Columbine ring a bell in that empty head of yours?)? Why are you so willfully ignorant? Why do you not see the obvious flaws in your argument when they are put right in front of you?

---

If someone wants to shoot up a place with handguns, shotguns, and semi-auto rifles, they're going to do it, and there isn't much we can do to stop them. Why do they need to have high-capacity magazines too? Why do you need to have them?

If you want to argue that you should have them just because, that's fine, but surely you can understand why many people won't accept that argument. I don't want your guns or your high-capacity magazines taken from you or anyone else, but if you want to keep them, you'd do well to articulate a better argument than "just because".

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some of you to understand. Public opinion sways many of these local and state laws, and the attitude of many pro-gun advocates turns people off to their actual message.

quote:

---

If you want to argue that you should have them just because

---

Why do cops want them? Surely not to shoot up a place and kill innocent people, right?

That "just because" you're dismissing is called "liberty" - just for the record.

quote:

---

surely you can understand why many people won't accept that argument.

---

I know that anti-liberty folks want gun control not for safety (you've essentially conceded this would be a futile gesture in that regard and would be largely symbolic to build "good will" or some other nontangible goal), but for a word that is in the phrase - "control."

quote:

---

you'd do well to articulate a better argument than "just because".

---

I want as flexible and adaptable solution as possible, should the unthinkable happen, period.

That's not going to satisfy these nebulous "other people" you are trying to satisfy, but it is definitely not "just because."

Sounds like terrible negotiating skills to me.

quote:

---

I know that anti-liberty folks want gun control not for safety (you've essentially conceded this would be a futile gesture in that regard and would be largely symbolic to build "good will" or some other nontangible goal), but for a word that is in the phrase - "control."

---

I think there are certainly people that want to limit access to any and all weapons, but I don't believe they're anything more than a very small minority.

I get the slippery slope argument with respect to banning weapons. I don't think it has nearly the same merit when discussing magazine size.

It essentially boils down to this - either high-capacity magazines have some tactical advantage over "standard" magazines or they don't. If they don't, then it I believe it is a strategic concession. If they do, then this entire argument is moot and people need to acknowledge it and stop dismissing it as some sort of fear mongering.

Builds good will with who? A vast majority of those in favor of a magazine capacity limit don't intend to stop there.

This is like a republican saying to a democrat, just limit a woman's right to abortion to the first trimester. Compromise with us or we will continue to fight for the banning of abortion.

It's an empty threat. The democrat knows that the republican can't ban abortion. The democrat knows that the only way to effectively ban abortion is to slowly chip away at a woman's right to get an abortion, one small piece at a time.

This is exactly what you are advocating. The anti-gun crowd knows that an all out ban of firearms is not feasible. But, they will keep making the threat and proposing a "compromise". The pro-gun crowd would be silly to compromise.