I'm linking to the article published by the co-author of the bill, who represents Newtown, Connecticut. It "bans the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition." In other words, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!" The author of the bill includes in her "common sense gun safety reforms" "reasonable restrictions on large capacity magazines". If a total ban on possession is a "reasonable restriction", what was the starting point "unreasonable restriction" that they generously compromised down to only a total ban on possession?

I've already written my U.S. Representative Ms. Gabbard, but haven't heard back from her yet on her position on this bill, but last time there was a mag limit bill she fully endorsed it (along with the ban on the "assault weapons") citing her military experience with "high capacity clips". 

There is a video included with the article, which, if you have a sensitive stomach to lying politicians, will make you nauseous.

http://esty.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-esty-sen-menendez-lead-call-for-sensible-gun-safety-measure-and

Republican opposition to this bill will be used as leverage for the 2016 elections, which I suspect, in reality, is the only point of the bill.

I'm linking to the article published by the co-author of the bill, who represents Newtown, Connecticut. It "bans the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition." In other words, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!" The author of the bill includes in her "common sense gun safety reforms" "reasonable restrictions on large capacity magazines". If a total ban on possession is a "reasonable restriction", what was the starting point "unreasonable restriction" that they generously compromised down to only a total ban on possession?

I've already written my U.S. Representative Ms. Gabbard, but haven't heard back from her yet on her position on this bill, but last time there was a mag limit bill she fully endorsed it (along with the ban on the "assault weapons") citing her military experience with "high capacity clips". 

There is a video included with the article, which, if you have a sensitive stomach to lying politicians, will make you nauseous.

http://esty.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-esty-sen-menendez-lead-call-for-sensible-gun-safety-measure-and

Republican opposition to this bill will be used as leverage for the 2016 elections, which I suspect, in reality, is the only point of the bill.

I understand their reasoning, it is not made up out of nothing, however I don't think it is good enough to deny everyone their basic right.

Another liberal who disables comments from her YouTube videos. Shows her disdain for free speech. 

I understand their reasoning, it is not made up out of nothing, however I don't think it is good enough to deny everyone their basic right.

Please explain their, "reasoning", oh Libtard Whisperer.

All I heard in the video was pure emotion and unsubstantiated "facts". 

You can't make bad people harmless by making good people helpless.

Another liberal who disables comments from her YouTube videos. Shows her disdain for free speech.

It seems a significant portion of the anti-civil rights crowd wants to talk AT us rather than WITH us. Disabling those comments allows them to spread their lies to low-information followers without the possibility that the uninformed could be exposed to actual facts. For example, no one really knows what caused the pause by the murderer at Sandy Hook elementary school that allowed some children to escape, unless you believe that some 6 year old had a good enough view and enough knowledge and experience to distinguish between a mag reload, a jam, some other malfunction, or the whim of a deranged person. It's pure speculation founded on nothing but their lie-based agenda to incrementally disarm all law-abiding citizens not in the employ of the government.

For those who may not have been able to stomach the article all the way to the end, please note that in case you don't turn in all your 11+ round magazines there is a provision to extend lawful confiscation beyond firearms to 11+ magazines to the FBI and the BATFE. We know how they go about that business: Waco, Ruby Ridge.

Please explain their, "reasoning", oh Libtard Whisperer.

All I heard in the video was pure emotion and unsubstantiated "facts". 

You can't make bad people harmless by making good people helpless.

A size cap on magazines slows a shooter down plain and simple. We can argue that a shooter will just carry 10 - ten round magazines instead of 1 - 100 round magazine and still have the same amount of bullets but the truth is that it takes time to reload. If we assume a 4 second reload time for each mag we are talking about 36 seconds longer it would take a shooter to get off the same 100 rounds. In a mass shooting situation, that 36 seconds is valuable time for people to flee, hide, call for help, fight back, etc.
They may be emotional about the issue but that doesn't mean all their arguments lack facts or logic. It behooves us to recognize the stronger arguments of our opponents, otherwise if we ignore them we just stand to look like the emotional unreasonable fools.

A size cap on magazines slows a shooter down plain and simple. We can argue that a shooter will just carry 10 - ten round magazines instead of 1 - 100 round magazine and still have the same amount of bullets but the truth is that it takes time to reload. If we assume a 4 second reload time for each mag we are talking about 36 seconds longer it would take a shooter to get off the same 100 rounds. In a mass shooting situation, that 36 seconds is valuable time for people to flee, hide, call for help, fight back, etc.
They may be emotional about the issue but that doesn't mean all their arguments lack facts or logic. It behooves us to recognize the stronger arguments of our opponents, otherwise if we ignore them we just stand to look like the emotional unreasonable fools.

Let's say all your times are valid, just for the sake of argument.

Why are you even wasting your time on this? 

How does this in any way offset the rights of law abiding citizens to have the exact same firepower (magazine capacities) as the criminals? 

How does the tiny number of mass shootings -- compared to the number of gun owners -- who use large capacity magazines in any way offset the good that is done when millions of people every year use a firearm to protect themselves and others from violence? 

What makes you think a ban on magazine capacity equates to their sudden disappearance from existence and mass shooters will not be able to get them?

Lastly, how does making the vast majority of legal, law abiding gun owners more vulnerable in any way make bad people less deadly?

BTW, why don't you take that 36 second total and be more honest about it.  That's NOT 36 seconds.  Those are nine 4-second windows to try and escape.  It will probably take you at least 2 seconds to realize the shooting stopped for some reason, then another 2 to realize he's reloading.  By the time you know to run, assuming you aren't too frozen from fear to move, it's too late.  And, if he has a second gun, you running while thinking he paused to reload would be a bad assumption.

Let's say all your times are valid, just for the sake of argument.

Why are you even wasting your time on this? 
How does this in any way offset the rights of law abiding citizens to have the exact same firepower (magazine capacities) as the criminals? 
How does the tiny number of mass shootings -- compared to the number of gun owners -- who use large capacity magazines in any way offset the good that is done when millions of people every year use a firearm to protect themselves and others from violence? 
What makes you think a ban on magazine capacity equates to their sudden disappearance from existence and mass shooters will not be able to get them?
Lastly, how does making the vast majority of legal, law abiding gun owners more vulnerable in any way make bad people less deadly?
BTW, why don't you take that 36 second total and be more honest about it.  That's NOT 36 seconds.  Those are nine 4-second windows to try and escape.  It will probably take you at least 2 seconds to realize the shooting stopped for some reason, then another 2 to realize he's reloading.  By the time you know to run, assuming you aren't too frozen from fear to move, it's too late.  And, if he has a second gun, you running while thinking he paused to reload would be a bad assumption.

I try to look at arguments from an objective point of view regardless of my own bias or opinion. I won't disregard an argument I don't like if there is some substance to that argument. If I ignore a valid argument by an opponent then it only serves to make me look unreasonable or closed minded. If that happens then no one will take me seriously since I only appear to like facts that support my opinions. I believe that the best way to defeat the opponents argument is to actually address it, acknowledge the facts or truths in their arguments, and then show why the conclusion does not follow. Facts are facts and I need to acknowledge them whether they support me or not.

Additionally for anyone who is undecided on the issue we are more likely to get them on our side if we defeat the opponents arguments. If we dismiss it as nonsense then those undecided will notice and think us less honest.

So in this specific instance I acknowledge that there is truth to the belief that high capacity magazines can be more deadly in the hands of a shooter but then show various reasons why that should not dictate we ban these magazines. If I just dismiss their idea as emotional or a gun grab attempt then I don't actually defeat their argument. And if you cannot defeat an argument then it stands that they have a good argument for their case. Their arguments are not all pure emotion, they do contain some facts.

I always analyze arguments trying to find the strengths and weaknesses. It helps to develop stronger arguments that cannot be rebutted.

muddabiotch! you can't DISLIKE!

I try to look at arguments from an objective point of view regardless of my own bias or opinion. I won't disregard an argument I don't like if there is some substance to that argument. If I ignore a valid argument by an opponent then it only serves to make me look unreasonable or closed minded. If that happens then no one will take me seriously since I only appear to like facts that support my opinions. I believe that the best way to defeat the opponents argument is to actually address it, acknowledge the facts or truths in their arguments, and then show why the conclusion does not follow. Facts are facts and I need to acknowledge them whether they support me or not.

Additionally for anyone who is undecided on the issue we are more likely to get them on our side if we defeat the opponents arguments. If we dismiss it as nonsense then those undecided will notice and think us less honest.

So in this specific instance I acknowledge that there is truth to the belief that high capacity magazines can be more deadly in the hands of a shooter but then show various reasons why that should not dictate we ban these magazines. If I just dismiss their idea as emotional or a gun grab attempt then I don't actually defeat their argument. And if you cannot defeat an argument then it stands that they have a good argument for their case. Their arguments are not all pure emotion, they do contain some facts.

I always analyze arguments trying to find the strengths and weaknesses. It helps to develop stronger arguments that cannot be rebutted.

So, what are your rebuttals to mauidog's arguments, one by one?

Quote from: mauidog on February 12, 2015, 10:43:20 PM

    Let's say all your times are valid, just for the sake of argument.
 
   1. How does this in any way offset the rights of law abiding citizens to have the exact same firepower (magazine capacities) as the criminals?
    2. How does the tiny number of mass shootings -- compared to the number of gun owners -- who use large capacity magazines in any way offset the good that is done when millions of people every year use a firearm to protect themselves and others from violence?
    3. What makes you think a ban on magazine capacity equates to their sudden disappearance from existence and mass shooters will not be able to get them?
    4. Lastly, how does making the vast majority of legal, law abiding gun owners more vulnerable in any way make bad people less deadly?
    5. BTW, why don't you take that 36 second total and be more honest about it.  That's NOT 36 seconds.  Those are nine 4-second windows to try and escape.  It will probably take you at least 2 seconds to realize the shooting stopped for some reason, then another 2 to realize he's reloading.  By the time you know to run, assuming you aren't too frozen from fear to move, it's too late.  And, if he has a second gun, you running while thinking he paused to reload would be a bad assumption.

So, what are your rebuttals to mauidog's arguments, one by one?

Quote from: mauidog on February 12, 2015, 10:43:20 PM

    Let's say all your times are valid, just for the sake of argument.
 
   1. How does this in any way offset the rights of law abiding citizens to have the exact same firepower (magazine capacities) as the criminals?
    2. How does the tiny number of mass shootings -- compared to the number of gun owners -- who use large capacity magazines in any way offset the good that is done when millions of people every year use a firearm to protect themselves and others from violence?
    3. What makes you think a ban on magazine capacity equates to their sudden disappearance from existence and mass shooters will not be able to get them?
    4. Lastly, how does making the vast majority of legal, law abiding gun owners more vulnerable in any way make bad people less deadly?
    5. BTW, why don't you take that 36 second total and be more honest about it.  That's NOT 36 seconds.  Those are nine 4-second windows to try and escape.  It will probably take you at least 2 seconds to realize the shooting stopped for some reason, then another 2 to realize he's reloading.  By the time you know to run, assuming you aren't too frozen from fear to move, it's too late.  And, if he has a second gun, you running while thinking he paused to reload would be a bad assumption.

I am not really in disagreement with any of those points. I never said I supported a mag limit.

Our congress critters would be all in for this.  it sure is frustrating writing to them when you can accurately predict the types of replies you'll receive.  It's as if logic were an unknown concept to them.

A size cap on magazines slows a shooter down plain and simple. We can argue that a shooter will just carry 10 - ten round magazines instead of 1 - 100 round magazine and still have the same amount of bullets but the truth is that it takes time to reload. If we assume a 4 second reload time for each mag we are talking about 36 seconds longer it would take a shooter to get off the same 100 rounds. In a mass shooting situation, that 36 seconds is valuable time for people to flee, hide, call for help, fight back, etc.
They may be emotional about the issue but that doesn't mean all their arguments lack facts or logic. It behooves us to recognize the stronger arguments of our opponents, otherwise if we ignore them we just stand to look like the emotional unreasonable fools.

incidents whee this would ever come into play are very rare though

A size cap on magazines slows a shooter down plain and simple. We can argue that a shooter will just carry 10 - ten round magazines instead of 1 - 100 round magazine and still have the same amount of bullets but the truth is that it takes time to reload. If we assume a 4 second reload time for each mag we are talking about 36 seconds longer it would take a shooter to get off the same 100 rounds. In a mass shooting situation, that 36 seconds is valuable time for people to flee, hide, call for help, fight back, etc.
They may be emotional about the issue but that doesn't mean all their arguments lack facts or logic. It behooves us to recognize the stronger arguments of our opponents, otherwise if we ignore them we just stand to look like the emotional unreasonable fools.

If you believe the mag capacity limitation is a valid argument, to whatever degree, in that it allows for defensive action by victims during the reload process, then logically you would have to support a ban on all firearms other than single shot (no revolvers) black powder muzzle loaders, because those would afford the greatest opportunity time-wise for victims under attack to defend, escape, etc. Colorado recently passed a 15 round limit, New York state already has a 7 round limit, and Bloomberg has stated that three is sufficient (except for minority males under the age of 25, none of whom ought to legally be allowed to have firearms, but he's not a racist). We know that the real goal is total firearm prohibition for non-government-enforcement-personnel, i.e. ordinary people, and that the method is "incremental" infringement. If you buy in to any part of the "fewer rounds equals greater public safety", you have climbed upon the slippery slope to total prohibition... just the way they like it... "no one is trying to take your guns away, just common sense gun safety regulations".

FACT:  A firearm by its very nature and design is meant to wound, kill and destroy. 

FICTION:  We can make firearms "safer" by making them less effective and less easy to accurately operate and therefore save lives in some types of imaginary scenarios.


FACT:  The more effective and easy to operate, the less chance there is for the operator to miss their intended target or cause an ND.

FICTION:  By removing pistol grips, foregrips, flash hiders and muzzle brakes, adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, and limiting magazine capacities, we can reduce the lethality of firearms in the hands of mass shooters.


FACT:  The lower the cost of ammunition, and the less restricted its availability, the more people have a chance to visit a range to practice.  Practice greatly increases safety when someone needs to use a firearm in a defensive situation.  The more effective the ammunition, the better the chances of stopping multiple threats while firing fewer rounds.  Soft body armor is better against pistol ammo than rifles.  Stopping the sale of certain ammo will not solve the problem, but better armor will!

FICTION:  By restricting ammunition, whether it's by raising prices, adding exorbitant taxes, making more effective ammunition illegal (e.g. teflon-coated), and limiting the number of rounds a civilian can buy in a month, we can make everyone safer, especially law enforcement officers.  LE should not have to contend with the risk of entering a home with armor piercing ammunition or stockpiles of thousands of rounds.


For every seemingly rational idea the antis come up with, it is false ON ITS FACE.  No amount of twisting and stroking will turn it into a valid argument.  There is only one thing we need to say when countering these points of "fact":

"That's completely false, and I will be glad to point out why it is incorrect if you are open to hearing the truth."

Unfortunately, an agenda is not interested in the truth.  It only wants to succeed.  The "rational few" who just don't get it are difficult to turn from the dark side because they have no personal desire to ever own or use firearms.  That's it.  Plain and simple. 

You can't sell tires to a man who only rides the bus.  Continuing to play devil's advocate on here as if there is a purpose to the arguing is just as ridiculous. 

It's so simple.  You buy a gun, you become familiar, you practice, you learn, you maybe buy another.  You are now attuned to the details of the gun debate because you have an interest.  Those who are terrified of guns will never be interested in facts or rational discussion.


I now return you to your regularly scheduled program:  "FUTILITY."

At the very heart of the mag limit argument is the argument that mag limits would reduce the lethality of a shooter. I will not dismiss this as some irrational argument because the fact is that a larger mag can allow someone to fire off more rounds in the same amount of time. While it cannot be said for certain in any particular shooting, it is possible that mag limits might end up saving a life or two through the increased amount of time people have to flee. The argument isn't irrational and isn't just emotion. The argument holds water so I need to show that their proposed solution is not reasonable.

So when I argue against it I prefer to show that though they may be correct in their reasoning, the proposed ban is not warranted. I would point to the rarity of mass shootings for example and then show that the amount of people saved would be very small in number. I would also point that we cannot legislate every single danger out of existence otherwise we would have a law requiring all car occupants to wear crash helmets. At this point the question is how much freedom are we willing to give up to save just a few more lives? People will differ on this question just as people will differ on their opinions of helmet laws for motorcyclists, but that doesn't mean their opinion is uneducated. Like I said, I try to look at an argument objectively, independent of my personal interest in the matter, thus I can formulate a better rebuttal. I think that if I dismiss an argument as irrational and emotional when there is truth in a particular argument then I really only come off as not caring about the truth. While this won't matter to someone on either side set in their ways I believe it can have a better chance at winning over those who are on the fence or who have open minds.

I debated a lot of people over the Zimmerman shooting and while some didn't care to hear the truth or reconsider their opinion of his guilt there were others who were open to changing their mind when confronted with the facts and legal reasoning. They appreciated the objective analyses of the Zimmerman shooting whereas if I simply stated Zimmerman's innocence because the Martin's supporters were emotional then I would have lost them. And no I am not trying to start a Zimmerman trail argument, I am just trying to make a parallel.

At the very heart of the mag limit argument is the argument that mag limits would reduce the lethality of a shooter. I will not dismiss this as some irrational argument because the fact is that a larger mag can allow someone to fire off more rounds in the same amount of time. While it cannot be said for certain in any particular shooting, it is possible that mag limits might end up saving a life or two through the increased amount of time people have to flee. The argument isn't irrational and isn't just emotion. The argument holds water so I need to show that their proposed solution is not reasonable.

So when I argue against it I prefer to show that though they may be correct in their reasoning, the proposed ban is not warranted. I would point to the rarity of mass shootings for example and then show that the amount of people saved would be very small in number. I would also point that we cannot legislate every single danger out of existence otherwise we would have a law requiring all car occupants to wear crash helmets. At this point the question is how much freedom are we willing to give up to save just a few more lives? People will differ on this question just as people will differ on their opinions of helmet laws for motorcyclists, but that doesn't mean their opinion is uneducated. Like I said, I try to look at an argument objectively, independent of my personal interest in the matter, thus I can formulate a better rebuttal. I think that if I dismiss an argument as irrational and emotional when there is truth in a particular argument then I really only come off as not caring about the truth. While this won't matter to someone on either side set in their ways I believe it can have a better chance at winning over those who are on the fence or who have open minds.

I debated a lot of people over the Zimmerman shooting and while some didn't care to hear the truth or reconsider their opinion of his guilt there were others who were open to changing their mind when confronted with the facts and legal reasoning. They appreciated the objective analyses of the Zimmerman shooting whereas if I simply stated Zimmerman's innocence because the Martin's supporters were emotional then I would have lost them. And no I am not trying to start a Zimmerman trail argument, I am just trying to make a parallel.

By requiring all new guns to have the firing pins removed, we can save some lives in certain shooting situations.

By requiring all ammunition to have light loads that are unable to penetrate flesh at 10 yards, we can save some lives in certain shooting situations.

By requiring all sights to be crooked, we can save some lives in certain shooting situations.

No matter how much you try, the argument for limited magazines is just like this.  The limits are illogical because (A) criminals won't care and will use larger mags anyway, and (B) these rules SOUND like they are for safety in mass shootings, when in fact they are going to prevent law abiding people from having the same fire power as the crooks, thereby putting them at a disadvantage.

Your problem is you truly believe the mag limits have a logical purpose even in the face of irrefutable evidence and knowledge that proves your arguments hold NO water.  You are wrong, you won't admit it, and nothing anyone says or shows you will make you let go of this bone!

You are once again substituting movie-generated firearms knowledge and intellectual deductions for real world experience and practical knowledge. 

To continue arguing there are merits to a false premise is like arguing the Earth MIGHT be at the center of the universe if you only focus on the point of view from your house.  No matter how logical it APPEARS, it will not in any way make you correct.

At the very heart of the mag limit argument is the argument that mag limits would reduce the lethality of a shooter. I will not dismiss this as some irrational argument because the fact is that a larger mag can allow someone to fire off more rounds in the same amount of time. While it cannot be said for certain in any particular shooting, it is possible that mag limits might end up saving a life or two through the increased amount of time people have to flee. The argument isn't irrational and isn't just emotion. The argument holds water so I need to show that their proposed solution is not reasonable.

Why didn't you respond to my post above about (what you call) the "rational" argument, and which you claim the proposers of the mag limit are "correct in their reasoning", that if you really believe that "mag limits might end up saving a life or two through the increased amount of time people have to flee," that the logical position to adopt is to ban all firearms other than single-shot muzzleloaders? Clearly that argument "isn't irrational and isn't just emotion", according to you, so please tell us why and how you would rebut such an argument. Certainly if a 10 round magazine capacity has the benefit of saving some lives, single shot firearms with a reload time of at least 20 seconds would save even more lives. So you don't think saving more lives is the morally correct thing to do? Your rebuttal is that "the amount of people saved would be very small in number"? What if that "small number" includes your child or spouse or parent? It will be someone's child or spouse or parent. Your "objective" rebuttal is lacking.

By requiring all new guns to have the firing pins removed, we can save some lives in certain shooting situations.

By requiring all ammunition to have light loads that are unable to penetrate flesh at 10 yards, we can save some lives in certain shooting situations.

By requiring all sights to be crooked, we can save some lives in certain shooting situations.

No matter how much you try, the argument for limited magazines is just like this.  The limits are illogical because (A) criminals won't care and will use larger mags anyway, and (B) these rules SOUND like they are for safety in mass shootings, when in fact they are going to prevent law abiding people from having the same fire power as the crooks, thereby putting them at a disadvantage.

Your problem is you truly believe the mag limits have a logical purpose even in the face of irrefutable evidence and knowledge that proves your arguments hold NO water.  You are wrong, you won't admit it, and nothing anyone says or shows you will make you let go of this bone!

You are once again substituting movie-generated firearms knowledge and intellectual deductions for real world experience and practical knowledge. 

To continue arguing there are merits to a false premise is like arguing the Earth MIGHT be at the center of the universe if you only focus on the point of view from your house.  No matter how logical it APPEARS, it will not in any way make you correct.

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree. You see no logic in their arguments while I see some, though we both disagree with their arguments. It's not that the premise is false, it is that the proposed sollution is not reasonable.

And I don't subscribe to the belief that the true agenda is complete banning of firearms. I do agree that for some this is indeed a goal however not everyone who supports such measures are in favor of a complete banning of firearms. There are those who favor certain firearm restrictions based on a certain logical argument but do not wish to see firearms dissapear entirely, this isn't a black and white, all or nothing issue.

And no, for me this is not based on movie knowledge.

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree. You see no logic in their arguments while I see some, though we both disagree with their arguments. It's not that the premise is false, it is that the proposed sollution is not reasonable.

And I don't subscribe to the belief that the true agenda is complete banning of firearms. I do agree that for some this is indeed a goal however not everyone who supports such measures are in favor of a complete banning of firearms. There are those who favor certain firearm restrictions based on a certain logical argument but do not wish to see firearms dissapear entirely, this isn't a black and white, all or nothing issue.

And no, for me this is not based on movie knowledge.

As long as people who supposedly support the Second Amendment continue to acquiesce to gun control/ban supporters as having any logic at all to their agenda, antis will continue to defend their views as "common sense".

Common Sense is what many people in a debate couch their arguments in when they have no supporting facts.

We need magazine limits to save lives?  Facts?  Studies?  Real-world demonstrations?  We don't need any of that.  it's just COMMON SENSE!

It's pathetic that anyone who doesn't support mag capacity limits (according to you) would argue that the other side's irrational and unscientific conclusions that mags within some arbitrary limit can actually give people the chance to live.  As Puna pointed out, if 10 is good, then 7 is even better.  How can you then argue that we should have magazines at all?  Single shot pistols only!!

It's incrementalism, pure and simple.  Small victories in the form of "common sense limits" eventually add up to a ban.

This specific measure is arbitrarily selected based on ignorance and fallacious reasoning.   That in no way equates to "rational". 

That word "rational" seems to be a problem for you.  You think it means "based on some belief, thereby creating legitimacy in the conclusion".  Rational means based on truth or knowledge, not a belief.