Quick thought

I found myself over the weekend being subjected to the ignorance that was a defense of magazine capacity bans.  Not feeling like getting into a protracted argument, I made a point that I shall repeat here, the quite effectively shut up my opponent.

Trying to stop shootings with magazine capacity bans is like trying to stop internet child pornography by restricting everybody’s bandwidth.   At the very best, you have slightly inconvenienced the person engaged in the criminal act, and you had to significantly interfere in the lives of millions of innocent people to accomplish that.

6 Replies to “Quick thought”

  1. Even the leftist media commentators are conceding in some articles that magazine capacity bans will do nothing. I’ll Google for it later, but some jerk in the LA Times actually told the truth, that even though a magazine capacity ban will not accomplish much, it should be done anyways because “feelings”.

    1. It’s not just because ‘feelings,’ but also because they feel those feelings and can’t be bothered to think* their position.(*normally I’d say ‘rethink,’ but there was not any thinking the first time around, so rethinking is simply not possible.)

      It doesn’t matter what the position is, or the subject matter. They feel a particular way, and don’t want to be bothered by facts, objections or reason.

  2. I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again: magazine size restrictions INCREASE the deadliness of criminal shooters.

    You only need 1 bullet to kill somebody.

    You need a lot more than that to stop a killer.

    Magazine size restrictions do nothing to reduce a shooter’s ability to kill, but they sure do a number on a homeowner’s ability to defend himself against multiple attackers, each of whom may keep going with as many as 7 rounds in him at a <30% hit rate.

  3. When debating magazine bans, there’s a really fun game I like to play.

    I point out that if they favor such a ban, then it means they are endorsing a scheme whereby a citizen, who has harmed no one, should be arrested, tried, convicted, and thrown in prison for the mere ownership of a plastic box with a spring in it.

    It’s often hilarious to see how quickly the grabbers walk back their comments when you ask them why they think throwing people in jail for a victimless crime is a good idea.

    You will, of course, also run into some true haters who will agree that imprisoning people for the “crime” of owning a magazine is a good idea.

    When this happens, the best thing to do is play to the other people in the discussion to point out how they’re being completely unreasonable by supporting an arbitrary law that does nothing but punish the average Joe, while also wasting the resources of the criminal justice system in order to force their petty hatred on a group of people they just don’t like.

    If you explicitly point out the process of implementing such a magazine ban, the supporters of such a ban actually come off looking like a bunch of unhinged lunatics, and the results can be glorious.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.