Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No need for them in my opinion. If your hunting you don't need that many bullets and if your just target shooting just load a couple extra small capacity mags
 
if your just target shooting just load a couple extra small capacity mags

Well, I generally shoot a few hundred rounds each time I go and that’s a lot of reloading. I also have to pay for range time, so it ends up costing me money to sit there loading magazines. However, at the end of the day should anyone be telling me what I need? The size of the magazines had nothing to do with recent events and any logical person knows that.
 
It isn't about need. It's about rights. You really think it would make any difference if we banned them all tomorrow? A nutcase can load extra mags too. For that matter, he could kill two dozen people with a couple of 1847 Walkers and a Bowie knife. You think it hasn't happened before?
 
I saw a video of Jerry Miculek shoot 12 rounds, using a revolver, in 3 seconds. Certainly not everyone can do that. But with practice even a guy with a 6 shooter could do some damage.

What's important is that you voted on the poll.
They want to know what America thinks.
Let's tell them.
 
Back in 1928, the worst (most deaths) school killing in the US did not involve firearms (too good a chance someone else was armed) but a bomb.

If you removed all the firearms from all civilians, those that would want to use them criminally would either 1: Steal them from LE or the military, or 2: make their own.

If you want a mass tradigy, just look at 9/11...no firearms involved...many people died...If there had been one pistol in the hands of anyone, even if the terrorists had handguns themselves, 9/11 would not have happened.
 
No, It's not about hunting or target shooting, it's about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution being a check and balance on government power, the intent of the amendment is well documented by the people who wrote it.

Only if we are willing to place the same restrictions on the government(excluding Military) will I accept these semi-automatics and high capacity magazines being banned.

Our police forces at every level are increasingly "militarized" and above the law, our government is increasingly corrupt and above the law, and some want me to lay down and take it, No way! I mean no disrespect to LE members and that was NOT an attack on LE, every barrel has a bad apple.
 
Last edited:
If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.
 
I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the government from being overthrown by violent means (by those who don't believe in a democratically elected government), not the other way round. Otherwise, you will basically have a government (for there will always be a government) of self-appointed strongmen. Even a feudal society worked better than that.
 
I dont see how 10 round magazines or a bullet button can slow anyone down in these situations, with the exception of intense combat situations (which these situations rarely if at all escalate to)
 
Last edited:
If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.

This argument fails on two levels.

First, this is a utilitarian argument against a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not subject to utilitarian (cost:benefit) analysis and are not subject to being dropped simply because they're too expensive. Fundamental rights are circumscribed only if there is a compelling (and legitimate) reason, there is no other way to achieve the end, and only to the minimum extent necessary. To dismiss an argument based on fundamental principles as "greedy" misses entirely the point of having a constitutional republic with fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.

Second, even if a utilitarian argument was appropriate, this argument fails on that level as well for two reasons. The benefit of the suggested "fix" is questionable and the real costs associated with the "fix" are ignored. There's no evidence that restricting magazine capacity affects the probability of mass killings. If anything, the fact that successful crimes of this sort are located in areas already having many of the restrictive laws commonly proposed suggests the opposite. 10 years of experience with the previous magazine ban showed no effect on crime rates. In more general terms, it is very difficult or impossible to affect the likelihood of very rare events by legislating around very common behaviors. This is because the behavior you are circumscribing, ultimately has little relationship with the events you are trying to affect.

Also, if you fail to recognize the cost of a proposal, a utilitarian argument always seems to be a reasonable solution. Framing your argument in this manner is disingenuous. You claim that your proposal "might" save a life and this justifies it:

to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success

But you dismiss the possibility of costs with an ad-hominem

Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.

Clearly, such a restriction could potentially result in lost lives as well as lives saved. Consider a self-defense situation against multiple attackers, perhaps self defense in a riot or natural disaster. These are situations where having larger capacity magazines may save lives.

I anticipate one might respond that such situations are "theoretical" or "extremely rare" and would point out that there are real examples of these sorts of events (witness the korean store owners during the Rodney King riots), and that the sort of event you are trying to prevent is also very rare. The reality is both sorts of things are exceedingly rare events and not really subject to being affected by legislating around very common behaviors.

One would also need to consider the cost of removing or limiting access to the sorts of individual weapons that would be of the most use in resisting a tyrannical government, admittedly also an event so rare as to be vanishingly unlikely to happen (again), but nonetheless a fundamental reason for the 2nd amendment's existence.

An honest analysis would not ask "Might one life be saved?" but would ask "Is this likely to save more lives than it costs, and are the lives saved worth the cost?"

I believe the fundamental dishonesty, or perhaps superficial thinking, that goes into proposals like this accounts for a large part of the dismissive reaction many have to such ideas.

And then there are those who believe fundamental principles have intrinsic value...
 
I do not believe theres is a value on human life, and if you oppose my arguement I have no problem with it. Why don't you post your own answer as the thread suggests and not take up a page calling someone's opinion superficial and dishonest
 
The point of the 2A as I see it is to ensure that government will never impose tyranny, and that if it does the populace has a measure to resolve that tyranny. It is also for the protection of non tyrannical governments. It is factually an amendment that was passed with zero opposition.

Saying hi-cap mags are unnecessary misses the point. I would argue it was the intent of the founding fathers that you had military grade weapons available to the masses... I am unaware of single law during the founding of our nation that outlawed military grade weaponry in the hands of average citizens. (That is not to say their weren't restrictions in places) I would even venture a guess that minutemen who had better grade than average military weapons of the area fought with their own higher performing weapons.

The 2A doesn't exist for simply a sporting purpose, nor simply a self defense purpose, it in its heart was meant as a bastion against tyranny. If citizens did not have arms the minutemen might not have ever existed and we would not be the nation we are.
 
Last edited:
ChasingWhitetail91, I did post my opinion. I'm sorry if you feel I picked on you, but the argument you presented is one that is very common and I hoped a dissection of the flaws in that argument might be helpful.

Please understand I did not call you superficial or dishonest, but I believe the argument presented is one or the other for the reasons I gave.
 
i like how chasing whitetails had his argument systematically dismantled and then asks for the other side to play nicely and respect his opinion regardless of its inherent flaws or value.
 
If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.

I think you missed the point. Whether there is an AWB or not the problem still persists: Other individuals with mental aberrations and violent tendencies won't magically disappear from society. In Asia the crazies stab children. But in the end, it's not "At least X isn't as lethal as Y" but rather how to effectively stop or mitigate the damage. In an ideal world, children should not be targets of violence. Yet is probably impossible to find every single individual with dangerous mental issues* and send them to be treated. With or without laws, these monsters will find ways to harm their intended targets. The solution is to put down the rabid animals as soon as possible.

*The truly dangerous and intelligent ones tend to have an effective persona hiding their true nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top