Some thoughts on a conversation about Hi cap magazine ban

[Sandcut]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about how opinion is trending nationally with regard to polling on support of a ban on high capacity magazines and EBRs. My personal opinion is that law abiding citizens have just as much right to own them as LEOs and/or the military for the same reasons that they want them. Unfortunately, it appears that many gun owners cannot haven't made the mental leap to understand that. Too often those of us on the "Pro" side try to make excuses for why EBRs aren't scary, e.g., "a .223 is more like a squirrel rifle than a high powered rifle." These arguments, in my mind, are disingenuous and counterproductive because they make us out to look like we're liars with something to hide. In my opinion, we should be embracing EBRs, semiautos and high capacity mags for the very reasons that LEOs and military folks want them, because they are a force equalizer.

I decided to post something to this effect on Facebook this afternoon out of frustration at reading another crappy news article about how bad guns are. To my surprise, I actually got some pretty positive feedback from the very folks that I expected to grill me on it. I won't post the whole screen capture, just the highlights to keep from boring you. But I do this to point out a possible way for those of you looking for rationale on why the ban would be bad, but unable to come up with anything other than the old "it's against the 2A" rebuttal. To some folks, that just doesn't matter. I think my line of thinking hits home a little more. Now the guy that I'm speaking to is my wife's cousin. Lives in NYC. Uber-liberal. Has made repeated FB posts on why EBRs/hi cap are bad.

Sandcut- OK, a question to those folks who claim to support gun ownership, but believe that "high capacity" magazines should be banned.

When studies show that even "trained" policemen miss greater than 50% of the time that they shoot and that home invasions typically involve 3-4 bad guys, how is a homeowner supposed to defend himself and his family against such a disparity of force, when all they have is a 5-shot revolver?

Answer: He/she can't. Homeowners require these types of firearms for the very same reason that law enforcement or the military require them. Because one good guy can hold off and/or stop multiple bad guys.

The part of the discussion that seems to be conveniently omitted by the media are the many, many lawful and beneficial uses of firearms for self defense that occur daily

Cousin- Just curious: do you have a stat backing up that that typical home invasion involves 3-4 people? I've never heard that one before. (A typical counter argument, attack the source)

Sandcut- Sorry, "Cousin". I wish that I had some "official" report to rely on. All I have to hang my hat on is anecdotal information gathered from local news reports. Maybe it's a regional thing. Maybe it's confirmation bias on my part. Even if you reduced the number to 2 for the sake of the argument, the odds still aren't stacked in your favor.

Sandcut- Here ya go, "Cousin". Again, it ain't an official report. It's just a link to the FBI's crime stats listed by the most recent date. The first thing that I found on home invasion statistics that listed numbers of people involved. Nothing cherry picked to prove a point. Just looking over the first page, out of the 8 home invasions listed, only 2 involved two bad guys or less. The rest involved 3, 4 and 5 bad guys. Interestingly enough, one of the cases occurred in Broomall. http://www.fbi.gov/fbi-search?q=home...statistics+and

Cousin- Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Now I realize that this isn't a major victory by any means. However, if you knew how opinionated and eager to argue my wife's cousin is, you'd understand this almost constitutes a sea change in opinion. To add to that even further, the original question prompted a "Like" from a "soccer mom" (quite literally, her kid was on my team) who was initially posting about limiting access to firearms immediately after Newtown.

I had similar results last week when speaking to one of the local State Reps in my area that I routinely contact. Although he's a Democrat (so am I), he did co-sponsor and vote for HB-40 (stand your ground) after we discussed it a few times. In our initial conversation, his position is that "I'm pro-gun, but no one needs these weapons." I don't think I've won him over completely yet, but I could tell that he was at least considering the need for high capacity mags/EBRs when I started to discuss "disparity of force."

So, in closing, my suggestion again, is to embrace hi capacity magazines, semiautos and EBRs because of their role as a force equalizer in the face of disparity of force. Back that up with real world examples. Then, focus that argument on GUN OWNERS. Show them how they can personally be impacted by not supporting the fight. Encourage them to contact their legislators.

We may not be able to win over everyone, but it is in our best interest to go after the low hanging fruit to increase our numbers.

[Gman106]

Cogent argument. By all indication, you are a reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent person. Please explain why you're a democrat!

[marinville]

Why do we need to make excuses? Why can't we just say that the purpose of the second amendment is for the people to have access to the same type of small arms the military has access to? After all, it is the truth and there is plenty of documentation to prove it.

The second amendment is specifically about military weapons, not hunting rifles. That's all the justification I need.

[marinville]

sorry, double post.

[Kabloosh]

Well thats comforting to know. suddenly my handgun feels a bit inferior for situations I might need it in. :/
Hopefully killing the crap out of one of them scares the others away.