OK Taoist, I'll play. I am a owner of several "assault" weapons, complete with high capacity magazines.

I have a stable, and long standing job in a professional industry. My family life is stable and has been such for a long time. I have never been declared mentally incompetent or disturbed, or have even been suspected as such.

I am not a "prepper" that believes that the end of the world is nigh, and I am not a believer that the government is coming to seize our guns and enslave us all. I have been openly critical of the racists on this forum, so it's unlikely that I am a KKK'er or white supremacist. I have a clean record with no criminal convictions or even arrests.

I believe in reasonable gun control. I believe that like voting, a right does allow for reasonable administrative process, such as waiting periods, registration, and meaningful back ground checks (yes even at gun shows).

I possess these weapons because I enjoy collecting them and shooting them at paper targets. It's a hobby, and I will admit, I do derive some comfort in knowing that I can protect my family for a short time if we see another societal break down like we did with Hurricane Katrina.

So Taoist, how does simply the fact that I support my right to own those weapons make me a dangerous extremist? I hope its more than that I simply disagree with you. Please, make your case as to why I am a danger.

Why not own a flamethrower? Great that you are a wonderful person. Beautiful. But that still doesn't negate that gangbangers and mass murders can get there hands out these things. What ever pleasure you get out of these things is far outweighed by the harm they are doing in this country.

Price of living in a society.

Terry,

You are claiming that the fact that you're a stable-across-the-board dude who likes firing lots of bullets at pieces of paper, and doesn't want to reload as often, is an argument for allowing high-capacity magazines to be sold on the open market.

The reason why high capacity magazines should be outlawed, is because they greatly enhance an aspiring mass murderer's ability to accomplish mass murder. Your wish for your paper target shooting to be less of a hassle is not at all relevant to the case for outlawing high capacity magazines.

You need to grow up and accept that some things are outlawed for the good of society, which is a reason that trumps your laziness. Because that's what it is, really - you like shooting guns for recreation, but you're too lazy to reload a little more often, even in the interest of protecting school children from mass murderers.

And yes, I think your fears about a societal breakdown like after Katrina do, in fact, make you an extremist. And on top of that, the threat of a societal breakdown doesn't actually support your argument for large-capacity magazines. I defy you to describe a plausible situation, in a societal breakdown, where having a 30-round magazine is of significantly greater utility than having three 10-round magazines, without sounding like a complete lunatic.

It is better to have many 30 round magazines than many 10 round magazines. Common sense Tao. Maybe your dainty limp wrists have a hard time inserting the magazine, who knows.

Keif, There are currently no federal laws governing or restricting the ownership of flame-throwing devices. Some states have laws restricting possession of flamethrowers, with violations only considered to be misdemeanors, but 40 states have absolutely no laws whatsoever concerning flamethrowers.

Taoist, if Terry is no less safe in a societal breakdown with three 10 round magazines as opposed to one 30 round magazine, why then would a lunatic be any less dangerous with three 10 round magazines as opposed to one 30 round magazine

Now Keith on the other hand is simply raising the argument that if it causes harm to society, it should be outlawed.

Extrapolate that out. Apply it to other situations. Alcohol causes vastly more harm to society than guns. Certainly more than assault weapons, which are involved in only a tiny portion of gun deaths. It is a product simply there for enjoyment, and does not serve a necessary function in our society. Wouldn't the harm alcohol is doing to society outweigh whatever pleasure its consumers get out of it? Shouldn't we consider prohibition again, for the good of society?

There are rapists out there, prostitution, and internet porn. Sex causes societal damage, and is used as a form of pleasure far more than for procreation. And now our technology has progressed to the point where it isn't even a requirement for procreation. So is it not now time to put this damaging practice behind us as we move towards a more civilized future? Do we even have to talk about cheeseburgers and super-sized drinks?

Now I am making absurd points here. But its in response to an absurd premise. I certainly believe there are things so dangerous to society that they need to be regulated. No one wants to see heroin legalized for example. But you need more that simply saying "for the good of society" to do so.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and these incidents with assault rifles are exceedingly rare. You need a bit more to make the argument work.

cud1555,

The answer to your question is simply that having lots of bullets to fire before reloading makes you deadlier, but it doesn't necessarily make you or anyone else safer.

It makes it easier to attack multiple targets (especially unarmed targets), which is a benefit to a mass murderer, but not a significant benefit to anyone trying to defend themselves against a single armed assailant. That's why I want you to try describing the situation where firing 30 rounds without reloading makes you safer than firing 30 rounds while reloading twice. You won't be able to do it without sounding like a lunatic, as I pointed out above.

Taoist is fairly quick to dismiss concerns about a societal break down. Before Katrina it was possible to hide behind rationalizations that it could never happen here. We are too civilized in this country, and the government to efficient and powerful. We would be protected and kept safe.

Hurricane Katrina show us that there are limitations to the governments ability to keep us safe. Almost overnight, Katrina turned a major American city into a "Lord of the Flies" case study. A lot of bad things happened behind that curtain. Katrina showed us just how thin the veneer of civilization can be.

Taoist challenged me to come up with a rational scenario where a high capacity magazine would be relevant in defense. Katrina gave us one. Gangs of looters going block to block; raping, looting, and killing those that resisted. And some of the worst instances of that were committed by the local police, left to fend for themselves. Eight looters, working their way down the block towards your house. No where to go, and no one to call. One on one, a pistol may do. Five on one, give me the thirty round magazine please.

Now, do I lay awake at night fearing this? No. Such circumstance is obviously rare, and we hope to never see its like again. But with so many reputable scientists and sociologists ringing the bell with earthquake warnings, predictions of pandemics, etc., you cannot sit there are rationally claim that these concerns are not valid.

Okay, Terry. Let's look at your example:

So, you're saying that, as with Katrina, you've remained behind in a natural disaster area, while all of your smarter neighbors have evacuated. So, your premise involves you being a huge dope in the first place.

Then, you see a gang of eight looters headed toward your house, presumably armed. Again, instead of doing the smart thing and getting yourself and your family out of there, you opt instead to grab your trusty firearm and your thirty round magazine, and.... what, exactly? Just mow them down? Or do you wait for them to get close enough to fire back? Either way, by sticking around, you've pretty much guaranteed that you're going to wind up in a prison cell or a grave.

So, to recap, you've just described yourself as someone who's so eager to put bullet holes in human beings that you ignore every better option for your and your family's preservation. That's what I meant by "sounding like a complete lunatic." Thanks for the illustration.

I have been nothing but respectful and courteous to you in this Taoist, I would expect the same in return. I understand that the language of the left is the language of hate right now, but it gets in the way of reasoned discourse.

My example of the greater Katrina issue was more so to show how easy it is for society to break down. Of course I would not still be there. But, there are many sorts of natural and artificial disasters that are not as predictable. Should Californians move away today to avoid getting trapped.

And if I was trapped in a Katrina scale disaster, where would you have me flee to as the looters approach? Dive into the middle of a city overrun by chaos and violence. Even our own government recommends shelter in place as a preferable option in many disasters.

You can ascribe all the motives you wish to this, but it doesn't change the fact that there are plausible situations, where this sort of equipment could be useful.

Can we try to keep this discussion rational please, because in all honesty, I am not the one coming across as the lunatic right now.

Terry, maybe you should re-read my post; what you are construing as insults are actually accurate assessments of the hypothetical person who would find himself in the hypothetical situation that you're claiming supports your point. As I pointed out, not only doesn't it support your point, but it actually undermines your suggestion that you're just a stable guy who likes target shooting.

And yes, what you're suggesting is the definition of prepping- collecting equipment that is only useful in an "end of the world" scenario. You could be using the same argument to defend your wish to own any type of weapon or barter currency imaginable. That's why it's so absurd, and irrelevant to a good faith discussion of these issues.

Taoist, I fear that you are trying to change the argument after realizing that you made the same point that the gun advocates make which is that three 10 round magazines are not really that different than one 30 round magazine. Unless we are talking about the societal breakdowns of poverty or drug use causing someone to burglarize a home your example of a single armed assailant is not what you described. In fact further down in response to Terry you describe the type of societal breakdown that would cause 8 looters to be trying to accost Terry where a larger capacity magazine would potentially be useful. In your own words, a larger capacity magazine makes it easier to attack multiple targets in this situation. While I personally don't think that there is much likelihood of this scenario happening, I do support Terry being able to have a weapon with which he can target shoot as well as feel better able to defend himself. You apparently do as well since in your own words you don't see much difference between three 10 round magazines and one 30 round but you do concede that a 30 round magazine would be better suited to defending multiple targets. Also for the record, I would argue that sound of a chambering shell in a pump action shotgun is a great deterrent to most single armed assailants

Again Taoist, you base your argument on assumptions. I am not stockpiling anything to prepare for the end of civilization (the basic definition of a prepper). I was quite clear as to why I am a collector. I also quite clearly described Katrina as a temporary breakdown. I do believe that eventually our government will get things under control, they just aren't very efficient or quick about it, as recent events have shown.

But you don't need to be a prepper to have basic equipment, supplies, and a plan in place. This is something that the very government that you put so much faith in recommends.

You keep wanting to take my words out to the extreme ends, and ascribe motives to me that just aren't there. This is why we can't have reasoned discourse in this country about such issues, and why this one too will likely fall by the wayside before anything possible useful gets accomplished.

This is your opportunity to get some of those reasonable restrictions passed that even gun owners (for the most part, but not all of course) agree with, such as better background checks, closing the private sale loophole in background checks, training requirements, and registration. But when you shoot for the moon right away, and do so in a confrontational manner, people dig in and get stubborn. The result is the gridlock we see today.

Terry,

I would hardly call banning large capacity magazines "shooting for the moon." In fact, there seems to be a growing consensus that that would be an acceptable step.

You're right - I think that people who respond to the obscene number of mass shootings that we've had lately, by "digging in," as you put it, are just gross. And take the example of the fine ex-Marine who shot his wife seven times in the head - he was one of you stable, law-abiding citizens - until he wasn't.

Seriously, you're defending the ability of everyone, including people like him, to possess enough firepower to shoot up an entire school, movie theater, etc. What is wrong with you?

Assault weapons are not made for self-defense, really? So if a gang of thugs is assaulting you, should we count on the fact that they will not use one of the many millions of assault weapons already on the streets? If they are shooting at you, would you prefer to use a crossbow to defend your home or an assault weapon?

I guess Dale thinks if we ban the use of handguns and assault weapons, murderers will abide by the law and kill with muskets.
Lord knows mass murderers wouldn't want to break the law using banned weapons.

I would bet the military greatly disagrees with you Dale. You know, the ones that actually own and use real assault weapons for offense and personal protection. Please try and use terms correctly as well. The general public without proper licensing is not able to obtain assault weapons.

A lot safer that $2 billion in guard services. More false security from the gun-lover crowd that puts us more at risk.

Question - how many armed sheriff's deputies were present at Columbine HS, and how effective were they at stopping two high school kids, one of whom had a 52-round magazine?

@Keith

Oh? So guards are putting kids at risk?

Spending $900 billion passing and maybe enforcing and taxing and promoting and expanding government over new gun laws. Or spend $2 billon actually protecting the kids. Liberals are so funny on what they spend only on. Maybe we can protect the kids with another recall election. Why are we wasting money protecting Obama's kids with guns? Lets really save and get rids of the police arsenal.

You make it sound like people are addicted to these things.

Alcohol is far more regulated than guns, and by regulated I mean across state lines, rather than the piecemeal gun regs we have a now.

I really could care less that Chicago, Washington or where ever have strict gun laws. Doesn't stop the fact that guns are flowing like water around this country.

Keith... This blog is calling for a BAN on Assault Weapons. The 18th Amendment called for a BAN on alcohol. The 18th was an epic failure by the do-gooder crowd; it was repealed by the 21st, just 13 short years later.

I would expect federal regulation, rather than on a State by State basis. I'm for sensible federal regulations;as you said, 'guns are flowing like water around this country'.

Based on our experiences with the previous 'Assault Weapon Ban' and the folly of the 18th Amendment, it should be very challenging to find individuals using the word 'BAN' in complete possession of their faculties.

Agreed. The author we are responding to above is hardly a conservative himself. So to reprint another so-called "conservative" editorial speaks more to me as a self-serving agenda, than any "moving op-ed" piece. Liberal rationalization knows no bounds.

I agree that we do not do a good enough job with our background checks in this country. Most legitimate gun owners do not want to see guns in the hands of criminals or dangerously unstable people any more than you do. I believe that we have done ourselves no favors opposing reasonable administrative processes for gun ownership, such as background checks, waiting periods, training, and registration.

But frankly, the argument that someone might break in and steal my firearms is a rational distraction as well. Someone could just as easily break in, raid my liquor cabinet, and take out a family in their car after a all night drinking binge.

I have some narcotic pain medications in my house due to an old surgery (stuff I really need to get rid of). Someone could break in, steal it, and sell it to someone who dies of an overdose.

So, should I not be allowed to own anything in my house that could be taken and used, or misused, with evil intent?

Keith ended one of his posts above with the phrase "price of living in society". I agree with the phrase, but he missed a word. It should be "price of living in a FREE society".

And although there is that legitimate need for an infantryman to have that kind of indiscriminate firepower (the smaller caliber also enables a soldier to carry more ammunition) -- there are also military snipers --- One Shot One Kill.

In this country Glock saw a good money making opportunity by selling high capacity, although lower power, guns to police forces -- and now most cops are carrying 9's or 40's with 15 round magazines --- Glock virtually gave them the guns free by taking their 357's in trade, and made huge profits on selling those 357's to civilians.

Arguably this was a very bad move by police forces --- high capacity mags encourage the firing of "to whom it may concern" rounds --- instead of focused rounds at the target. Cases like Diallo who NYC Cops shot at about 48 times, as he was holding a cell phone, are a case in point --- especially considering he was trapped in a closed apt bldg lobby --- and the cops MISSED more than half the shots.

Prior to cops with 16 round shot capacity (15 in the mag and one in the chamber) -- they would have had 357's --- with 6 shot capacity, and the mentality of actually aiming to make each shot count !!

Right here in Milwaukee when we have cops who have fired double digit rounds --- why? We do not need fields of fire on our streets --- aimed shots with higher powered rounds, such as the 357, are much better suited to the police work of the average patrol cop.

There is precedence for limiting the number of rounds a gun can hold --- but ironically, it is "For the Birds" !!!

When hunting Waterfowl, your shotgun must have a plug in the magazine that limits the number of round to three. If you get caught without the plug, you could be fined or even loose your shotgun.

So let's not allow a field of fire out at the birds, but make it OK for on the streets or in the temple or the school ????

As a gun owner all my life, and cognizant of the capabilities of various firearms, and as a grandparent, father, brother, etc......... I would propose the following limits on Rounds a gun can hold in its magazine --- regardless of the shape or form of the weapon itself.

1) Long arms with detachable magazines --- limit of 4 rounds per magazine.
2) Long arms with built in magazines -- limit of 6 rounds.
3) Exception --- 22 caliber long arms with regular 22 loads (not 22 magnums) limit of 30 hot clips or magazines
4) All handguns 8 round maximum capacity, except 22 caliber limit 20 rounds

By limiting the number of rounds that can be fired without the need to reload, we will severely limit the kind of carnage we saw with 20 dead children in Newtown, yet every gun owner will have more than enough capability to protect themselves and others, to be a deterrent to a tyrannical government, and to enjoy any configuration he or she prefers in the weapon's apperance.

These limits on shot capacity that I am proposing would also apply to regular patrol officers weaponry. Limited exceptions can be made for trained and certified SWAT team members, limited to a percentage of a one force's sworn officers.

If heavier weaponry is needed, that is the time to call out the National Guard.

Two fairly recent, and high profile cases determined the equipment and caliber we equip our law enforcement officers with.

The first, and the one that had national impact on upgrading many departments to higher caliber and larger magazine sizes was the tragic death of Captain James Lutz in Waukesha. The after action case studies demonstrated clearly that the firearms that local departments equipped at the time were clearly insufficient to deal with the threat and equipment. The second one, the North Hollywood shootout, where again the officers were vastly outmatched.

Part of the "program" that gun control advocates have used for years, is that there is no need for us to possess equipment such as this. We are told that it holds no useful purpose for defense, and serves in no other role as value.

Part of that mythology has included us being told that we can count on law enforcement to deal with any threats to us that would require that level of force. Now we have here a plan that would place the same restrictions on those same law enforcement officers that are supposed to fill that role.

In the past I have been dismissive of the "slippery slope" argument to gun control, that being that if we give an inch on reasonable legislation, it will only lead to stricter and more draconian measures.

While again, I am hesitant to do that, this is the exact kind of posturing that seems to give credibility to those fears.

One question. Do you know the difference between a duck hunter and a mass murderer?

@Terry Of course there are always anecdotal cases that can be referred to when discussing any topic. However our National Gun policy should not be built on very isolated occurences.

And on the other side of the coin, how many innocent civilians have been killed by police using handguns that are designed for military purposes of putting as much lead downfield as possible, with accurate shots not required ??

I have thought again about how police officers should be equipped, and although I still propose that patrol officers be equipped with magnum revolvers, that encourage actual aiming, and that have more power than the military type semi auto's, and fewer rounds to send off to whom it may concern ---- I do agree that police officers should have immediate access to weapons more suited to an active shooter incident.

I still don't think a 30 magazine .223 is the answer --- the incident you recalled in California was actually resolved by officers getting hunting rifles from a sporting goods store.

I think an appropriate weapon would be more in line with a 30-06 Springfield, which is what the BAR uses and which has the knock down power to incapacitate an active shooter. And I would think that such heavy weapons which would take the place of the traditional 12 gauge shotgun in patrol cars, would be more than adequate with 8 round magazines, and encourage more accurate shooting. Officers could also be trained for longer range fire with a mounted scope.

Unfortunately Luke, while you are attempting to be dismissively sarcastic, there have been similar proposals to both of those ideas you presented. You have to go a lot farther with your sarcastic examples before you run into something absurd enough that those who want to protect us from ourselves will be tweaked by.

Indeed Troy, common sense regulation does need to be part of the conversation. The problem is who's definition of common sense. Do we take Taoist's version, up above, who would label anyone who even talks about allowing possession to be a dangerous extremist, or AWD who has talked about preparing for the coming civil war?

I have mentioned several times above, what I would consider reasonable controls. No one seems particularly interested, but here we go.

1. Licensing requirements. We register cars. We register to vote. There should be a requirement to register firearms, at minimum the military grade ones. Some will say that it would violate the second amendment. Prohibitions violate the second amendment, reasonable administrative process does not.

2. Strengthen background checks, for all sales including private sales (yes even gun shows). This could be farmed out to a new cottage industry, paid for by fees to the prospective owners. It needs to include the mental health aspect, and for this some changes to the medical health privacy act would be required.

3. Strengthen laws and penalties for allowing firearms to fall in the wrong hands. This should include straw buyers, violations of background check requirements, and failing to properly secure the firearms.

4. Waiting periods. Why not?

Undoubtedly this will make neither side happy, and perhaps as such in today's charged atmosphere, it shows it to be the correct approach.

FTT, Does mounting equate to increasing? All of the studies that I have found show a decline of tragedies. Common sense regulation should be based on facts, not emotion.

@Denton Great passion for protecting our rights --- do you have the same passion for all our rights that have been taken away by the Patriot Act and other legislation in the War on Terrorism?