Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

[Scott_Lafrance]

I will count this as cop-out response #3.

I’ve yet to see a reason why they should be legal in the first place to have 200 round magazines.

If I’m a lawmaker who wants to ban this, you’re going to need a lot better then “Why do it?”. You need to give me a practical reason why you must have this 200-round magazine and can’t make do with the 100-round one or even the 60.

No, you are engaging in the “burden of proof” fallacy to engage in sophistry. You are making the claim that 200 round magazines need to be banned. Now prove it.

 

[ringil]

It is not a stretch to say that a man who walks into a crowded movie theater with body armor, half a dozen guns, tear gas, and possibly a bomb…that maybe his elevator stopped going to the top floor.

Actually, he may have simply been morally bankrupt and received a “rush” through terror and pain. This isn’t necessarily mental illness. On the other hand- he may have had a mental disorder- we just don’t know.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

No, you are engaging in the “burden of proof” fallacy to engage is sophestry. You are making the claim that 200 round magazines need to be banned. Now prove it.

Not to pile on, but yup.

I want to see the argument as to why a legal citizen shouldn’t have one. Maybe he likes plinking squirrels without reloading.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually, he may have simply been morally bankrupt and received a “rush” through terror and pain. This isn’t necessarily mental illness. On the other hand- he may have had a mental disorder- we just don’t know.

I don’t distinguish between moral illness and mental illness.

 

[curlycool89]

No, you are engaging in the “burden of proof” fallacy to engage is sophestry. You are making the claim that 200 round magazines need to be banned. Now prove it.

Cop-out #4 (I have counted these before, this could be fun).

I did give a reason, you just ignored it. There’s no need for a 200-round magazine because there’s nothing that you could’t do with a 100 or even a 60. There’s no need for a civilian to have 200 rounds at the ready, nor does the 2nd Amendment demand it.

Nor did I say I was debating. I said I was playing crazy-liberal-gun-control politician who wants to pass a bill to ban it.

“Wanting” it is not a good reason in itself, it is not a self-justifying reason. Sally want to go to university for free. Bobby wants to win the lottery. John wants a new car. Peter wants to have a medical marijuana grow-op on his middle-of-nowhere farm (these are all random wants that were off the top of my head, don’t read a political agenda into them).

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Not to pile on, but yup.

I want to see the argument as to why a legal citizen shouldn’t have one. Maybe he likes plinking squirrels without reloading.

People who want to pass laws forbidding other people from having this thing or that thing subconsciously have a desire to control other people. They simply do not respect the rights AND liberty of others, as evidenced by their incessant need to curtail it.

 

[scipio337]

And that’s a cop-out answer.

I want to see a why, a full on defense why you need a 200-round magazine as opposed to a 100-round or 60-round magazine (I have no idea if these are real sizes, they’re just for the sake of argument).

Let’s say I was a lawmaker and put forth a bill to ban anything bigger then 100-round magazines. What’s your counter-argument besides “it should be allowed?”. I say that there’s no practical reason to need a magazine that large, what’s your response?

I would ask what “practical” limitations the 2nd Amendment gives. The verbiage is pretty clear.

If we’re just arbitrarily limiting magazine size (the 100 round mag is highly unreliable, James Holmes’ actually jammed), who is deciding what “practical” is?

As bob pointed out, if we aren’t being attacked by 100 deer, why stop there? Why not just limit everything to two shots?

I see the burden of proof to be on the banner:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

I’m sorry if you don’t like the answer, but it is a part of judicial review.

Now, perhaps you or estesbob can tell us the difference in lethality between an AR-15 ("assault rifle) chambered in 0.233 Remington, and a .22 Long Rifle round, and why one should be illegal, and the other not?

It’s only my 3rd request.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Cop-out #4 (I have counted these before, this could be fun).

I did give a reason, you just ignored it. There’s no need for a 200-round magazine because there’s nothing that you could’t do with a 100 or even a 60. There’s no need for a civilian to have 200 rounds at the ready, nor does the 2nd Amendment demand it.

Nor did I say I was debating. I said I was playing crazy-liberal-gun-control politician who wants to pass a bill to ban it.

“Wanting” it is not a good reason in itself, it is not a self-justifying reason. Sally want to go to university for free. Bobby wants to win the lottery. John wants a new car. Peter wants to have a medical marijuana grow-op on his middle-of-nowhere farm (these are all random wants that were off the top of my head, don’t read a political agenda into them).

No, you didn’t PROVE anything. You stated an opinion about 200 round magazines. And you know what they say about opinions…

And WANTING is just as good a reason as any, barring any legitimate reason why that thing I want would somehow violate the rights of someone else.

Tell me, and I’ll make this simple, since you seem to be getting twisted around the axle with the difference between a proof and an opinion.

How does my owning an AR-15 style rifle with a 200 round magazine, infringe on the rights of anyone else?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I want to see the argument as to why a legal citizen shouldn’t have one.

Why shouldn’t a legal citizen be allowed to own rocket launchers or crew served weapons or a SAM? Why can’t a citizen openly carry an assault rifle into a bank or a church? Is there no limit as far as gun lovers are concerned?

You’l have to excuse me if I consider people like that as nutters.

 

[scipio337]

…“Wanting” it is not a good reason in itself, it is not a self-justifying reason. Sally want to go to university for free. Bobby wants to win the lottery. John wants a new car. Peter wants to have a medical marijuana grow-op on his middle-of-nowhere farm (these are all random wants that were off the top of my head, don’t read a political agenda into them).

“Wanting” to ban 100 round mags (or 20, or 60, or magazines > π) is not a good reason in itself.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Why shouldn’t a legal citizen be allowed to own rocket launchers or crew served weapons or a SAM? Why can’t a citizen openly carry an assault rifle into a bank or a church? Is there no limit as far as gun lovers are concerned?

You’l have to excuse me if I consider people like that as nutters.

I don’t know. I am waiting for someone to explain it to me. How does my owning of a rocket launcher infringe on the rights of anyone else?

 

[Cider]

Cop-out #4 (I have counted these before, this could be fun).

I did give a reason, you just ignored it. There’s no need for a 200-round magazine because there’s nothing that you could’t do with a 100 or even a 60. There’s no need for a civilian to have 200 rounds at the ready, nor does the 2nd Amendment demand it.

Because I said so isn’t a reason, it’s an opinion.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No, you didn’t PROVE anything. You stated an opinion about 200 round magazines. And you know what they say about opinions…

And WANTING is just as good a reason as any, barring any legitimate reason why that thing I want would somehow violate the rights of someone else.

Tell me, and I’ll make this simple, since you seem to be getting twisted around the axle with the difference between a proof and an opinion.

How does my owning an AR-15 style rifle with a 200 round magazine, infringe on the rights of anyone else?

Because I said so isn’t a reason, it’s an opinion.

 

[scipio337]

Exactly. What are the lethality differences between this

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...nPIYIXMQ0GOz_X1Y4muqU0pI89uDwTXszuDR-0PFWTZXQ

and this:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...4aAOSUQ3wSKrRh5F09vxtneIPPcwodSeb1N3q2QRfkQlA

Tricky! I’m guessing the top one is a Ruger Mini-14, and the bottom is a .22 LR with an ATI stock?

The bottom one certainly looks scarier!

 

[liturgyluver]

It’s difficult for most non-Americans to understand why anyone in their right mind would want to possess any kind of gun, but I was interested to read what the US Bishops had to say on the subject:

“Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer – especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner – and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

“We believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Tricky! I’m guessing the top one is a Ruger Mini-14, and the bottom is a .22 LR with an ATI stock?

The bottom one certainly looks scarier!

WRONG!

They are BOTH Ruger Mini-14s, chambered in .223. Yes, the bottom one LOOKS more menacing. Lets BAN IT.

What makes the bottom one “evil”.

Is it the polymer stock?

The adjustable buttpad?

The pistol grip! Oooooooo that’s really scary! :sad_yes:

What about the telescopic sight! OH MY Only a psychotic murderer would need one of those!!!

How about the picatiny rails and the 25 round magazine!!! YOu know how evil people like those things! :crying:

 

[scipio337]

Banning magazines > 10 rounds and “assualt weapons” hasn’t done much for Cook County, has it?

library.municode.com/HTML/13805/level4/PTIGEOR_CH54LIPEMIBURE_ARTIIIDEWEDE_DIV4BLHOASWEBA.html

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Banning magazines > 10 rounds and “assualt weapons” hasn’t done much for Cook County, has it?

I’m not sure that letting everyone over the age of 17 walk about with a fully automatic assault rifle and such magazines would be an improvement. I’d be afraid to go outslde in Brooklyn if that were common place.

 

[scipio337]

WRONG!

They are BOTH Ruger Mini-14s, chambered in .223. Yes, the bottom one LOOKS more menacing. Lets BAN IT.

What makes the bottom one “evil”.

Is it the polymer stock?

The adjustable buttpad?

The pistol grip! Oooooooo that’s really scary! :sad_yes:

What about the telescopic sight! OH MY Only a psychotic murderer would need one of those!!!

How about the picatiny rails and the 25 round magazine!!! YOu know how evil people like those things! :crying:

Well, ATI makes the Mini-14 and the 10/22 stocks.

The Cook County ban goes even further:

Assault weapon means:

(1)
A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:

(A)
Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;

(B)
Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

(C)
A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

(D)
A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

(E)
A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

Note that only ONE of the above is required.

Your Remington 870? Illegal for a scary-looking thumbhole stock!

cabelas.com/stocks-grips-accessories-remington-shurshot-8482-thumbhole-stock-forend.shtml

 

[scipio337]

I’m not sure that letting everyone over the age of 17 walk about with a fully automatic assault rifle and such magazines would be an improvement. I’d be afraid to go outslde in Brooklyn if that were common place.

Fully automatic rifles require a Class V FFL. They are rather pricey and require an extensive BATF background search.