petepeterson said:Excellent work on taking everything to the extremes. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about the conditioning of the 50/50 split in this country. We're afraid to use reason, because the other side isn't reasonable. Do you habitually carry a 5.56mm for personal protection? Can you tell me that you can reasonably see a scenario where you will need 30 rds to stop the threat? If so, do you think the number of those scenarios outnumber the times that the same weapon is used for the advancement of evil?
Gun control is a slippery slope because nothing short of a complete semi-auto (detachable mag) ban and unconstitutional enforcement (illegal searches, confiscation of property) would approach a reasonable chance of success at reducing casualties in attacks like this. On the upside, if gun smuggling became a major source of firearms used in crimes, perhaps the anti-gunners would agree to guard the borders better.
That kind of society has a name: police state.
Suppose you start by banning 5.56mm, because you think it's no good for self defense and some other people frown on it for hunting real game. Then you immediately pivot and go after .50BMG. Everybody knows those things can take out tanks and helicopters and have no valid civilian uses. You think you'd stop there? No matter how many calibers are banned, there's always a "most powerful" legal caliber, and that will always be a prime target for the anti-gunners to go after. Once you let the camel's nose in the tent, you're never getting it out again. You might as well move out.
Magazines? How much is enough? 29 rounds? 20? 15? 12? 10? 7? 5? You can't make that kind of a decision for everyone unless you're God.