JFerio Wrote:Well, a big part of it is that, for hunting, well, do you really need to fire more than two or three shots to bag your kill? And with self defense against people, the ability to spray the area actually becomes a bigger threat to bystanders than any hypothetical assailant with a weapon.
Actually, most of the arguments I've seen are based on competition and range shooting. Range time isn't unlimited (and often also not free), so there's kind of this thing where they'd like to spend more of it actually shooting instead of reloading.
As for the self-defense thing, there's one thing which needs to be made clear here - a thirty-round magazine does -not- grant the ability to spray an area. No* weapon that a civilian can legally obtain can do that unless it has been illegally modified. One pull of the trigger, one bullet. And someone who actually pays attention to the training won't want to do it anyway, because the goal of shooting at an assailant is to hit them -repeatedly-, and spraying an area makes it unlikely to do it even once**.
There's apparently also some implementation issues that have shown up in previous attempts to regulate magazine sizes.
*Slight exaggeration. Some -very- old automatic weapons are still legal due to grandfather clauses. They are so rare as to be essentially meaningless to the discussion at hand.
**I seem to recall reading some studies to the effect of "Criminals doing stupid shit like this has saved the lives of a lot of cops."
Quote:One of the "modifiers" I've read about regarding the accessibility of guns is effectively eliminating the "one time cost" aspect of acquiring a firearm
Okay, gotta break in there. This is, basically, wrong. Okay, yeah, if someone buys a gun and lets it rot in a box for the rest of eternity, that's a one-time cost. Someone who wants to have a decent chance of using it effectively in a crisis situation is going to need to put in some regular practice. Meaning you've got the cost of range time (unless you've got a place you can do it for free - most don't), ammunition (with some common pistol calibers being frightfully expensive), cleaning supplies, and occasionally replacement parts, there are a lot of ongoing expenses. And the one-time cost isn't exactly pocket change either. Know why I do not, in fact, own a gun? Because between training, storage, practice ammunition, miscellaneous expenses, oh and the cost of the gun itself... I'm probably looking at close to a couple months pay. I haven't got that just lying around. Is your goal really for only the rich to be able to legally acquire guns?
As for the rest of that paragraph and the last one... well, I could go down it line by line, but it seems like those policies would add up to three results.
-Less people having guns. I'm assuming this is, in fact, what you're wanting here.
-Gun owners on average will have less experience with their weapons, and thus be less effective with them when and if the need arises. I'm assuming you would consider this acceptable.
-There will be more crime, more violence, and more death.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'd rather not have the last one, but there's a lot of reason to believe that's what you'd actually get.
Quote:other than carrying it "just in case someone threatens me", which is definitely not a good reason and leads to violent escalation when it happens
So... it's violent esclation and thus bad, if by pulling a weapon someone stops a crime without even firing a shot? I'm not quite following that logic.
Though personally I think the best reason would be "just in case someone threatens another person while I'm around". The chances of it actually coming up are higher, and the chance of successfully intervening probably -much- higher. There's also the demographic effect, which one contributes to even if one never aims their weapon at anything more alive than a paper target.
Dartz Wrote:a weapon that will have to be secured away from the reach of children and hidden safely.
Seems like the best answer to that issue nowadays is biometric safes. Rapid access for the owner, for anyone else not so much.
-Morgan.