News Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

  • Thread starter Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the necessity and implications of high-capacity magazines for firearms. Participants express skepticism about the need for magazines that hold over 30 rounds, questioning why civilians would require such capacity beyond military or law enforcement use. The conversation highlights the argument that extended magazines may not significantly increase danger compared to multiple smaller magazines, as a skilled shooter can manage reloading effectively. Some argue that banning high-capacity magazines is more about political posturing than genuine safety concerns, suggesting that such laws may not effectively reduce gun violence. The debate also touches on the challenges of defining "need" in the context of gun ownership and the potential ineffectiveness of laws that do not address the root causes of gun violence, such as mental health issues. Ultimately, participants call for a more evidence-based approach to legislation, emphasizing the importance of studying the actual impact of magazine capacity on crime rates before implementing new laws.
  • #151
nismaratwork said:
Sure; A weapon is a tool that should be used in times of need; that's part of what any gun owner knows. Maybe the law should be modified for target practice exemptions, but I think that would needlessly raise the cost of administrating the law. In the past this "right", as you call it, has been absent and people lived happy and productive lives with guns. Any responsible gun owner using their firearm in its primary contexts: SD/HD/TP gains no advantage by being able to fire 33 rounds of ammunition without so much as reloading. In fact, doing that in any SD/HD scenario is practically begging for tragedy...


Of the actual defense or not... what I find amusing is that I usually have this debate, not in a "gun rights" context when I'm offline, but in the context of, "what do you carry/own?" It always comes down to advantages and disadvantages... I'm yet to hear someone offline opine that they needed bigger extended magazines.
Would you please, please, please address the issue of burdon of proof? The one you brought up. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
nismaratwork said:
You have no right to be left alone.
I think that says it all. So, can you explain how you, or others, have a right to use force against people to get your way?
 
  • #153
Jimmy Snyder said:
Would you please, please, please address the issue of burdon of proof? The one you brought up. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.



You, I give up on.
 
  • #154
Al68 said:
I think that says it all. So, can you explain how you, or others, have a right to use force against people to get your way?

We don't.

edit: Remember... I'm the guy who doesn't believe in rights? I believe that we should agree to principles of law, and morality, but I don't believe there's a real basis for it. That's an ongoing discussion in another thread (or 2 I'm losing count!), so if you want to have it, let's take it over there, if only so I don't start posting in the wrong threads... which I've done once today already and had to delete!
 
  • #155
nismaratwork said:
You, I give up on.
It's for the best. I doubt that you could have defended your position if you had tried.
 
  • #156
Jimmy Snyder said:
It's for the best. I doubt that you could have defended your position if you had tried.

Ah yes, a famous variation of, "I'm going to bed because I want to, not because you tell me to...", that never does get old.
 
  • #157
nismaratwork said:
Ah yes, a famous variation of, "I'm going to bed because I want to, not because you tell me to...", that never does get old.
Wait. Isn't that what you just did?
 
  • #158
Jimmy Snyder said:
Wait. Isn't that what you just did?

No... I believe that I walked away from a pointless exchange. I suppose you could argue that I "took my ball and went home," but not the bed one, and I'd disagree with the former too. Anyway, you clearly want the last word between us, so take it. Have fun, go wild, it's all yours.
 
  • #159
nismaratwork said:
We don't.

edit: Remember... I'm the guy who doesn't believe in rights?
Then why keep asking people to justify a "need" to own a 30 rd mag? No one had claimed such a need as their reason for opposing a ban. It's a complete red herring.
 
  • #160
Al68 said:
Then why keep asking people to justify a "need" to own a 30 rd mag? No one had claimed such a need as their reason for opposing a ban. It's a complete red herring.

Because if you don't have a right to them, and you don't have a need for them, and we're talking about extended magazines?... Don't. Have. Them.

Your argument boils down to a right you don't even have legally according to The SCOTUS, and, 'because it's fun and you can.'

I'm inspired to really try my best to challenge that kind of unassailable logic, especially when it comes to the ownership of lethal weapons.

Until this thread and a few others, I never considered that butter-knife control might be a good idea in some places. :rolleyes:
 
  • #161
nismaratwork said:
Because if you don't have a right to them, and you don't have a need for them, and we're talking about extended magazines?... Don't. Have. Them.
You keep asking why others need them as if we were asking you to buy them for us. I'm not arguing about whether or not I have them or need them. The subject of this thread is whether or not force should be used to prohibit them. Why do you keep trying to avoid that?

BTW, if you really have a reason to know what I do or don't need, I'll take an extra factory mag for my Sig. Or two. Thanks in advance. :biggrin:
 
  • #162
Al68 said:
You keep asking why others need them as if we were asking you to buy them for us. I'm not arguing about whether or not I have them or need them. The subject of this thread is whether or not force should be used to prohibit them. Why do you keep trying to avoid that?

BTW, if you really have a reason to know what I do or don't need, I'll take an extra factory mag for my Sig. Or two. Thanks in advance. :biggrin:

I'm not buying any Sig mags that aren't for MY Sigs... soooorrrryy. My babies get all the love... none for yours!

For the rest:
Nismaratwork said:
Unlike other discussions which have taken place in the public discourse about guns, this is a valid concern. I'm not interested in the politics of it, and yes, I realize people are doing this for political points.

What I can't figure out is why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip. I'm sure some people here can explain to me why someone who's responsible enough to own such a thing, would be so poor at handling their weapon that they require that kind of ammunition in one magazine. I think people have been watching 'Equilibrium' too damned much.

Oh, I realize that starting a thread gives me no right to make demands, but I can ask; please don't turn this into a debate about gun ownership. I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

That was me, starting the thread. I see no reference to the use of force, just this law and then a general invitation to discuss it. If by "use of force" you just mean, "make it a law"... just say, "make it a law"... you need that too! :biggrin: If you're talking about a specific element of this law, I've already made it clear I'm about the issue, not the law... and made that clear from the first post of this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
nismaratwork said:
I'm not buying any Sig mags that aren't for MY Sigs... soooorrrryy. My babies get all the love... none for yours!
But I neeeeeeed them! :biggrin:
I've already made it clear I'm about the issue, not the law... and made that clear from the first post of this thread.
It should be equally clear that others are talking about the proposed law, not the personal aspect of the issue. People tend to do that in a politics forum.
 
  • #164
Al68 said:
But I neeeeeeed them! :biggrin:It should be equally clear that others are talking about the proposed law, not the personal aspect of the issue. People tend to do that in a politics forum.

But it's ileeeegall... and they're expensive... really really over-priced!... and I LOVE Sig. Love... in a way that bothers even me.


The others who are talking about this specific law are... well... I'm not seeing people on any side of the debate take their side, including me.
 

Similar threads

Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
Replies
1
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top