Gun Control

These are just various arguments I've collected over the years. I don't think I've come up with any of them but they support my philosophy :) Each spaced line is a different argument made by a different person. Some may have required some context to them, but it's fairly easy to figure out what that was.

From a war vet friend:
Which demonstrates the value of your opinion and thought processes.
Let's wave the magic wand, and make all guns (which are nothing more than machines for throwing rocks) go away.
This returns us to the days in which everyone is at the utter mercy (or often lack thereof) of the men who are the biggest and strongest, and can use the weapons of that world--all of which depend on massive upper body strength and long years of training which must be supported by keeping the peasants down so they can supply these men with food and such, so they can spend all their time training with these weapons.
Guns are tools, usable by anyone regardless of strength and gender, and requiring only a little training for minimal competence. They are tools, for a specific purpose, and enable a 98lb woman to stand up to her 300lb male attacker. Civilized people use tools, especially tools which allow equality and productivity, as opposed to those which impose rule of brute force and inequality and destruction.
I make blades, I practice with blades, and I've actually used blades in combat. Take a gun from me, and you render me no less dangerous. You do make it much harder for the young woman who isn't as comfortable and practiced with blades as I am, and isn't as strong as her attacker will be, to defend herself.

God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.

I've always liked, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Apparently, it is just an adage, usually misattributed to Ben Franklin.
"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in our California Constitution. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority."
...is an actual quote from the L.A. times, but I can't find the speaker.

I'm a vegetarian and more or less a pacifist, but I think shooting is sort of like golf. It's a skill that you can get pretty good at reasonably quickly, but you'll always have room to improve on and options to explore. Hit the tin can at 25 yards? Try it at 50. 100. 150...
Shooting has a distinct meditation-like quality about it, too, which makes it oddly peaceful. If you've not spent much time around guns and only picture loudness and violence when you think about them, this may be somewhat contradictory to what you're expecting. But really. You put your body into a stable position. You put your arms out and concentrate on controlling your motion while your eyes line up the barrel with the target. You start paying attention to your breathing and steadiness. You judge the best point in your breath cycle to stop based on how steady you can hold the rifle. You stop breathing for a second. There's a loud bang, but you don't even hear it because you're concentrating on your intended target. You missed. Dammit.

Last year, I moved from MA (Boston) to OH, and I travel a lot to CO.
There is a distinct difference in world view between peoples of these places, partially due to (I believe) physical space/distances.
A suit-wearing, financial services dude can just NOT understand why a rancher in Colorado Springs would need to carry a gun.
He would never understand the difference in police response times, nor the threats to such a rancher. He cannot empathize or "put himself in their place" enough to see why a sidearm or rifle are almost necessary tools.

Owning a gun is like owning a fire extinguisher. Neither makes you a cop or a firefighter, but both give you and your family a way to hold the line against death until reinforcement arrives.

---
This could go on at great length, I mean we're verging on a debate about the role of government and authority and the position of the individual in a society - more learned people than I have dedicated their lives to expressing this and to date I'm not convinced any of them have nailed it completely.
To answer your specific question:
Do you think Navy SEALs should be able to keep whatever weapon they so want in their garage?
I believe that a person should have the right to own, do, think and say as they please until such a time as they impact on another person's right to own/do/say/think. An item or action or statement should be outlawed only when it can be proven that it poses a clear and present danger to the community AND that such a danger out weighs the benefits of allowing it.
Do I think a SEAL (or any other human being who does not pose a threat to the community for that matter) should be able to have whatever weapon they like in their garage? Well, as long as we're talking realistic weapons (small arms, and even armoured vehicles, but not missile launchers, morters, grenades etc) then yes I actually do.
The value in having small arms can be:
Historical.
Comemorative.
Sentimental.
Self defense.
Hunting (obviously limited to realistic hunting weapons, not full autos etc).
Sport.
Mechanical interest (some people are fascinated with how guns work, and would love to own various firearms from a curiosity perspective - See Gaston Glock as an example of this).
General enjoyment.
Now the risk to the community posed by weapons?
When in the hands of a criminally insane person: high.
When in the hands of a collector, sportsman, self defense focused citizen: negligable.
The same argument you might make against a SEAL with a full auto AR15 in America is made against me owning a handgun with a barrel less than 4.2 inches/120mm or a magazine with a capacity >10 rounds. Sure, in the hands of a mentally ill criminal intent on commiting a mass killing a Glock 19 with a 33 round mag is a great threat, but in my hands its just a fun gun to shoot at IPSC practice Tuesday nights.
To thump on the Objectivism angle again, this quote was something I heard several years ago which has resonated with me ever since:
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." - Ayn Rand.

---

Personally, I feel like banning ''more dangerous guns'' (like full-auto etc) because they're excessive and their features aren't necessary, is like banning sports cars because you don't need that much speed. You're just as dead if you get killed by a single shot .22 as if you get killed by a .50 BMG. Banning some guns doesn't do much at all. Banning all guns might, but I don't personally like that solution. Just my 2 cents.

Funny thing we don't hear about mass shootings at shooting ranges though.

If guns are meant for killing and put people in a violent mindset, then sportscars are meant to break the speed limit and put people in a racing mindset. Just because an item can be used for a thing, it does not follow that it must do a thing.

---

## High Capacity Magazines

Apologies if this isn't the right place to post this, however, I think it's incredibly important that we as gun owners discuss the best possible ways to present ourselves in the public eye. I hope this doesn't tweak the mods here too much.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, there have been calls for reinstating a federal ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.

Arguing for the right to own these magazines is something that can be problematic, as even many gun owners see no issue with restricting access to them.

Furthermore, I've seen a lot of pro-gun folks try to make a case for these magazines, and come off as either insensitive, buffoonish, or just downright stupid, and it makes me cringe every time I watch it happen.

So, in the interest of preserving our second amendment rights, here are my thoughts on arguing against bans on >10 round magazines.

**Know Who You're Debating**

Most of the people reacting to Sandy Hook (and other rampage shootings) are not gun people. For the most part, they aren't anti-gun people, either. They are, however, completely ignorant about guns and how they work, and have a general level of fear associated with guns and people who own them.

What they're looking for is an answer to the question of "how do we stop rampage shootings" and they're grabbing at the first straw, gun control, that seems like a good idea. You have to convince them that gun control is not the answer.

**Arguments That Don't Work, and Why**

*� It's my right to own them because 2nd Amendment.*
-This argument is true, however it makes you look stupid and selfish. After all, to the people you're speaking to, you come off sounding like you put your right to own a dangerous product above the safety of their kids.

*�I own them because I can.*
-Again, this is a stupidly weak argument, and a tautology on top.

*�I own them because I may need them for self-defense.*
-Remember, the people you're talking to have not spent any time at all studying personal defense, much less defense with a firearm. By and large, most people assume that a more traditional style of gun, like a revolver, would be perfectly adequate. Furthermore, statistically speaking, for the vast, vast majority of defensive encounters, they're right. The number of self-defense incidents where capacity of the defender's gun was what won the day are, in truth,  vanishingly small. As a result, most people, who've spent no time reading up on the current state of self-defense will dismiss you as a paranoid lunatic with delusions of having to fend off an army.

*�I own them because we may need them in case of invasion/the US government turns on its own people/The Revolution/Wolverines!*
-Most people in this country live comfortable lives, and they rarely pay attention to historical precedent. As a result, they don't believe that things could come down to a situation where things go all Warsaw Ghetto, and even if they *do* entertain the notion that such a thing could happen here, they cannot and will not consider the idea of actually picking up a gun and fighting against an existential threat. Any argument that follows the revolutionary line of reasoning will be dismissed out of hand as paranoid fantasizing. You will be painted as a lunatic preparing for an event that will never happen. The assumption is that you're so delusional that you are putting your right to a revolution that will never come up against the protection of children.

*�I own them because it makes it easier for me at the shooting range or because having them reduces amount of time I have to waste loading magazines.*
-Again, this argument makes you look completely unsympathetic. After all, if a ban on magazines would reduce these shootings, then who cares if it means you're slightly inconvenienced during a range trip?

*�I own them because I compete in USPSA/3 Gun/some other form of competition.*
-This argument can help to counter the "you don't need a high capacity magazine to hunt" or "why would anyone have these things?" and pointing out that you're involved in a competitive sport may confer some legitimacy, but it's still a weak argument, because you sound like you're putting the enjoyment of a game above the safety of kids.

**Arguments That Should Work, With Explanation**

The best way to voice your opposition to a magazine ban isn't by asserting your rights. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the 2nd Amendment, rights-based or possession-based arguments are not going to sway someone who is on the fence about the 2nd Amendment, and/or already believes that no reasonable person owns such an item.

The best way to make the case in favor of >10 round magazines is from a policy perspective. As gun owners we should all be actively engaging in the public discussion over these items, and offering our unique knowledge to help guide policy in a direction that will actually be effective at stopping these sorts of shootings from happening in the future.

***The best arguments against a ban on these magazines is to point out that such a ban SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.*** It's thoroughly terrible policy that will absolutely not stop the next rampage killer from taking out as many victims as his tortured mental state demands.

Here's a breakdown of the arguments that are bound to be the most effective, at least with people who aren't being completely emotional about the situation.

*The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban*
-The US had a ban on these magazines that lasted for ten years, and during that time, there was not one trustworthy study that showed the ban had any effect whatsoever on rates of violent crime, regardless of the type.

*The technology is already "in the wild."*
-With the exception of the ten years during the federal assault weapon ban >10 round magazines have been sold with hundreds of millions of new guns, and available on the market to anyone who cares to purchase them. These magazines are mechanically simple (about as complex as a well-constructed travel mug), small, and completely untraceable. Any attempt to regulate these magazines will essentially be DOA because there are already so many of them in private hands.

*Consider the implications of enforcing a ban*
-Everyone wants to get behind the idea of a ban without putting any thought into actual enforcement costs. Ask them to explain how they would enforce a ban.
Would they be willing to ok warrantless searches to find these magazines?
Would they be willing to arrest, try, convict, and imprison for ten years anyone found to possess one?
How much would it cost to imprison all of these millions of people?
Would we have to construct new prisons for them?
Would it really be worth it?

(The nice thing about this line of reasoning is that it's an extremely easy litmus test to see if you're dealing with someone who's halfway rational or not. No rational person would actually agree that locking up tens of millions of people who've harmed no one would be a good idea. And if the person says they're ok with it, you know they're a nut. This argument also has the potential to work well if you're talking to people in favor of legalizing pot, as the comparisons between marijuana users and magazine owners are actually pretty clear-cut.)

*How to enforce a ban?*
-How would you keep people from importing unmarked magazines from outside of the US, or squirting them out of a 3D printer?

*Point out that other mass shootings have taken place without >10 round magazines*
-3 of the 4 guns used by the Columbine shooters did not use high capacity magazines. Specifically, Eric Harris had to reload his Hi-Point Carbine ten times, and the double-barreled shotgun used was reloaded over twenty times. [Source](http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html) The Walther used by Seung-Hui Cho could not hold more than ten rounds. The Beltway "snipers" never fired more than one shot at any given murder attempt. Charles Whitman used no high capacity magazines.

-Changing magazines is an action that even an amateur can easily complete in under four seconds. Even if the killer is limited to ten round magazines, it won't matter. They will simply carry more magazines and reload more often. Furthermore, there is not one instance where that extra reload time made a difference in the outcome of a shooting. (Some may try to claim that it did in the case of the Giffords shooting, but Loughner's gun jammed, which is what provided the time to others around him to react.)


Finally, if you're a parent and a gun owner, voice this fact. Having a kid means you've got skin in the game, and gives you additional legitimacy. Remember, at the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: to stop or reduce the number of rampage killings, especially those targeting children. As gun owners, we have not only a unique perspective and specialist knowledge on the subject, but we've also got the most to lose. Therefore it is extremely important for all of us to present the best arguments we can.

I hope that this post is useful. I've been making a number of these arguments on public news forums with some success. I'd appreciate any feedback.

Thanks.