3 ms·

> If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. California has attempted to use "safety" as a reason to ban certain guns, yet st

> If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. California has attempted to use "safety" as a reason to ban certain guns, yet strangely LEOs are allowed to buy/use/sell them. We use unsafe things all the time but having a larger capacity magazine makes the wielder much safer in a situation where they need to use their firearm. > What could work well? 'Well regulated Militias' This is a common misunderstanding of the law. "Well Regulated" back then meant "Well supplied" and also the militia is "the people". There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. If that was the case, the millions of magazines that filed into California during part of this case would've caused a massive upswing in crime, it didn't.

jariel 6y ago
"There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. " I didn't say there was. But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. Not only is it blatantly obvious, the evidence is there in every civilised nation. Go ahead and get a passport, and visit another civilised country. Then ask around 'why there is so much less gun violence' and also why 'people don't feel the need to buy guns'. Or even as a UK cop why he doesn't even carry a gun, which is unthinkable in the US. The US has zero credibility on the issue - aside from some legitimate issues around the second amendment - the 'safety' arguments are asinine. Considerably fewer guns in civilised countries leads to less gun violence literally by supply and demand and simple probabilities of people being able to access them.
- bifrost 6y ago
  > But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. There is no such evidence. Your canard about other countries is completely silly, their crime rates are totally different based on their cultures.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    This doesn't strike me as a strong argument. While it is true that cultural similarities between Central Europe and the US are mostly superficial, while the underlying cultures and values are quite different, I don't see why that provides a solid reason to dismiss GP's point. For example, I don't even know how I would get a gun here in Germany, much less a gun that is useful in committing a bunch of murders (and immediately getting arrested, since all guns you can buy are registered as far as I know). So clearly it would be quite difficult for me to shoot a bunch of people up. Of course, I could use use other weapons to hurt or kill people, e.g. a stick or a kitchen knife. And that's what people usually use, so there is clearly some displacement going on (no/few guns available -> use other weapons to commit crimes). However, not all crimes can be easily committed with any weapon. School shootings don't work with a knife (though you would probably still injure or kill a few people), you need a gun (or a bomb) to effectively kill many people quickly. The consequence is that school shootings are incredibly rare.

jariel 6y ago

"There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. " I didn't say there was. But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. Not only is it blatantly obvious, the evidence is there in every civilised nation. Go ahead and get a passport, and visit another civilised country. Then ask around 'why there is so much less gun violence' and also why 'people don't feel the need to buy guns'. Or even as a UK cop why he doesn't even carry a gun, which is unthinkable in the US. The US has zero credibility on the issue - aside from some legitimate issues around the second amendment - the 'safety' arguments are asinine. Considerably fewer guns in civilised countries leads to less gun violence literally by supply and demand and simple probabilities of people being able to access them.

bifrost 6y ago
> But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. There is no such evidence. Your canard about other countries is completely silly, their crime rates are totally different based on their cultures.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  This doesn't strike me as a strong argument. While it is true that cultural similarities between Central Europe and the US are mostly superficial, while the underlying cultures and values are quite different, I don't see why that provides a solid reason to dismiss GP's point. For example, I don't even know how I would get a gun here in Germany, much less a gun that is useful in committing a bunch of murders (and immediately getting arrested, since all guns you can buy are registered as far as I know). So clearly it would be quite difficult for me to shoot a bunch of people up. Of course, I could use use other weapons to hurt or kill people, e.g. a stick or a kitchen knife. And that's what people usually use, so there is clearly some displacement going on (no/few guns available -> use other weapons to commit crimes). However, not all crimes can be easily committed with any weapon. School shootings don't work with a knife (though you would probably still injure or kill a few people), you need a gun (or a bomb) to effectively kill many people quickly. The consequence is that school shootings are incredibly rare.