Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[Missourian]

I don't think you being paranoid is a very good reason to not save lives. Quoted from:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/HighCapMag.pdf
"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

Your wife will never need over 10 rounds for defense. I've never heard of a single incident where someone had to fire more than 10 rounds in defense. Most of the time no shots need to be fired.

Sorry but women are just as deadly as men when it comes to guns. A bullet from a woman's gun will kill just the same as a bullet from a man's.

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

 

[Brain357]

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

You still have it wrong. The mass shooter is an insane person with a gun. The drunk driver is a drunk person with a car. You can compare being insane to drunk if you want, or the gun to the car. Otherwise your not making any sense. Like I said we've done a lot to make cars safer. Time to ban hi cap magazines.

 

[Brain357]

You have no idea what anyone else may need, nor do you have any data backing up your "saving lives".

You have an opinion that you try to back up with anecdotal evidence.

22% of all teens killed in traffic accidents are alcohol related.

And traffic accidents are the number one killer of teens.

That is about 1000% more lives to save than what you propose here.

So, since all these lives are at stake, shouldn't we ban alcohol, which has ZERO redeeming quality, such as self defense or hunting for firearms.

Do you agree?

Why or why not?

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

Even if we use your crazy logic it's in favor of a limit on magazine capacity. Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct? So that is the same as limiting a magazine capacity. It should be illegal to have magazines over a certain capacity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

Like I said:
Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

You can keep repeating how easy and fast it is to reload, but that is your opinion. The FACT is that shooters have been stopped while they try to reload.

How do you tape two pistol magazines together?

What examples? And what physics?

By the time someone breaks cover and rushes a shooter overcoming fear and adrenaline and covers the ground between him and the shooter the magazine will be swapped and the guy will meet a bullet.

And I didn't see you stipulate that your argument was only regarding pistol magazines. Of course one can carry many hand guns on his person so you tell me now that pistol magazine size matters when all anyone has to do is carry several handguns.

That stipulation in mind the more firepower you have the better especially with a pistol

If you're facing more than one attacker would you only want 6 rounds in your handgun or would you feel better with 15?

Unless you're going to lie to me you'll say 15.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

Even if we use your crazy logic it's in favor of a limit on magazine capacity. Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct? So that is the same as limiting a magazine capacity. It should be illegal to have magazines over a certain capacity.

Magazine capacity in a handgun cannot be compared to driving while impaired. The capacity of a magazine in itself is no danger to anyone. An impaired driver in a 4000 lb automobile is a danger to everyone he is near.

In most states it's already illegal to be in possession of a weapon while intoxicated.

In my state it is a felony and a sure way to get your carry permit revoked.

 

[Brain357]

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

Like I said:
Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

You can keep repeating how easy and fast it is to reload, but that is your opinion. The FACT is that shooters have been stopped while they try to reload.

How do you tape two pistol magazines together?

What examples? And what physics?

By the time someone breaks cover and rushes a shooter overcoming fear and adrenaline and covers the ground between him and the shooter the magazine will be swapped and the guy will meet a bullet.

And I didn't see you stipulate that your argument was only regarding pistol magazines. Of course one can carry many hand guns on his person so you tell me now that pistol magazine size matters when all anyone has to do is carry several handguns.

That stipulation in mind the more firepower you have the better especially with a pistol because it doe take more time to reload.

If you're facing more than one attacker would you only want 6 rounds in your handgun or would you feel better with 15?

Unless you're going to lie to me you'll say 15.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

There is no stipulation for just pistols. You just didn't specify your suggestion was only for rifles. I think all magazines should be limited.

6 rounds is actually fine by me. My defensive weapon is a .357 revolver. I am completely confident it will be MORE than enough if ever needed. Of course I'm already pretty old and have never needed it. I think you gun people need to stop being so paranoid.

"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

6 leaves me with an extra 2.

 

[Missourian]

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

You still have it wrong. The mass shooter is an insane person with a gun. The drunk driver is a drunk person with a car. You can compare being insane to drunk if you want, or the gun to the car. Otherwise your not making any sense. Like I said we've done a lot to make cars safer. Time to ban hi cap magazines.

This is your worst argument yet.

We're not talking about cars, we are talking about alcohol.

And I wouldn't agree that spree shooters are all insane.

And even if they were, what difference does that make?

Ones judgement is impaired by alcohol and the others would be impaired by mental illness.

The result is the same.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that banning alcohol would save lives...which is EXACTLY the same argument you are making.

Only it would be thousands more lives saved.


Fail argument.

 

[Brain357]

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

You still have it wrong. The mass shooter is an insane person with a gun. The drunk driver is a drunk person with a car. You can compare being insane to drunk if you want, or the gun to the car. Otherwise your not making any sense. Like I said we've done a lot to make cars safer. Time to ban hi cap magazines.

This is your worst argument yet.

We're not talking about cars, we are talking about alcohol.

And I wouldn't agree that spree shooters are all insane.

And even if they were, what difference does that make?

Ones judgement is impaired by alcohol and the others would be impaired by mental illness.

The result is the same.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that banning alcohol would save lives...which is EXACTLY the same argument you are making.

Only it would be thousands more lives saved.


Fail argument.

"Ones judgement is impaired by alcohol and the others would be impaired by mental illness."

That is why you can compare those two, but not alcohol to the magazine capacity.

Why is it you went right to banning alchohol? I'm not saying ban guns. Your doing the old pro gun trick of going from common sense laws to straight ban. Pretty tricky. While I still think your comparison makes no sense, to make it a closer comparison we would have to say people are limited to a certain number of drinks, not ban it completely. And we do have laws stating you can't drive after drinking a certain amount. That's like a law banning high cap magazines.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like I said:
Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

You can keep repeating how easy and fast it is to reload, but that is your opinion. The FACT is that shooters have been stopped while they try to reload.

How do you tape two pistol magazines together?

What examples? And what physics?

By the time someone breaks cover and rushes a shooter overcoming fear and adrenaline and covers the ground between him and the shooter the magazine will be swapped and the guy will meet a bullet.

And I didn't see you stipulate that your argument was only regarding pistol magazines. Of course one can carry many hand guns on his person so you tell me now that pistol magazine size matters when all anyone has to do is carry several handguns.

That stipulation in mind the more firepower you have the better especially with a pistol because it doe take more time to reload.

If you're facing more than one attacker would you only want 6 rounds in your handgun or would you feel better with 15?

Unless you're going to lie to me you'll say 15.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

There is no stipulation for just pistols. You just didn't specify your suggestion was only for rifles. I think all magazines should be limited.

6 rounds is actually fine by me. My defensive weapon is a .357 revolver. I am completely confident it will be MORE than enough if ever needed. Of course I'm already pretty old and have never needed it. I think you gun people need to stop being so paranoid.

"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

6 leaves me with an extra 2.

Your choice should not be forced on anyone else.

I have a 9 round mag for my 45 and I would not say no to a few more but right now 9 is the legal limit in my state.

As I said the size of the magazine in in itself in no danger to anyone, it is the intent of the shooter that is the danger.

And since the vast majority of gun owners will never ever shoot anyone there is no reason to tell them they can only have a 6 round magazine.

 

[Brain357]

What examples? And what physics?

By the time someone breaks cover and rushes a shooter overcoming fear and adrenaline and covers the ground between him and the shooter the magazine will be swapped and the guy will meet a bullet.

And I didn't see you stipulate that your argument was only regarding pistol magazines. Of course one can carry many hand guns on his person so you tell me now that pistol magazine size matters when all anyone has to do is carry several handguns.

That stipulation in mind the more firepower you have the better especially with a pistol because it doe take more time to reload.

If you're facing more than one attacker would you only want 6 rounds in your handgun or would you feel better with 15?

Unless you're going to lie to me you'll say 15.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

There is no stipulation for just pistols. You just didn't specify your suggestion was only for rifles. I think all magazines should be limited.

6 rounds is actually fine by me. My defensive weapon is a .357 revolver. I am completely confident it will be MORE than enough if ever needed. Of course I'm already pretty old and have never needed it. I think you gun people need to stop being so paranoid.

"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

6 leaves me with an extra 2.

Your choice should not be forced on anyone else.

I have a 9 round mag for my 45 and I would not say no to a few more but right now 9 is the legal limit in my state.

As I said the size of the magazine in in itself in no danger to anyone, it is the intent of the shooter that is the danger.

And since the vast majority of gun owners will never ever shoot anyone there is no reason to tell them they can only have a 6 round magazine.

Statistics show that people don't need that many rounds for defense. Only people using that many rounds are mass shooters. So with a limit on magazine capacity people have more than enough for defense and mass shooters are slowed down. Perfect solution. Only people who should be fighting this are people planning to become a mass shooter.

 

[Missourian]

Statistics are pretty clear that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

That is a sad statistic about drunk driving, but your question isn't the same as banning hi cap magazines. For a mass shooter the gun is the tool doing the killing. In drunk driving it is the car doing the killing. So it would be a more fair comparison to ask if we should ban all extra dangerous cars? But we know that cars and trucks serve a lot of very useful purposes so we wouldn't ban them unless a certain type was especially dangerous. I don't really think there is a hi cap magazine comparison to a car. We do constantly try to make cars safer. You need a license to drive them and they are all registered. We've added seat belts and air bags. Now lets ban hi cap magazines.

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

Even if we use your crazy logic it's in favor of a limit on magazine capacity. Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct? So that is the same as limiting a magazine capacity. It should be illegal to have magazines over a certain capacity.

The comparison is crap, you are reaching and it shows.

Here is the actual comparison.

You say, "Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct?"

Yes, it has.

Society has also put a limit on the number of innocent people you can murder with a firearm...that limit is zero.

Society has NOT banned alcohol or reduced the size of alcoholic beverages, or reduced the amount of alcohol a person can consume or purchase even though there is no argument that it would save lives.

People wouldn't stand for their freedom to be curtailed because a minority engages in criminal activity.

True or false?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

There is no stipulation for just pistols. You just didn't specify your suggestion was only for rifles. I think all magazines should be limited.

6 rounds is actually fine by me. My defensive weapon is a .357 revolver. I am completely confident it will be MORE than enough if ever needed. Of course I'm already pretty old and have never needed it. I think you gun people need to stop being so paranoid.

"The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds."

6 leaves me with an extra 2.

Your choice should not be forced on anyone else.

I have a 9 round mag for my 45 and I would not say no to a few more but right now 9 is the legal limit in my state.

As I said the size of the magazine in in itself in no danger to anyone, it is the intent of the shooter that is the danger.

And since the vast majority of gun owners will never ever shoot anyone there is no reason to tell them they can only have a 6 round magazine.

Statistics show that people don't need that many rounds for defense. Only people using that many rounds are mass shooters. So with a limit on magazine capacity people have more than enough for defense and mass shooters are slowed down. Perfect solution. Only people who should be fighting this are people planning to become a mass shooter.

Do you want me to go into the long list of things you don't need that are no danger to anyone else?

The issue of need is irrelevant.

The only people fighting this are those who want to be mass shooters? Pardon my french but that is fucking ridiculous. It's a 2 dimensional view that inhibits your thinking.

I disagree with your premise and with your suggestion and I have no plans to shoot anyone. Your argument is proven false.

 

[Missourian]

You still have it wrong. The mass shooter is an insane person with a gun. The drunk driver is a drunk person with a car. You can compare being insane to drunk if you want, or the gun to the car. Otherwise your not making any sense. Like I said we've done a lot to make cars safer. Time to ban hi cap magazines.

This is your worst argument yet.

We're not talking about cars, we are talking about alcohol.

And I wouldn't agree that spree shooters are all insane.

And even if they were, what difference does that make?

Ones judgement is impaired by alcohol and the others would be impaired by mental illness.

The result is the same.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that banning alcohol would save lives...which is EXACTLY the same argument you are making.

Only it would be thousands more lives saved.


Fail argument.

Why is it you went right to banning alcohol? I'm not saying ban guns. Your doing the old pro gun trick of going from common sense laws to straight ban. Pretty tricky. While I still think your comparison makes no sense, to make it a closer comparison we would have to say people are limited to a certain number of drinks, not ban it completely. And we do have laws stating you can't drive after drinking a certain amount. That's like a law banning high cap magazines.

I agree, but you set the criteria...saving lives.

I choose a ban because regulating the consumption of alcohol would be very expensive and time consuming.

But you also stated money was no object if lives could be saved as a result.

So you surely wouldn't be opposed to spending as much as it took to set up a system to regulate the number of drinks a person consumed, correct?

It would save lives, so it's worth it, correct?

 

[Brain357]

The gun is the tool, not the magazine.

The car is the tool, not the alcohol.

It's the same thing.

You are saying banning highcap magazines would save lives.

I'm saying banning alcohol would save lives many, many many more lives.

I don't think there is ANY doubt about that.

So, the question becomes, WHY doesn't society choose to ban alcohol in order to save lives?

The answer is clear...law abiding members of society should not have their freedoms infringed upon due to the criminal actions of others.

It's that simple.

I'm sure you will attempt to argue that these two examples are not the same, because the comparison destroys your premise, but don't bother.

They are exactly the same.

Both would be limiting freedom and choices of the majority of law abiding citizens as a direct result of a minority, who engage in criminal action.

And it is a miniscule minority in the case of spree shooters compared to drunk drivers, .0000000000000000000000001% of law abiding gun owners.

Even if we use your crazy logic it's in favor of a limit on magazine capacity. Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct? So that is the same as limiting a magazine capacity. It should be illegal to have magazines over a certain capacity.

The comparison is crap, you are reaching and it shows.

Here is the actual comparison.

You say, "Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct?"

Yes, it has.

Society has also put a limit on the number of innocent people you can murder with a firearm...that limit is zero.

Society has NOT banned alcohol or reduced the size of alcoholic beverages, or reduced the amount of alcohol a person can consume or purchase even though there is no argument that it would save lives.

People wouldn't stand for their freedom to be curtailed because a minority engages in criminal activity.

True or false?

It is curtailed. There are people who would love to drink a case of beer and go for a drive. But that is extremely dangerous and we have made it illegal. It's common sense to have this law just as it is to limit the capacity of magazines.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even if we use your crazy logic it's in favor of a limit on magazine capacity. Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct? So that is the same as limiting a magazine capacity. It should be illegal to have magazines over a certain capacity.

The comparison is crap, you are reaching and it shows.

Here is the actual comparison.

You say, "Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct?"

Yes, it has.

Society has also put a limit on the number of innocent people you can murder with a firearm...that limit is zero.

Society has NOT banned alcohol or reduced the size of alcoholic beverages, or reduced the amount of alcohol a person can consume or purchase even though there is no argument that it would save lives.

People wouldn't stand for their freedom to be curtailed because a minority engages in criminal activity.

True or false?

It is curtailed. There are people who would love to drink a case of beer and go for a drive. But that is extremely dangerous and we have made it illegal. It's common sense to have this law just as it is to limit the capacity of magazines.

You cannot compare the two.

Your push to limit magazine size is nothing like stopping a person from driving drunk it's more like saying you want to force everyone to buy a car that cannot go more than 10 mph because speed kills and you don't "need" a fast car.

You cannot prove that someone carrying a weapon with any size magazine is a danger to anyone near him you can conclusively prove a drunk driver is such a danger. And as I said before being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated is against the law in many places already.

 

[Missourian]

Even if we use your crazy logic it's in favor of a limit on magazine capacity. Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct? So that is the same as limiting a magazine capacity. It should be illegal to have magazines over a certain capacity.

The comparison is crap, you are reaching and it shows.

Here is the actual comparison.

You say, "Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct?"

Yes, it has.

Society has also put a limit on the number of innocent people you can murder with a firearm...that limit is zero.

Society has NOT banned alcohol or reduced the size of alcoholic beverages, or reduced the amount of alcohol a person can consume or purchase even though there is no argument that it would save lives.

People wouldn't stand for their freedom to be curtailed because a minority engages in criminal activity.

True or false?

It is curtailed. There are people who would love to drink a case of beer and go for a drive. But that is extremely dangerous and we have made it illegal. It's common sense to have this law just as it is to limit the capacity of magazines.

We have made mass murder illegal too.

If it is enough to make drinking and driving illegal, and we don't have to make consuming so must alcohol that it is POSSIBLE that a person COULD drink and drive absolutely impossible then...

...making murder illegal should be enough, and we don't need to make having magazines that make it POSSIBLE for a miniscule number (.00000000001% of gun owners) who MIGHT attempt criminal activities a few more bullets when committing murder unlawful to own.


See how that works?

 

[Missourian]

The saving lives argument is a red herring.

If you were really intent on saving lives, you would be all over banning or restricting alcohol.

You are not.

If it is common sense to restrict one to save lives, it is common sense to restrict the other to achieve the same.

But alcohol isn't guns, so you have zero interest in saving those lives by reducing the freedoms of others.



Bogus argument is bogus.

/thread.

 

[Brain357]

The comparison is crap, you are reaching and it shows.

Here is the actual comparison.

You say, "Society has decided that driving is illegal after consuming a certain amount of alcohol correct?"

Yes, it has.

Society has also put a limit on the number of innocent people you can murder with a firearm...that limit is zero.

Society has NOT banned alcohol or reduced the size of alcoholic beverages, or reduced the amount of alcohol a person can consume or purchase even though there is no argument that it would save lives.

People wouldn't stand for their freedom to be curtailed because a minority engages in criminal activity.

True or false?

It is curtailed. There are people who would love to drink a case of beer and go for a drive. But that is extremely dangerous and we have made it illegal. It's common sense to have this law just as it is to limit the capacity of magazines.

We have made mass murder illegal too.

If it is enough to make drinking and driving illegal, and we don't have to make consuming so must alcohol that it is POSSIBLE that a person COULD drink and drive absolutely impossible then...

...making murder illegal should be enough, and we don't need to make having magazines that make it POSSIBLE for a miniscule number (.00000000001% of gun owners) who MIGHT attempt criminal activities a few more bullets when committing murder unlawful to own.


See how that works?

Like Skull Pilot said and you even liked his comment, these two shouldn't be compared.

But again your comparison makes little sense, but since you want to continue down this road. If your driving while intoxicated and kill someone you will be charged with a DUI and something like negligent homicide. I think your comparing murder to a DUI when you should be comparing murder to the negligent homicide. Owning a hi cap magazine if it was banned would be more like a DUI.

 

[Brain357]

The saving lives argument is a red herring.

If you were really intent on saving lives, you would be all over banning or restricting alcohol.

You are not.

If it is common sense to restrict one to save lives, it is common sense to restrict the other to achieve the same.

But alcohol isn't guns, so you have zero interest in saving those lives by reducing the freedoms of others.



Bogus argument is bogus.

/thread.

Actually I very seldom drink and would be fine with banning alcohol. But the topic is guns and that is a completely different discussion. Why your talking alcohol is a mystery to me. If anything it supports my argument.

 

[Brain357]

Your choice should not be forced on anyone else.

I have a 9 round mag for my 45 and I would not say no to a few more but right now 9 is the legal limit in my state.

As I said the size of the magazine in in itself in no danger to anyone, it is the intent of the shooter that is the danger.

And since the vast majority of gun owners will never ever shoot anyone there is no reason to tell them they can only have a 6 round magazine.

Statistics show that people don't need that many rounds for defense. Only people using that many rounds are mass shooters. So with a limit on magazine capacity people have more than enough for defense and mass shooters are slowed down. Perfect solution. Only people who should be fighting this are people planning to become a mass shooter.

Do you want me to go into the long list of things you don't need that are no danger to anyone else?

The issue of need is irrelevant.

The only people fighting this are those who want to be mass shooters? Pardon my french but that is fucking ridiculous. It's a 2 dimensional view that inhibits your thinking.

I disagree with your premise and with your suggestion and I have no plans to shoot anyone. Your argument is proven false.

The important part of my statement was should. Just like good people should want to save lives and support banning hi cap magazines.