Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008
Yes, the VT shooter used 15-rounders in his Glock 19 (not 10-rounders; the AWB had expired by the time that incident took place). Obviously, it's possible to kill more people with lower magazine capacity. But that still doesn't mean that higher magazine capacity doesn't make it easier to shoot multiple victims in a short period of time. If there was no practical difference between ten 10-round magazines and one 100-round magazine, 100-round magazines wouldn't have been invented.
|
I know you hold the opinion that a thirty rounder is not the same and superior to three ten rounders, you’ve made that point clear a number of times on here, and I agree with you. The question is whether or not that thirty rounder costs any lives on its own anyway weighed against the benefit of it in the hands of a responsible citizen defending their life or loved ones when on their property under siege during a home invasion, or in a disastrous WROL situation like Katrina, or even in the sporting hobbies which have nothing to do with mass murder but are a healthy and safe competitive activity. I say no, the death toll that could be attributed to them (not general gun violence but murders and casualties undertaken after 10 rounds have been fired from a gun) is miniscule compared to the inherent protective and hobbying benefit they provide.
The even more overarching question is whether or not we as a society want to buy into protectionist culture and government control of the best means possible to individual safety in our ever entropic and crime ridden society. Do we want to let them handle our protection when they are not legally liable for it, or do we want to handle it ourselves when we legally are? Do we want to put the weight on someone else or carry that weight on our own? It’s a philosophical question, but if you detach it from guns, there’s sure to be a lot of people who prefer their independence and self reliance. You ask how many people would rather drive to work than take the bus and I doubt you’d be surprised by the answer (granted there is some unfair stigmatism coupled with public transportation especially in lower class parts of the country). Point is, even in a society, we all want to believe we are individuals and that we are still responsible for our own actions and deserve the sweat of our brow.
And that’s the other reason why gun politics is so convoluted, why any political realm is, it’s a question of individual rights, and the right to self defense inherently affects other people since we are talking about deploying deadly weapons and ending life. It’s all the more reason a line should be drawn in the sand (which in most instances it already is, we just don’t consider it) as to what acceptable self defense is, and then we need to look and how we can best conform to the capabilities needed to do that, utilizing the best tools, tactics and psyching up we can. I don’t blame GCAs for wanting to forfeit that, it’s arduous, complicated and it requires extreme emotional and mental fortitude, but a lot of things in this country do, and we still do them, but stupidly, and they assuredly cost lives too. It’s not a matter of simplifying things or getting rid of them, it’s a matter of tackilng the problem as best we can, and that ties into deploying a gun semantically, I just used the same phrasing as a matter of fact. For lack of better terminology, we as a society have forgotten how to tackle an issue as best we can and “man up” to it, and we ought to remember how to do that, cause it’ll only get worse unless we do something about it, something real. No bans, no passing out guns to teachers, something complex yet feasible, practical and effective. Our lawmakers need to listen to us and figure out what that is, that’s their damn job, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008
Thank you for the support, though I still feel a need to respond to him anyway...
|
You are welcome. Though I feel less than respected here most of the time I’m not one to fail to stand up for what I understand or believe is right, especially if it revolves around the betterment of another member of our society (ignoring your invective, though I understand your patience wearing thin with a persistent pet peeve).