"Where a rational conversation about guns ought to start"

[Enai de a lukal]

So you honestly think that banning 30 round magazines will make all 30 round magazines disappear?

No. But are you telling me that it won't be more difficult to acquire one if you cannot simply walk into a sporting goods store and buy one?

Honestly.

Except you are not using common sense when you claim that the mere banning of something will make that which is banned magically disappear.

Hmm, I never said anything about "magically disappear". This is instructive: the only way to disagree is to beat up a strawman. Will banning, e.g. armor piercing rounds, assault weapons, extended mags, etc. make them disappear? Clearly not. Will it make them easier to acquire? Um, don't think so. Common sense, then.

Interesting your absolutism.
Seems you are not ready for "rational" discussion, eh?

I would be, if those on the other side of the aisle had something other to offer than strawmen and false dilemmas; maybe you'd like to take another shot? As I said though, there doesn't appear to be a single defensible reason for opposing the sorts of regulations I've mentioned; they are no-brainers, total win-win propositions. Basic common sense. Given that, it doesn't appear that this is a topic that admits of rational discussion at all, given that opposition to common sense regulation of dangerous and useless (for legal purposes) firearms/accessories does not admit of rational reasons in the first place. Sort of like having a rational discussion about the criminalization of rape- not much to discuss here.

But maybe you have better luck the second time around, so we'll see.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's also harder to stop one.

So? When has that ever happened? Citizens with conceal and carry permits stopping crimes in progress is a juvenile pipedream that some people have. It doesn't happen, and it certainly is no pretext for allowing dangerous and legally pointless firearms and accessories like ultra extended magazines and assault weapons. And if you are that one-out-of-a million real-life action hero, surely you can stop a shooting or robbery with just your six-shooter? I mean, John Wayne could do it, why can't you?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Lets see, you really believe taking things off the shelf will make things harder to obtain? It will make them more expensive and lucrative to sell on the black market.

The war on drugs has not worked and neither will restricting magazines and such.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lets see, you really believe taking things off the shelf will make things harder to obtain?

Yes.

It will make them more expensive and lucrative to sell on the black market.

That's fine. Putting them on the black market makes them less widely available. I wouldn't even know where to begin purchasing something on the black market- and I'd imagine the same is true for the most people. Will some people still manage to obtain these items? Sure. But less people; taking something off the shelves and putting it on the black market makes it harder to obtain, and less is better than more, in the case, obviously. It also helps that there really is no downside here; we lose nothing by banning extended magazines and ammo-piercing ammunition- its a textbook win-win, even if it prevents only one person from obtaining these items. Like I said; common sense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And to be more explicit: a false dilemma is when something is portrayed as having only two options when in fact there are more- as being "all or nothing". And so far, both Reverend Rick and Mestemia have either asserted or insinuated such a false dilemma; as if it was a matter of either regulations making, e.g. extended magazines, "magically disappear", or being worthless and entirely ineffective. Clearly, there is some middle ground here- as I said, if regulations make obtaining these items even marginally more difficult, then they have had some effect, short of making them disappear entirely. As it happens, banning them would, I think, more than marginally affect the availability of these items. There is a rather large gap between an item being available on the black market, and being available at your local sporting goods store- and for many people, this is a gap that cannot be bridged; I simply do not have the resources or connections to obtain anything on the black market, and I'm betting I'm far from alone in this.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Um... Seriousy? Banning 30 round magazines, which have absolutely ZERO utility in any sporting function (as I can attest as a lifelong hunter- if you need 30 rounds, you need to find a new hobby), would prevent criminals from getting... you guessed it, 30 round magazines! Alot harder to pull off a 20 person killing spree when you have to reload every few rounds.

Aurora shooting. 100 round magazine. People killed: 12.
Sandy Hook shooting. 30 round magazines. People killed: 26
Virginia tech shooting. 10-15 round magazines. People killed: 32

Interesting, no? 90% less rounds per magazine yet 266% more fatalities.

And no. Banning them won't prevent criminals from getting them. By definition, criminals don't obey the law.

Would you believe that there's actually a law against murder? Yet criminals manage to do it every day.

The weird part about this whole debate is, a little common sense resolves the whole matter- there's absolutely no defensible reason to oppose the sorts of legislation that has been proposed, such as bans on unnecessarily large magazines, closing loopholes that bypass backgrounds checks, and so on.

Here's a defensible reason to oppose the sorts of legislation that has been proposed: it's symbolic and therefore completely meaningless. Allow me to demonstrate:

 

[Sunstone]

And no. Banning them won't prevent criminals from getting them. By definition, criminals don't obey the law.

Would you believe that there's actually a law against murder? Yet criminals manage to do it every day.

If you really believe that argument then why aren't you out marching to decriminalize murder, rape, theft, and all other crimes? Just genuinely curious.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If you really believe that argument then why aren't you out marching to decriminalize murder, rape, theft, and all other crimes? Just genuinely curious.

Because 30 round magazines aren't illegal.

I'm not asking to decriminalize murder, rape, or theft. I'm saying that we shouldn't be arbitrarily making things illegal, because it won't work.

We should be prosecuting criminals. We should be prosecuting murderers and rapists and thieves. We shouldn't be prosecuting law abiding individuals whose self defense weapon of choice is an AR15 with a 30 round magazine.

Let's work on other solutions, instead of stupidly accepting the notion that simply banning something will actually prevent criminals from getting their hands on it and using it.

 

[Apex]

No. But are you telling me that it won't be more difficult to acquire one if you cannot simply walk into a sporting goods store and buy one?

Honestly.

With the rise of 3D printers people will probably be able to produce these things in mass in just a few years, in their own home, at almost no cost.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets see, you really believe taking things off the shelf will make things harder to obtain? It will make them more expensive and lucrative to sell on the black market.

The war on drugs has not worked and neither will restricting magazines and such.

There's a big difference between guns and drugs: every illegal gun, bullet, or magazine comes from the legal market. With guns, you have to deal with things like marijuana grow houses and basement meth labs. There are no basement forges pumping out all the black market guns.

Edit: a big part of the failure of the war on drugs is because drugs are so easy to make. This isn't the case with a precision-engineered firearm.

 

[Reverend Rick]

And to be more explicit: a false dilemma is when something is portrayed as having only two options when in fact there are more- as being "all or nothing". And so far, both Reverend Rick and Mestemia have either asserted or insinuated such a false dilemma; as if it was a matter of either regulations making, e.g. extended magazines, "magically disappear", or being worthless and entirely ineffective. Clearly, there is some middle ground here- as I said, if regulations make obtaining these items even marginally more difficult, then they have had some effect, short of making them disappear entirely. As it happens, banning them would, I think, more than marginally affect the availability of these items. There is a rather large gap between an item being available on the black market, and being available at your local sporting goods store- and for many people, this is a gap that cannot be bridged; I simply do not have the resources or connections to obtain anything on the black market, and I'm betting I'm far from alone in this.

Your inability to find a black market is due to your lack of motivation. Your failure to address the war on drugs as a comparison says it all.

 

[Apex]

There are no basement forges pumping out all the black market guns.

Edit: a big part of the failure of the war on drugs is because drugs are so easy to make. This isn't the case with a precision-engineered firearm.

That may actually change here in the very near future.

 

[Sunstone]

Because 30 round magazines aren't illegal.

I'm not asking to decriminalize murder, rape, or theft. I'm saying that we shouldn't be arbitrarily making things illegal, because it won't work.

We should be prosecuting criminals. We should be prosecuting murderers and rapists and thieves. We shouldn't be prosecuting law abiding individuals whose self defense weapon of choice is an AR15 with a 30 round magazine.

Let's work on other solutions, instead of stupidly accepting the notion that simply banning something will actually prevent criminals from getting their hands on it and using it.

I take what you just said to mean you don't really believe the argument that it's useless to outlaw things because then only outlaws will have them. I agree with you then. The argument was clearly conceived during a circle jerk of morons, and only a fool would reason uncritically enough to accept it. There are much better anti-gun control arguments than that one, although I think in the end, the gun control side has the edge.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Aurora shooting. 100 round magazine. People killed: 12.
Sandy Hook shooting. 30 round magazines. People killed: 26
Virginia tech shooting. 10-15 round magazines. People killed: 32

Interesting, no? 90% less rounds per magazine yet 266% more fatalities.

3 instances. How compelling. Clearly the number of rounds is not the only factor that affects the outcome of a shooting. But if you're telling me that a shooter with a 30 round clip is no different than one with a 5 round magazine, then you're clearly off your rocker.

And no. Banning them won't prevent criminals from getting them.

Yeah... Try reading. Banning them won't prevent anyone, anywhere from obtaining one... But so what? It will prevent some people from obtaining one, and if it prevents 1 person, then it has been effective.

Would you believe that there's actually a law against murder? Yet criminals manage to do it every day.

Re-read my post on the false dilemma.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your inability to find a black market is due to your lack of motivation.

No. You need to read more carefully. Even were I motivated, I would have no idea of where to even begin to find a black market. Neither would you. Neither would most people. Most people don't know how to obtain items on the black market. Which is sort of the point.

Your failure to address the war on drugs as a comparison says it all.

Actually, I did, but apparently I need to draw you a freakin picture. Effective regulation=/= something becoming completely unattainable.

How about this- prohibition didn't make alcohol go away, OK. But do you suppose it made alcohol easier to acquire, harder to acquire, or no difference? Or suppose we banned tobacco tomorrow- would the same number of people buy cigarettes?

Common sense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Also, the fact that this is what is being disputed, that banning X generally makes X harder to get, is fairly instructive- if this is what your argument really amounts to, disputing something so obvious, that's a really bad sign.

 

[Sunstone]

3 instances. How compelling.

Didn't the rifle jam after 45 rounds in the Aurora shooting? And didn't Holmes switch to other weapons at that point? Also, weren't the total casualties somewhere in the neighborhood of 82, if you are intellectually honest enough to count wounded? I don't think it's a good idea to debate people who omit relevant details, Endaidealukal. They're just too clever for me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not to mention when we're just being disingenuous... You question whether a 30 round magazine is any more dangerous in the hands of a violent criminal than your standard 5, 6, 10 rounders? Really? You think that banning certain items won't make them any less available? Um, ok. If that's so, then I have some prime real estate in the everglades to sell you...

 

[McBell]

Not to mention when we're just being disingenuous... You question whether a 30 round magazine is any more dangerous in the hands of a violent criminal than your standard 5, 6, 10 rounders? Really? You think that banning certain items won't make them any less available? Um, ok. If that's so, then I have some prime real estate in the everglades to sell you...

Interesting how you changed it.
I never once said nor even implied that banning 30 round magazines would not make them "any" less available.
I said it would would not stop criminals from getting them.

So much for honest discussion....

 

[metis]

One of my posts from a past gun thread that addressed this topic but never got a response:

When we deal with "problems" in many different areas, there's varying degrees, so it's simply not an either/or thingy.