Magazine Restrictions

[Apathy]

Magazines are limited to 20 rounds, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 15 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 10 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 5 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 1 round limit,

Blatant slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Rick]

In switzerland, there is universal military conscription for males between age 18 and as high as 50. Hundreds of thousands of the military keep assault weapons in their private homes. Also there are millions of other privately owned guns. Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Obviously, there is no causal link between the availability of guns and violent crime. The causes of crime are many and complex.

 

[GenSeneca]

Blatant slippery slope fallacy.

Excerpt from Slippery Slope:

Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

Magazine restrictions vary by state, some states do not have limits while others have a 10 round limit and there are states in between. In every case of a state passing laws to restrict the capacity of magazines the same basic argument has been used, it's the same one that's being offered now: Appeal to fear, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Consequences - All of which are genuine logical fallacies yet I don't hear you calling out Pocket on his use of them.

 

[Centrehalf]

Wow, 4 pages in 12 hours? See what happens when I go live my life? I miss everything. You guys have pretty much covered everything I would have said, just a couple of points.:

1. This whole nuclear weapon nonsense. Whoever brought this up, slap yourself. Even though there are such things as "suitcase nukes" which are man-portable a nuclear weapon is extremely difficult to properly maintain. There is no way an individual could safely maintain one of these, everyone around him would be in danger of radiation poisoning. Clearly a team maintained device in need of extensive regulation which means that bringing it up in this thread was intellectually dishonest. This whole tangent was ridiculous, it was just as stupid as when Laurence O'Donnell said that if you like police and fire services you are a Socialist. When you take an extreme, ridiculous position like this you're no longer engaged in an honest debate, at this point all you're doing is fishing for useful idiots.

2. The reasons for the 2nd Amendment no longer apply because we're not in danger of invasion or insurrection? Here are some names for you: Zetas, MS-13, 18th St., Latin Kings, Bloods, Crips, Hells Angels, I could go on and on. All of these groups have killed innocent Americans, most of these groups tax American citizens, some of these groups are made up of citizens of other nations. many American citizens live in fear because of these groups, if that's not reason to call up the Militia and start clearing out some neighborhoods I don't know what is. The Zetas alone are reason enough to have every American citizen in the Southwest own an M-16 or comparable weapon, and know how to use it.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you grant that a "right to bare arms" is in fact a right, then the onus on why it should be limited falls on the one trying to limit it...

It would be like saying "Yes, you have the right to freedom of religion, just not on Tuesday because you don't go to church that day." Then when questioned on it, telling the person to explain why they need that right to begin with.

If the right exits, the onus is on the person trying to limit it to explain why, not the other way around.

This is an older thread but I wanted to bump it due to the current level of gun control fanaticism that was not present when I first posted. I chose BigRob's post because it well illustrates the tendency of gun control advocates to use emotional appeals to sway people while avoiding substantive discussion.

 

[dogtowner]

This is an older thread but I wanted to bump it due to the current level of gun control fanaticism that was not present when I first posted. I chose BigRob's post because it well illustrates the tendency of gun control advocates to use emotional appeals to sway people while avoiding substantive discussion.

live by emotion and pay some terrible consequences.