I read many articles both for and against mag capacity limits, and it's funny how only places that already have draconian gun laws are pushing for these bans and using this reload pause argument.

Most focus on the increased efficiency, higher fire power and "attractiveness" that 30 and 100 rd mags present to would-be mass shooters.  They avoid the "tackle during a reload" benefit, because they themselves don't teach people to attack the shooters.  They teach sheltering in place, running for an exit, blocking doors, hiding in closets, etc.  They seem to get that a bunch of unarmed people, especially school kids and teachers, are not commandos trained to take out a bad guy with a pair of scissors or the pointy end of the auditorium's American flag.

So, if you want to keep harping on the existence of a 1-2 second window that offers a chance to fight back, you should know you are in the minority of those who see any merit in it.

The only place I've seen this pushed as a bonafide rationale is on Twitter, which is not the real world.

You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Judgment-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Judge Benitez’s ruling in Duncan v. Becerra.  This is currently being appealed in the 9th Circuit, but Round 1 went to the gun rights groups.  Magazine restrictions are unconstitutional.

You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!

It's not that nobody on this forum doesn't understand the anti-gunners' arguments.

You can't change the minds of people who only have an agenda.

They will cling to any and all arguments that confirm their preconceptions regardless of how much we try to "understand the facts as they see them," and no matter how logically we point out how wrong their conclusions are.

When you dignify their insanity with rational debate, you lose the fight -- always.

The problem is you would have to be within 20 ft or closer if you expect to be able to tackle and subdue the shooter during a reload.  I do not want my head exposed that close to an active shooter.

You say that yet your replies suggest you don't understand.

Not with that attitude.

You mean just like people on our side do? Of course when you start out by insulting people and their ideas they are going to get defensive and not have an open mind. You might as well punch them in the face then ask why they keep flinching.

You have a  failed perspective there, and this is a perfect example of how you don't understand their arguments. No one chooses arguments they believe to be fake. Their arguments make sense to them just as yours makes sense to you. Your arguments are just as irrational to them as theirs are to you. You don't overcome that with your method: insults and claims of intellectual superiority.

For arguments sake, let's say that having 10rd mags is beneficial during a active shooting.  But then the gun grabbers will want 5rd mags, then 3rd mags and so on.

But we need to look at that active shootings are such a small amount of death and injuries every year, that it doesn't justify screwing over millions of gun owners.  If we look at the CDC/FBI stats, you're more likely to get shot by a cop than an active shooter % wise.  But those stats do include felons getting shot by cops also.

Your problem is you believe there is a middle ground.

That's why we have the horrible laws that exist today.  Too many people gave up inch after inch, but the anit-gun crowd keeps asking for more.

It won't end.  Pretending there's an answer if we can just understand their side is, once again, insane.

Your problem is you believe their is no middle ground. (Though I am sure there are times even you would support some restrictions on guns)

As long as you are aggressive and insulting you are not going to change their minds, you are just going to make them more resolute in their positions. You need to understand how the human brain works, you need to understand that when someone feels under attack they get defensive and their high level thought process decreases. The less threatening the situation, the better the human brain works. You insult someone and it gets harder for them to see your point. But if you come at them in a non threatening manner you increase the chances they will change their minds.

Hostility in discussions only hurts our cause.

I'm not insulting the anti-gun zealots.  I'm only insulting you.

Oh, wait ....   

You can't find a middle ground when the other side gives up NOTHING in exchange for us giving up whatever we think will placate them.  That's not middle ground.  That's losing ground.

You are doubling down on your ineffective insulting tactics by insulting me. Wow, brilliant. Keep shooting our cause in the foot to demonstrate how smart you are.


Where did I say anything about giving up something? Straw man. Stop equating compromise with non confrontational debate methods. If you can't tell the difference between giving up your rights and defending them in a way which doesn't close other people's minds you have no business in complaining about anti-gunners because people like you are partially to blame for their militant anti gun views. You might as well punch them in the face and ask why they end up covering their face with their hands.

"Debate methods" are ineffective against the agenda-driven.

Maybe you should stop trying to be so academic and try a little reality and common sense.

Common sense tells me I don't convince my opponent of my position by insulting him. It really is communication 101 here, not rocket science.

Common sense tells me I don't convince my opponent of my position by insulting him. It really is communication 101 here, not rocket science.

You probably have very little difficulty convincing anti-gun Liberals of your position, since you seem to agree with them on a great many issues.