Are there any gun control laws that true gun-control advocates don’t like? I’ve been asked this question several times, usually by people inferring that I’m biased in my gun control attitudes. I honestly don’t think that’s the case, but let me try to answer the question and we’ll see . . .

1. Prohibition of sound suppressors.

In some states, I understand it is illegal to own a sound suppressor for a gun. To me this makes no sense. I’d be happy to eliminate these laws. People who qualify to own guns should be able to own and use sound suppressors if they like.

On the other hand, isn’t it possible that some people might misuse them to better commit their crimes? Aside from the Hollywood stereotype of mafia hit men and James-Bond type killers, isn’t it possible that your run-of-the-mill bad guys might benefit from such an accessory? Yes indeed, however, just like your run-of-the-mill bad guys can misuse guns, and total prohibition is not the answer to that, outright bans on sound suppressors is not the answer to this either.

Here are gun control laws that I do support, the explanations for which I’ve written frequently and will forego here since I wanted to focus on any gun control laws I might be comfortable doing away with.

2.  Prohibition of extended magazines for pistols. (I was on the fence about this one but the convincer for me was the Jared Loughner shooting. No need to rehash it here, but it proved to me that high-capacity magazines help to kill people who otherwise might not be killed. The only argument for them that makes any sense to me is that the Jared Loughner-type shootings are extremely rare. Nevertheless, a law prohibiting this particular accessory works for me.)

3. Gun free zones.

4. Requiring permits for concealed carry.

5. Licensing of gun owners.

6. Registration of guns.

7. Background check requirement for private sales.

8. Loss of gun rights for every negligent gun offense.

9. Assault Weapons Ban. (I realize there are problems with describing the proscribed weapons, but can’t quite bring myself to oppose it. Perhaps the California version would work.)

Again, there is only one gun control law I could live without: the ban on suppressors. Does that make me a fanatic or an extremist? I don’t think so. What do you think? I’d especially be interested if you can come up with any other gun control laws I might agree are not needed. I can’t think of any.

Recommended For You

166 Responses to There’s At Least One Gun Control Law I Can Do Without

  1. How about a complete ban on handguns ala Washington, DC or Chicago? Okay or no, mikeb302000? (Ignore the constitutional issues with that. Pretend we live in England.)

  2. The Bill of Rights says “shall not be infringed”. That’s not complicated. Bad people do bad things and stopping them sometimes requires deadly force; that’s why military and law enforcement are armed. Potential victims should be armed as well for the same reason unless they are unable to conduct themselves responsibly because of criminal history, mental instability, young age or other condition such as hoplophobia.

    Item 2. Extended magazines: Dead is dead. One round is too many for a criminal. How does it make any real difference if the magazine holds five, fifteen or fifty rounds when a criminal can carry multiple magazines and reload anyway but the potential victim may not have the opportunity to do so?

    Item 9. Assault weapons: An assault weapon is a medium cartridge, “select fire” or fully automatic, period. One round per trigger press is not an assault weapon regardless of it’s operation and appearance. Machine guns were accorded special status in 1932 and have not been commonly available to civilians since then.

    • Not to quibble over semantics, but you’ve described an assault rifle. An “assault weapon ” is a made up term so that anything that seems scary (rifle, pistol, shotgun, AOW) can be lumped together for the ignorant media…uhhm masses.

  3. None of these do or would do anything to actually reduce crime. They only allow additional charges to be filed when a criminal is caught committing another crime.

  4. Sure, I’ll bite.

    1. I’m with you on suppressors. In my state, they are legal to own, but not to use. I find them beneficial when gopher hunting near livestock.

    2. Extended mags – if you want to limit rounds, that’s not the way to do it. I have a Beretta 92FS with a MecGar magazine. You’d take one glance and say, “nah, that’s not extended,” but I carry 20+1. In addition, a week’s practice and a handful of standard Glock mags, and Loughner would have been able to put more rounds out – you’ve seen reload vids, an extended mag is only an advantage to someone who can’t reload quickly.

    3. Gun free zones are acceptable only if the party responsible for the zone provides armed, trained, and immediately available security. If you are going to disarm me, then you’d better provide eqivalent security.

    4. CCW permit required – I’m a bit on the fence about this one; I could compare it to the requirement for licensing to drive a vehicle, where the licensee must show competence and obey the laws related to the activity. I’m also a strong believer in constitutional carry, in the fact that our rights to arm ourselves shouldn’t be infringed.

    5. Licensing of gun owners – why? I don’t need a license to buy a car, or a hammer, or groceries, or a case of ball bearings.

    6. Registration of guns – Good in theory, but provides little to ameliorate your underlying reasons for wanting this. How does a gun registry make things safer, especially when people who use guns for illegal purposes, by definition, don’t follow laws like this. This is a ton of paperwork, hassle, db administration, funding, etc. that wouldn’t save a single life.

    7. Background check for private sales – No. Simply put, this forces the seller to become an agent of the state. What’s next, driving history required before selling a car? What about gifts, loans, exchanges, and the like? If I take my buddy shooting, would I be required to run a background check on him before handing him my .22 plinker? What if the background check returns falsified info on a criminal? Who is liable at that point? The individual seller, the agency providing the checks, the criminal?

    8. Loss of rights for negligent offenses – you mean like loss of driving privilege for drunk driving? What defines a negligent offense? What about an accidental discharge? And would this apply to everyone, or just civilians? I mention this, because we’d be affecting LEO and licensed security personnel, when you consider negligent use overall.

    9. Assault weapons ban – semantics, Mike. What do you want to ban? Capacity? Color? Sights? Stocks? You’ve heard it before, assault weapons, by definition, are selective fire and capable of fully automatic fire. Do we band handguards? Fore-ends? Direct-impingement weapons? Guns which are sold to the military?

    Here’s what I’m for: zero restrictions on guns, zero restrictions on ammunition, and a mandatory ten/twenty/life type law for criminal offenses committed with a gun. The problem has never been the tool selected; it has always been the intent of the tool user.

  5. Although its a pipe dream, I’d really like to see the repeal of the so-called Hughes Amendment (banning the manufacture of new machineguns for civilian sale). It’s an elitist law that basically results in richy-rich guys being able to own guns that are, as an practical matter, unavailable to Joe Six-Pack. It just makes no sense from a policy perspective to limit a certain class of weapons to rich dudes.

    Oh, and that 922r law is just f**king stupid.

  6. “2. Prohibition of extended magazines for pistols.
    I was on the fence about this one but the convincer for me was the Jared Loughner shooting. No need to rehash it here, but it proved to me that high-capacity magazines help to kill people who otherwise might not be killed. The only argument for them that makes any sense to me is that the Jared Loughner-type shootings are extremely rare. Nevertheless, a law prohibiting this particular accessory works for me.”

    No – that’s not the only argument for them. The principal argument for them, as with everything else that you mentioned, is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specifically enumerated Constitutional right. As with other constitutional rights, such as the right to free speech, courts do not engage in relative balancing acts where they weigh the costs of an articulated right against the perceived benefits of the right. The fact that it is expressly provided for by the Constitution / Bill of Rights conclusively resolves the question in favor of liberal, non-restrictive gun laws.

    The only question is the extent to which the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon. To answer that question, we need to consider that the Bill of Right’s purpose was to provide people with the means to form well regulated militias in the event of need. Whether the need came from a repressive state, totalitarian national government, external threat, or general criminal lawlessness (the fact that organized police departments did NOT exist and that people had to self-police at the time of founding and for quite some time after seems to be lost on people), Americans were guaranteed the right to keep the same weapons as the government so that they could respond to threats.

    This is typically where the silly argument of “well, then you’re arguing that someone should be able to have nuclear weapons” comes into play. The response is simple – no I’m not. I’m arguing that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms / normal capacity magazines that have substantially lawful purposes. How do we know what has a substantially lawful purpose? Turn to what police departments have. Unless they are planning to enter into a crime spree (in which case people need guns even more), their weapons are designed to serve them in times of civil need and the people should have a right to access similar weapons.

    Police have 30 round magazines on many of their weapons, consequently the people have a right to those same magazines.

  7. 1. You don’t support a ban on sound supressors becuase of the limited use in criminal activity, but 2. support a ban on extended pistol magazines when they are used about as often as sound supressors. This I don’t understand.

    3. Gun Free zones have been proven to have no effect on a criminal intent on shooting people in these gun free zones and only disarm the intended victims. You cannot say with certainty that if another person had been armed in any of the several gun free zone shooting that he could not have prevented some deaths. I can say with certainty that those victimes never had a chance to protect themselves.

    4. You should ebrace the permit system used in Vermont. It works very well.

    5 & 6. States that currenly have licensing and registration of firearms and owners don’t have any less violent crime than any other states. As I have demonstrated on my own blog, the states with the strictest gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and murder than do states with the least restrictive gun laws. I have also shown that states with the strictest gun control laws have a higher rate of gun crime than states with the least restrictive laws. Apparently restictive laws don’t restrict crimals all that much.

    7. Even CSGV has acknowledged that private sale NICS would not prevent crimes where the criminal is intent on breaking the law.

    8. Why stop with 2a rights? Shouldn’t this be applied to All rights? If you’re such a miscreant as to lose one right, they should all be taken. No right to speech, religion, or privacy should also be included with this, either all or nothing.

    9. Assault weapons are used slighty more than extended pistol magazines in criminal activity. The last AWB had no effect on criminal behavior or crime rates. It would be more logical to ban automobiles than Assault Weapons. Without the car, there would be very few drive by (it would be more like ride by) shootings, bank robberies, kidnappings, etc.

    Gun control laws do nothing to control criminals. What we need to do is make being a violent criminal the most dangerous job in the world.

  8. What gives an entity, even a government entity, the right to ban something it makes, procures, sells, and uses every day?

    My fellow gun lovers (even at this site) are phrasing questions in the wrong way. “What part of the 2nd Amendment don’t you understand” is good – “what gives you (gov. entity) the right to deny me of an item when you have more (and better/more destructive) items of a similar nature” is better . . . at least that is my opinion.

    The U.S. Gov. in all its entitites has bought, made, sold, and used weapons to the extreme. It does not have more standing to tell me what I can and cannot own.

  9. Wash – Rinse – Repeat. Nothing new here, just an hoplophobe who fails to understand 1) the Constitution, and 2) the necessity and importance of self defense, rather than dependance upon a totally REACTIONARY police force which is not designed or intended as a defense force.

    1) How about freeing up the restrictions on sound suppressors because when I practice with my pistol it makes a lot of noise and would make less noise thus protecting my hearing and allowing me to be far far more proficient (thus safer to myself and others) with my defensive weapon? How about protecting the hearing of myself and my family in an actual defensive gun use?

    2) You don’t like extended magazines. You don’t like guns that shoot solid projectiles. We will not be able to disarm the criminal population, but you would limit the law abiding population in our ability to defend ourselves? Moronic, rehashed argument which has been overused by yourself and other crazed gun fearing hoplophobes on this website, the news, and every known medium for arguing against the 2nd amendment.

    3) Gun Free Zones? No argument here? Just a listing. Why do you support an area where criminals are insured a disarmed pool of victims?

    4) Permits for Concealed Carry? Again, No argument. Why do you trust government to determine how to restrict and disarm the law abiding population? When 1/4 of the reason (the 25% that isn’t recreation/sport, self defense, and hunting) that the 2nd amendment exists is to protect Americans from a tyrannical government, trusting government to regulate freedom is a bad choice.

    5) Licensing of gun owners? See the response for #4. Gun ownership is a guaranteed freedom according to the Constitution of the United States of America. Licensing is by definition regulation. The State cannot regulate a right, or freedom. The Constitution, you see, regulates the government, not the other way around.

    6) Gun Registration. See the response for #4 and #5. Again, Mike B has no concept of the Constitution.

    7) Background Checks. How has background checks kept guns out of the hands of violent criminals? OK, I’ll concede that it might make the weapon purchase less convenient than a trip to the corner store. But it doesn’t prohibit said violent criminal from finding a purchaser of an “illegal gun”. IT just makes the purchase happen in an alley or some back room deal. It does make it more of a hassle for the law abiding citizen who isn’t going to buy the gun from the guy in the alley.

    8) Loss of gun rights for EVERY negligent gun offense. Hmm. No arguments for this one either. Just a listing. Not to sound repetitive but how does this make anyone safer? What is the definition of EVERY negligent gun offense? If you mean criminal use of a gun, well after said criminal has served his time, is no longer on parole, no longer in prison, then haven’t they been punished and can’t they have their constitutional rights restored? I’ve been on the fence on this one myself. But, as there is no guaranteed right to vote in the Constitution, but there is a guaranteed right to own and bear arms in the Constitution I think once someone has paid their debt to society they have actually paid their debt an should have all of their constitutionally guaranteed rights restored.

    9) Assault weapons ban. No you don’t like selective fired weapons with a full auto capability in the hands of anyone but criminals and the agents of the government. A government which proves (fast and furious anyone) that they cannot be trusted with weapons, and I doubt anyone would argue criminals should be trusted with them. While I have no desire for a fully functional assault rifle, why should I not have the option to be armed equally to the two forces which have the greatest likelyhood to impose force (deadly force) on me? That would be a criminal, and the government.

    You need to learn how to argue with logic, bring something new to the table and not rehash the same old garbage. If you are actually after a constructive discussion and hope to change an open mind, or sway one, then you need some substance. If you just want to bang your fingers on your keyboard, let one of your cats walk across it a few times and submit that. It has the same degree of argumentative weight.

    • + infinity. I think he is too good for traffic though. Most of what he says is not the truth about guns, but lies, ivory tower nonsense, and maybe some ignorance. Keep him to the comments, but don’t legitimize him. Or preferably send him back to his own blahg.

  10. Someone explain this post to me. Was it supposed to provoke discussion or does it reveal the true feelings of the blog? Color me confused.

    • RF has stated he’d like to see more diversity of opinion on the blog in the interest of presenting both sides of the argument. Problem is, it seems Mike is the only anti-gunner so far that bit. My take is that I think its a good idea….they just need to find someone better at it.

      • sprinkled into the pining.. I mean the opinion… shouldn’t there be a bit of substance. Some argument in support of the positions. Something NEW to the discussion? I could back date a huffington post article or go to the brady website for this list of nothing.

  11. This is why we come back to TTAG time after time — for the humorous articles by some really funny writers. I really loved the part of the article where the writer says “you can have suppressors, but we’re taking away your guns.” Killer humor right there.

    Next up — Bruce Krafft on “Ten Gun Control Laws That I Really Love.” Trust me, it’s gonna be sidesplitting.

  12. Gun-free zones are only okay if you have a security force able to fully enforce this (I.E. metal detectors, armed guards, the works) if not, then it’s just a sign that really doesn’t do jack shit aside from make the feeble-minded feel safe.

    Also, licencing and registration really don’t stop anything, and as Nazi Germany taught us, it’s the first step to totalitarianism. sure, it’s probably not gonna happen, but I’d rather be safe than sorry. oh yeah, and it doesn’t do anything to stop people using illegal weapons or spree killers. wasn’t there a shooting in ENGLAND a few months ago? yeah, registration didn’t stop that.

    and assault weapons ban is honest-to-god retarded. it has got to have been thought up by a third grader. pistol grips, flash hiders, collapsible stocks… every single thing about it can be gotten around if you’re a criminal. all it does is tell people that they can’t have a tactical-looking gun; and while I’m not all for the tacticool bandwagon, I think that if people want a tactical gun, they should be able to have one. it’s common sense freedom. what if somebody told you you couldn’t buy a car that you really wanted because it has too many “dangerous” features?

    Oh, yeah. and guys, go easy on Mikeb. even though he lives out of states (and yet still meddles in our affairs), give him the Benefit of the First. He can say what he likes- even if we don’t agree with it.

  13. “Does that make me a fanatic or an extremist?”

    Yes, it does. In the context of our constitutional republic, rejection of the constitution is radical.

    But more importantly, you’re irrelevant. You’re allowed to make blog posts because it’s good for traffic and TTAG seems committed to allowing diverse viewpoints. But you represent the remnants of a failed world viewpoint that is being swept away by the tides of history (despite a temporary resurgence due to #occupyresolutedesk).

    To paraphrase Reagan, welcome to the ash-heap of history.

  14. “I’d especially be interested if you can come up with any other gun control laws I might agree are not needed. I can’t think of any.”

    Thank you for illustrating the classic gun control mindset.

  15. Focusing only on #3 – Gun Free Zones, can MikeB30200 cite an incident where a GFZ stopped a “real” crime from happening? A real crime defined as a “bad” guy bringing a gun into a GFZ with the intent of killing people at random versus a “good” citizen who unintentionally brought a gun into the FGZ (Feel Good Zone), which is what it really is to the lawmakers that created the GFZ.

    GFZ’s are another example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. The intent was to create a safe environment while the unintended consequence is that people in a GFZ are less safe than if they were in a location that permitted CCW.

  16. Gun control advocates are in BIG trouble. People like guns more every day. “They” are going to let us go to the camps with our guns and freedom of speech.

  17. Wow, I just cannot stop laughing………

    Everyone can own a suppressor, writes Mikeb30200, so that when every one doesn’t have a gun they can all remain silent. Mikeb30200 is so hilarious…….

    Jez… get a clue. The second ammendment, and all of the documents that sit with it, are there to protect you from any and all governments taking your ‘life rights/freedom’ away. We have been fighting ever since their writting to keep them and help others to understand. Looks like we keep fighting.

    You will loose this fight Mikeb20300, as you are on the wrong side of human rights and freedom.

    • My fight is not to remove all guns from people and let them have suppressors. You’re the one making people laugh with that interpretation of what I stand for.

  18. Your suggestion that CA laws for assault weapons night work nationwide would be laughable if it was not for the fact CA legal weapons are effecting all other states through higher Mfg. costs as well as not preventing mass killings in the state the laws apply to.
    ==============================
    I have never met an anti-gun fanatic who has not changed their tune the day they could have used a firearm and it was unavailable thanks in part to their own moral high ground.

  19. California model for AW ban “might” work? Sorry, it doesn’t work in California. The law is so convoluted and arcane that not even the police can distinguish between a lawful weapon and an unlawful one. Some officers will simply confiscate every black rifle and let someone else–like an armorer–figure the rest out. California requires a “bullet button” that is intended to require the use of a tool to remove the magazine–but a loose button that allows the magazine to be removed without a tool is an illegal weapon and a felony charge. Why does a bayonet spike make a weapon illegal? Or an unpinned flash suppressor? A folding stock? The law does not focus at all on the features that make these semi-auto rifles any more “dangerous” than any other weapon. If neither the police nor the average citizen can reliably tell whether or not they are violating some malum prohibitum statute, the law does not work.

    • Bingo – I’m amazed that their gun laws have sustained due process challenges. I have seen civil cases where gun owners sued the police because they had the SAME gun confiscated three different times, had the gun deemed legal, and then had it confiscated even more. It’s clear that CA’s gun ban works rather well – it gives people the illusion of free choice while radically and arbitrarily reducing their choices.

  20. It would have been better to let this post go without comment. C’mon, posting a retarded anti-gun rights screed on a Gun Blog? Can you say desparate attention whore? How about obvious provocation? Seriously, let’s not waste any more time and energy engaging this any futher.

    • I think we should all appreciate Mike more. He’s giving us a chance to hone our logical debate skills

      • Maybe what some of my antagonists fear is that some of the readers might find my arguments compelling and join the gun control movement. For that I should be silenced or ignored.

        Others appreciate hashing out these arguments over and over again, sometimes finding nuances previously unexplored. That’s the part I like. A post like this one was especially helpful for me to seriously consider and put down in black and white what I think about gun control laws, if any, that are truly silly or unnecessary.

        • I’m just curious to see how much prodding it will take for you to
          present one citation to support any argument you make.

        • Have you forgotten about that one I presented about intentional
          homicide UK vs. US? You sound like some of you more passionate
          followers now, conveniently forgetting things in order to insinuate
          and insult. Not only have I presented citations and facts and
          statistics a time or two, what I argue using nothing more than
          common sense and logic, makes sense too.

        • Mike, I don’t think I’ve seen that argument, but good job if you presented valid statistics. But then you go back to saying that “common sense” is sufficient to make an argument. It’s not. The reason that it’s insufficient is that everyone has a different version of it based on their personal worldview and life experience. Having an argument where everyone’s starting points are different isn’t useful. Logic works though, but logic is the process of formal reasoning (either deductive or inductive) from evidence. You see, a valid argument can still be false if the premises it is based on are false. So if you want to be claiming that you’re using logical reasoning, you need to prove the truth of your premises.

        • Mike, you forgot, once again, to cite your sources. But, as Caesar is a reasonable man, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics puts the 1995* rates at about 5 to 1.
          It also shows that the UK has 2.3 times the US assault rate, 1.8 times the US burglary rate, and 2.2 times the US motor vehicle theft rate. In addition, a reported rape in the US is around 8 times more likely to result in a conviction than one in the UK (and rape is a crime whose reporting rate is correlated strongly with perceived conviction rate).

          So, what I’m saying is, what’s your point? For once, your failure is in attempting to make a point, rather than failing to provide evidence. So find some more evidence, and link that 5 to 1 ratio to firearms, rather than demographics, history other confounding variables**. Good Luck!

          *I am not going to go looking for your evidence. I happened to have this page open.
          ** Gave you a bit of a hint here, so you can look for evidence that actually helps support your point.

  21. Mike, I’ve found your posts largely uninformative and dogmatic, however, our esteemed editor continues to toss your offal our way, so I shall respond in kind. I do recognize that we benefit from the opportunity to exercise our debate tactics, so here goes.

    It’s great that you can find it in your massive heart to allow those few people you think should be the tiny minority allowed to have firearms also have suppressors. You know, until someone is killed with a suppressor-equipped weapon and you call for the ban on those too. You say that despite the possibility of suppressors enabling some theoretical crime, you still support the ability (right is far too strong a word for you, methinks) to have suppressors. Well, how is that different from large magazines? Or bayonet studs? I’ll hazard a guess no one has been murdered with a fixed bayonet in this country in at least a hundred years. So why do you support making weapons illegal based on a cosmetic bit of metal? How about pistol grips (in your beloved “assault weapon” ban)? How does a pistol grip on a shoulder fired weapon make it any more lethal? It’s nothing more than an ergonomic preference, yet it makes firearms look “scary”, so out it goes, eh? Proper logic there. What about extendable stocks? What about short barreled rifles (incidentally, I’m fine with classifying them as pistols, but why make an entire category of weapon illegal because it has a shoulder stock and a short barrel, surely that is not more concealable than a pistol, nor more lethal than a rifle)? Do you or any of your fellow anti-rights enthusiasts have any remote concept of how firearms work, mechanically? Why should people who think the “shoulder thing that goes up” is a real item be allowed to make laws regarding firearms? Back on point. Talk to me about trigger weight laws. “Saturday Night Special” laws targeting cheap firearms for poor people. Barrel length laws. Why 16 inches? What is magical about that length? How about laws that make it illegal to transport your weapon anywhere except directly to/from a range/hunting property, and it’s a felony if you stop for a burger? Talk to me, Mike, in your generous un-biasosity (yes, I just made that up). Tell me about how plastic stocks are more dangerous. Tell me about how how suppressors are cool, but flash suppressors are evil. So scaaaaary looking, good heavens! Tell me why shotgun barrels are limited to 18 inches (not the 16 for rifles). Go on, explain to me how choke tubes work, and why at less than 18 inches, a perfectly dandy break-action shotgun for birds becomes a dangerous threat to society. Tell me why a weapon sized for a child is illegal. Go on, Mike, I’ll be here. And if you get through all this foolishness, I’ve got more for you. You laid it out there, you said there’s only one gun law you’d toss. Now defend the rest.

    • +1

      Im curious to see a response to this , I too would like to know all of these things from an avid Anti-Gun activist. Ive always wondered what goes on in the mind of an anti constitutionalist that is fighting to effectivly destroy our rights….

      • I did read your reason, and it makes no sense when compared to your stance on suppressors. Suppressors might be “misused” to commit crimes, but “total prohibition is not the answer”. Ok, let’s assume that’s your standard. A paragraph later, you say that extended mags mean people could be killed who wouldn’t otherwise be killed. Now, would you say that those magazines were “misused”? Setting aside the mechanical aspects of why magazines have as many bullets as they do, talk to me about your logic here. Would you still support suppressors if they were used to kill people who you think wouldn’t have otherwise been killed? Is your support for magazine laws just bad logic, or is your support of legalizing suppressors merely a tactical fair-weather bone you throw to people to make yourself seem like slightly less of a psycho than you are? Because it has to be one or the other. If suppressors were legal and common, it’s only a matter of time before someone is killed with a suppressed firearm.

      • And I really want an answer on the bayonet stud/lug. I’m going to need you to point out under your “magazine” standard (people being killed who otherwise wouldn’t have been) where the people being killed with fixed bayonets are. How on earth can you justify that one?

        • The bayonet thing and the stock thing are all part of the AWB, I think, and I said there are problems with the description of proscribed items.

          If there’s a separate law banning guns with a bayonet stud, fantastic, I’ll add that to my list of laws I can do without. That would bring it up to two. At this rate, …

        • No, don’t weasel, don’t squirm. For the sake of civility, I won’t belabor it, let’s chalk this one up in my column and move on. We’ll work through this. That’s two.

          Now let’s talk pistol grips on rifles/shotguns. Not stock-less weapons, but weapons with both a shoulder stock and a pistol grip. Illegal under the AWB. Concede or explain your support for this part of the rule.

        • I already conceded the fact that AWB laws are poorly written and need improvement.

          How about this, until that’s done, I don’t support them. Fair enough.

          There’s another one we didn’t mention. Waiting periods. Why didn’t any of you guys mention that? I asked for your help in identifying laws I might not go for.

          In the list of gun laws I don’t like I can include the waiting period for taking possession of a gun with a small qualification. First time buyers have to wait. Those who already own guns don’t. The reasons are obvious. What do you think?

        • Are you seeing your own pattern Mike? Gun laws are easy to support when you don’t have to actually defend them. Anyhoo, that’s 3.5 then, on we go. Next up: The big .50. Banned in California despite having never, not once been used in the commission of a crime. At this rate you’ll have a whole list!

        • Excellent, I’m 3/3. See how fast “reasonable” gun control breaks down when you apply, you know, reason? Next, Short-Barreled Rifles. Why exactly are these illegal (or require a class3 license)?

  22. Well see hear is the problem with gun “control” laws. No matter what the “surprime court” says, they ALL are unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. It can’t get any simpler then that.

    • Frank, that’s not simple at all. Your gun rights are already infringed. You should be embarrassed to even mention that antiquated phrase from that antiquated amendment.

      Unless you live in a cave in Idaho, you are already accepting many “infringements” on your gun rights.

      • No, you should be embarrassed to further the argument that because your intellectual ancestors managed to infringe on people’s human rights, therefore you have the responsibility to further infringe on it. Under that standard, I could state that because of the Alien and Sedition Acts, you should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with me.

      • So does that mean the the rest of the Bill of Rights is antiquated as well? Would you be as quick to defend laws that infringe on #1, 3, 4, or 5? I doubt that very much. Like it or not, the second amendment should hold as much clout as any of the other 9.

  23. I can’t think of anything less worthy of my time to read “diversity” like this nonsense. I have stood up for the second amendment since I was 15 years old and I never felt the need to listen to pro gun control arguments. To me, this just inserts toxicity into the blog. I would think twice about visiting much if this keeps on. Of course, it’s your sandbox.

  24. I had to go and see WHO authored this screed. I thought I might have to write a note to the site owners and then remove TTAG from my bookmarks. What a relief to see it was MikeB. He’s a fascist who believes it is alright to infringe on everyones rights since someone might disagree with him.

    I understand loyal opposition as a concept but I don’t support racism and fascism in any form. Don’t give him a voice here. He can start his own site.

    Muddyboots

  25. “Gun free zones” are exactly where gun violence happens. They should just go ahead and make murder illegal, because that would solve everything, amirite??

    By the way, the ‘California version’ of anything is generally terrible …unless, however, you happen to be part of the state legislature passing the laws, in which case you can exempt yourself from said laws.

    I want the 30 seconds of my life it took to read this post back. =D

  26. 2. Prohibition of extended magazines for pistols. Magazines can quickly be reloaded and multiple guns can be carried. Heck, M1 Garands with a fixed magazine and stripper clips can quickly be reloaded.

    • +1
      I need to do some home work, but in the last decade or ever since Columbine, how many gun related rampages, i.e. three or more injuries or deaths took place in gun free zones?
      I am willing to bet the vast majority were.

    • Studies show that gun free zones have prevented ten times more gun violence than they’ve allowed.

      That’s a joke, because studies cannot prove a negative outcome, but think about it. Think about the teachers and janitors in colleges who would have done something stupid when they were fired or when they caught their wife cheating on them with the basketball coach, if they’d been allowed to be armed.

      Think about the postal workers who lost their houses in the crisis and one more straw put them over the brink, if they’d been armed.

      And on and on it goes. Of course you guys are too biased to accept any of that, but I just wanted to throw it out there. Guns do more harm than good.

      • This is annoying, the server move ate my posts. I showed you how to
        provide evidence that GFZs reduce crime inside of them. You haven’t
        bothered to provide that evidence, why not? “Gun Free Zones have
        prevented ten times more gun violence than they’ve allowed” is a
        positive claim. I gave you a template for a statistical test you
        can perform on existing data. The test template: Find a type of
        common GFZ that has similar areas that allow guns. Compare the
        number of violent crimes that occur in the class of areas with guns
        to the number that occur in the class of areas designated as GFZs.
        By the way, Postal workers are no more violent than any other class
        of people, but good job perpetuating a baseless stereotype.
        Finally, two things about ” Of course you guys are too biased to
        accept any of that.” First, nothing in that post remotely resembles
        evidence, if they included specifics, they’d be anecdote but as it
        is they’re stories. Second, dismissing your opponent’s claims based
        on an alleged and unsubstantiated bias is called poisoning the
        well; it’s an endless font of shitty debate.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

        • Sorry for the missing posts. As a writer is like a little death—and not the French translation of that phrase. We’re on it [see: this afternoon’s Housekeeping post].

        • No problem. I’ve moved computers enough that I can’t imagine how
          annoying migrating servers must be.

        • Mike, you pick whatever you want. I happen to know that Utah schools allow firearms while most other schools are GFZs, but you are free, and I encourage you, to use another set of similar GFZs/non-GFZs.

  27. 9. Assault Weapons Ban. Yeah right. They have been so great in CA that the LEOs do not even know what an Assault Weapon is.
    Technically, an Assault Weapon is a Sturmgewehr as in MP44 which was capable of full auto fire. So really, all semi-auto rifles are really not Assault Weapons.

  28. 6. Registration of guns.
    Hitler would love this one.
    Nein, mein Fuhrer!
    Sadly, the BATF has E-trace and registration already.

  29. 4. Requiring permits for concealed carry.
    Most States require permits for concealed carry already.
    5. Licensing of gun owners.
    To hunt, you have to take a Hunter Safety Course in Indiana. It is taught on a mass scale to Middle School Kids.
    I do not know if the State tracks this or not and I hope they do not. To get a Hunting License, proof of a Indiana Hunter Safety Course is required.

  30. 7. Background check requirement for private sales.
    If the BATF cannot trace the history of a gun by various State records, E-Trace, Gun Store Records, and about 3 phone calls, the agents should be fired. Buying and selling guns to unqualified individuals will get you a 5 year membership at the Federal Fitness Club.

  31. 8. Loss of gun rights for every negligent gun offense.
    I think Jeff Cooper is correct, private gun owners have more of an interest of getting the use of a gun right than what a hired government agent does.
    Private owners are doing all of this on their time and nickel.
    Government agents are provided equipment and are paid to learn.
    In my experience, the Government agents get it wrong in a much greater frequency than the Private individuals do.

  32. I consider none of your points to be valid, except allowing suppressors. Why not just punish the criminals? Why are you so in favor of government control? Do you advocate for that in any other area besides guns? Why?

  33. Well you know I am treated like a criminal from my local government. I might has well be, although I have never broken a law, and I am not wanted. I am married, and have kids, and work a lot.
    But I live in California, so I might as well be a convicted felon! The list of illegal guns is so long, it is pathetic. Unless I am an armed guard or police officer, forget about getting a concealed carry. They might as well said no concealed carry period, but that doesn’t stop bad people from carrying.
    There are those awesome bullet buttons! You know so you don’t kill half the sate! And if I want a 50 cal for long range target forget that too. Never mind the Barrett costs $15,000 but you know all those bad guys will buy one right?
    The state treats me like a criminal, and second class citizen. It needs to stop!

  34. Yeah, a California-style ban on rifle pistol grips would, I bet, fix all the problems with rifle being used in 2.5% of all homicides. Sure we can’t actually DESCRIBE the guns that would be affected but the fact that you’d have to hold the gun differently or use a bullet button glove to instantly swap mags should do… something?

  35. Mikeb30200, would you be kind enough to answer a few questions about your gun-control beliefs? I’ve told other gun-control advocates that I’d certainly entertain changing MY pro-gun stance and adopting their anti-gun ways if they could only explain (in some detail) how these items “work” in the real world.

    Your #2 — Extended magazines. If my Glock 19 was designed as a 15-shot weapon, then the magazine is not “extended”. However, my friend’s 1911-style gun normally holds 8 shots in the thinner magazine; if he gets an extended magazine that holds 15 shots, what logic can you use to ban his mag as too dangerous, while still allowing me to possess mine? What assurances can you give that this is not the beginning of a slipperly slope (given that 10 shots was the magic cut-off for the former AWB magazine restrictions)? You do realize that your impossible-to-quantify explanation that “high-capacity magazines help to kill people who otherwise might not be killed” is nothing more than a gob of grease on that inclined plane, right? What IS the new, improved “magic number” of bullets that you and other gun-control advocates will trade-off against lives lost in a criminal act, at least until a crime is committed with one of THOSE magazines in a weapon?

    3. Can you explain how “Gun Free Zone” laws or ordinances prevent or reduce mass murders of the type that have been committed in these zones, over and over again? You do realize that criminals, pretty much by definition, do not obey laws, and that means that these laws only disarm the law-abiding? So-called “studies” aside, has there EVER been ANYONE who was later caught breaking the law, and said (with a straight face), “Yeah, I was gonna go kill them at that other place, but once I saw the Gun Free Zone sign, I changed my mind.”?

    5. and 6. Please explain how registration of owners and/or guns prevents or reduces violent crime. Another shackle on the law-abiding (paid for in time and money by the same), and nuisance to be ignored for the criminal — with absolutely no benefit. You do realize that courts have held that felons cannot be required to register guns that they (illegally) own, as it constitutes self-incrimination, right? Are you aware of how registration has been used as a prelude to confiscation in the past?

    9. You do realize that the previous Assault Weapon Ban took no weapons off the street; it only banned manufacture of new weapons with the seemingly-selected-at-random “evil” features? Would that be good enough for you (“freezing” the number of deadly weapons and deadly uses at their current numbers), or would you try to collect those that are currently legally owned? Are you aware of the reviews of the effectiveness of the old AWB, and if so, is this a sign that the (largely useless) former law should be permanently dropped, or that it should be expanded?

    There’s that darn slippery slope again…it’s still there, even if you aren’t the one personally greasing it…

    • You really know how to turn this into a tedious drill, don’t you? Many of the other commenters could answer these questions for you since they’ve read my answers over and over again.

      2. Isn’t 15 or 17 about the maximum for “normal” magazines? In Loughner’s case, fewer people would have died if he’d been limited to one of those.
      3. Gun-free zones are responsible for numerous prevented incidents of gun violence. The staff and students on campuses, the post office employees and all the others are subject to the same stresses and problems as everyone else. Whether you want to admit it or not, some of you “lawful gun owners” do go off the deep end now and again. Those who do that in gun free zones have not made the news because there were no guns handy.
      5 and 6. Registration and licensing is necessary to make straw purchasing go away. This is one of the chief sources of criminal guns and it could be easily stopped. This would be combined with no more personal transfers without background checks and for the first time you lawful and legitimate gun owners would have to be responsible for your property.

      I forgot to include safe storage laws. This one gets a big thumbs up from me in order to cut down on theft. All you guys who so love the freedom to store you guns under the pillow or in the nightstand drawer should be constrained by federal law to do the right thing since you can’t bring yourselves to do it on your own.

      • So you would permit a gun owner to own a gun, but then store it in a safe? Can I remove it from the safe when there is a crash in the dead of night? Oh, excuse me mister intruder while I open my safe? Crud, I also have to get this stupid lock off of my defensive tool. The Constitution guarantees an American’s right not only to own, but also to “BEAR” arms. This means to possess, and use for defense. The right thing is for law abiding persons to have the means to defend ourselves. Criminals aren’t going to limit themselves, but you would limit the average joe citizen from the means to defend themselves. When seconds count, the police are going to respond in minutes. When my home alarm indicated an intruder the police were here in three and a half minutes. In fewer than five seconds my handgun was in my hands, in battery, and prepared to defend my family. This was possible because it was holstered in my night stand and not forcing me to fumble with locks, or safes. That it was a false alarm made everyone breath easy. Had it not been, in the three and a half minutes to respond to my house alarm (not phone call) what harm could a determined criminal do? I’ll keep my handgun out of the safe, magazine loaded, and not be a victim of your oppression MikeB.

        • Try being reasonable instead of just contentious. You’re over-dramatizing the difficulty of safe storage.

          How about putting it like this, any gun in your home has to be under your immediate control or else locked up. That would mean when you go out to the local road house for a little karaoke, you can’t leave a gun or two lying around for anybody to find. If your gun is misused by anyone, you’re going to have to explain why you weren’t able to prevent that from happening.

          I don’t see that that’s overly burdensome and it would certainly cut down on the theft.

        • Why isn’t it the fault of the CRIMINAL for stealing a gun and using said gun in a crime?

          BTW, new laws do not prevent crime, they only criminalize previously legal activities.

          You should also read some real information on where guns used in crimes come from. They do not traditionally come from straw purchases. Look at the released NY data, where guns are shown to be in the possession of criminals for YEARS before a crime occurs.

          As someone who is from NY, I can tell you it is FAR simpler and cheaper to buy an illegal gun off the street than to have someone straw purchase one for them. Remember, for straw purchases to work, you have to convince a historically law abiding citizen to break the law. Considering you can buy a street gun for 1/2 the price of a new gun (street guns have been used in crimes and therefore are worth less to criminals), it doesn’t make sense to straw purchase and the numbers reflect that.

        • So a gun must either be on my person, or locked up? What is my “immediate control?” A gun in a holster attached to the underside of the sink in my kitchen is “under my control” I hid it there. By the way, my kids know it is there. My wife knows it is there. That is the whole purpose of it being there. If I am not home, I want everyone in my home to be capable of defending my home. It’s their home too. The hand print gun safe that allows quick possession is too costly, it is an additional cost, equivalent to a tax, or penalty on top of the cost of the firearm. Requiring such is unconstitutional. You cannot restrict my constitutional right to keep and bear arms with costly, burdensome expenses any more than you do with free speech. We don’t say that you can only speak if you use an expensive recording devise with computerized filters to restrict what might be deemed dangerous language by some governing body. We say government cannot restrict our freedom which is not granted us by government. The Constitution restricts GOVERNMENT not the other way around.

        • Fine, you’re responsible for it. if you delegate that responsibility to family members you’re still responsible. If something goes wrong with that gun you go straight to jail and lose your gun rights. How’s that sound?

        • It is the fault of the thief for stealing the gun. But it’s the fault of the gun owner for not storing it properly and thereby making the theft easier.

        • So, if the thief steals my chainsaw from the shelf in the garage I should be responsible for anyone he kills with it? If he steals my car and runs over pedestrians in the park I should be responsible for not parking it properly? Logic man, logic. It eludes you.

      • Motor vehicles must be licened and registered, it is illegal to drink and drive so by your theory no one should be killed or injured involving a dui? Yet more people are killed or injured each year in the US involving dui than firearms!

        • Yes, but without those car restrictions even more would be killed each year. You can’t compare care deaths to gun deaths. You can compare car deaths with the licensing, registration, insurance, seat belt restrictions with car deaths without those things.

        • Except for the whole Constitution thing. The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to drive. It does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. The state cannot restrict these Constitutional rights without violating the highest law of the land.

        • They’re already restricted, what’s wrong with you? You guys keep repeating that obsolete nonsense about “shall not be infringed” so much you start to believe it.

          The so-called right is already infringed in many ways. Now we’re just haggling where to draw the line.

        • And we are fighting to end these restrictions. The level of restriction is state to state (mostly) and we as a political lobby are moving the bar. I am in Virginia where crime rates are very low, concealed carry is a will issue permit, open carry is permitted and gun ownership is common. 55 miles to the North in DC guns are all but impossible to own, illegal to carry, violent crime is astronomical and murders only make the news if they are particularly violent. When the criminals know that Virginia targets are likely to be armed, they go to DC or Maryland where the sheep do not have the ability to protect themselves.

        • And the troll says…
          crickets.
          Expect no sound reason, just some emotional crap about how unreasonable you are.

        • “there is no border crossing between them with metal detectors.”

          There’re no metal detectors at the door of ‘Gun Free Zones’ either, but you claim that those prevent violence.

          You can’t have it both ways. Either Laws stop criminals or they don’t.

        • I never said laws stop criminals. Why would you put those words in my mouth? Is it easier to argue against an absurdity like that rather than what I really do say?

          Laws stop so-called law-abiding gun owners in SOME cases. These are the hidden criminals among you as well as the ticking time bombs.

          In addition what proper laws would do is cut down on the gun flow from you guys to the criminals.

        • 1) You support “Gun Free Zones” (A Legal Construct).
          2) So far as I can tell, that support is not predicated on the maintenance of metal detectors, etc.
          3) The stated goal of “Gun Free Zones” is to improve safety in those areas.
          4) You then claim that without metal detectors, a comparison between two areas separated by a state border (A similar Legal Construct) is “bogus”.

          Why is it that you can claim that high gun crimes in DC are caused by a porous border while at the same time claiming that a “Gun Free Zone” with an equally porous border will improve safety?

          Either making a rule/law/whatever banning guns will make people safe by excluding criminals (Gun Free Zones), or it wont (DC vs VA).

          Laws stop law-abiding people from doing things that are prohibited by definition. Yes, some people with no previous history of criminality suddenly become criminals, BUT using that argument to ban guns is like saying to someone on his 18th birthday “Well, you could decide to start speeding and cause a wreck, so we’re taking your license away now before you have the chance.”

          As to what “proper gun laws would do,” once we finish the argument about “Gun Free Zones,” I’ll let you pick the next topic to discuss, but in reasoned discourse you cover one subject at a time so everyone can follow the discussion.

  36. 8. Loss of gun rights for every negligent gun offense.

    So you want to make nearly everything illegal, then take away a constitutionally protected right, presumably for the rest of my life, because I had too many rounds in my magazine, or 1 too many evil features on my black rifle? And your “compromise” is to legalize something that’s already legal (suppressors)? No thank you.

    • First of all Nate, I’m not offering a compromise.

      Secondly this point number 8 is about negligent discharges not about neglecting to put the right number of rounds in a magazine. Those negligent dangerous individuals who shoot guns at themselves and others “by accident” need to lose their gun rights.

      I said nothing about “because I had too many rounds in my magazine, or 1 too many evil features on my black rifle”

      • The point is you are seeking to criminalize things that are already legal. Someone who is currently obeying these laws would then become criminals unless they got rid of the offending equipment. If someone were caught with the evil feature, they would then lose their gun rights.

        Listen, how would you feel if the above registration and background checks applied to free speech? After all, speech is responsible for more wars and deaths than all guns.

      • @Mikeb30200 – Please tell me how criminals (i.e. those who do not obey laws) will obey your gun laws?

        Will a criminal register his guns?

        Will a criminal stop himself as he leaves his home with a gun to go rob a convenience store and say to himself “Oh wait, I can’t carry a gun outside my home, I don’t have a concealed carry permit.”, and stay home never robbing a convenience store?

        Will a criminal stop himself on the way to his school shooting and say to himself “Oh wait, it’s illegal to have a gun on school property, darn.” and go home?

        Will a criminal avoid getting a gun because he won’t be able to get a license?

        Obviously, you do think criminals will behave this way.

        • Jeez, haven’t you seen my answer to this? Are you just breakin’ balls to make the argument as tedious as possible?

          My idea is gun control laws are not directed toward criminals for the simple reason that, as ignorant and stupid as we gun control folks are, we know just like you do that criminals don’t obey the laws.

          The laws I’ve been preaching would however affect the criminals indirectly by making it much harder for them to get guns.

        • No it wouldn’t, as proven by the number of unregistered, “illegal” guns running around Mexico, some even courtesy of the US. If the criminals find it harder to get firearms by stealing them, then the local drug deal will just expand his inventory a little. If we can’t prevent tons of herbs and chemicals, with very distinctive smells, from being smuggled in how in hell do you propose to prevent similar quantities of machine parts from being smuggled.

        • The empirical data says you are completely wrong about the availability of guns. Illegal runs can be purchased on the street without background checks, without taxes, and with a lower cost than in a store or gun show. An illegal gun, with filed off numbers or one used in a felony is no longer as valuable so it will be sold for less than the new or used legal gun. Criminals rarely use straw purchasers. They just ask a contact where they can buy a hot gun, and go buy one.

  37. Mike, do you think “negligent offense” could be used as a justification for stripping free speech, free press, and free exercise rights as well? I would argue that ABC and NBC’s coverage of the Martin incident as been as negligent with respect to the first amendment as the the negligent discharge of a firearm would be. Under your logic, shouldn’t the government strip away their first amendment rights? And what about Spike Lee giving out Zimmerman’s address (and getting it wrong)? That could easily have resulted in someone’s death; shouldn’t his free speech rights be stripped as well?

  38. mikeb302000,

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason Mr. Farago indulges you by publishing your articles from time to time is that you’re this site’s Alan Colmes? The token opponent who expresses his opposition ineffectively, such that he serves to make the audience even more convinced of the rightness of their side?

  39. Holy crap mikeb… Just when I was asking myself if I have any friends who are anti-gun and own guns. Dafuq did I just read? o.O

  40. I feel like I have to say something here and I say this genuinely. We need to give Mike some credit here with this post. He’s laying out his beliefs and he’s not doing it in a snarky fashion.

    The majority of the gun-control crowd’s interactions with 2nd Amendment advocates are ad hominem attacks, discredited studies or emotional pleas designed to distract from the hard evidence.

    It’s very rare that I agree with much of what you have to say, Mike, but I respect you greatly in this instance for coming into hostile territory and respectfully laying out your beliefs. I would encourage everyone in the comments to be equally respectful.

    I don’t think I need to mention to anyone on this blog how politicians have been able to criminally benefit over the last several decades from the fact that people can’t often have respectful political disagreements any longer.

  41. Of course, what Mike neglects to state about the Loughner case is that he was STOPPED because he used an extended 30 round mag. When two people fire identical Glocks, one using standard mags and the other an extended mag…the difference is emptying both weapons, shooting 30 rounds is about 2 seconds.

    Loughner was unable to reload his gun because a wounded woman grabbed the bottom of the mag, below his hand, preventing a reload. This allowed others to tackle him. Trying grabbing a standard mag and preventing a reload.

    • Cargo, You have just elevated yourself to the heights of Bruce Kraft. Spinning the Loughner story like that is absolutely fantastic. It’s BECAUSE of the extended mag that he was stopped. Wonderful.

  42. Mike, I dare to say that if Looghner had been using a double barrel 12 ga or a 870 pump he would had inflicted much more damage than he did by using that extended magazine glock.. each pull of the trigger would have unleased 9 pellets.. of 00… easy to do the math and see how much more lead he could have sent out in the same amount of time…

  43. While I respect Mikeb for his fortitude in voicing his opinions here I do not respect his positions. He may be well-intentioned but he is misguided, uninformed and probably just a little bit too unwilling to be persuaded by pesky facts.

    I’ve had no formal gun training but I’ve shot handguns, rifles and shotguns since I was twelve. I’ve more recently shot in some steel target competitions and with little practice I’ve have been able to drop the magazine in my Glock 23 and reload in probably something less than 2 seconds. If I was limited to 10 rounders I’d have to reload twice to reach a 30 round mag capacity which would probably only take around 3 to 3.5 seconds..

    So Mikeb’s argument is that less people would be killed if criminal murderer’s only had access to low-cap magazines. Where is the empirical evidence to back this up? As I’ve pointed out, I could reload twice and only be around 3 to 3.5 seconds slower emptying 30 rounds than a guy with a 30-round magazine. And, there are people that can do it much faster than me. We’re talking about a couple seconds or less; so close that there is basically no difference. Add to this the fact that 30-round mags are harder to conceal and as far as I’m concerned they’re harder to reload in the gun as quickly as smaller mags.

    The bottom line is that there is no evidence indicating that high-cap magazines are responsible for more deaths than low-cap and besides that, a semi-competent person can reload low-cap mags and shoot as many rounds as a 30 round mag just a fraction slower. It’s also easier to carry and conceal many low-cap mags than 30 rounders. So banning high-cap magazines in my opinion is a completely pointless gesture that has no basis in saving lives but only serves to salve the consciences of certain segments of the population. It does no good and is not the governments business to regulate these types of things.

      • You claim that a lower capacity magazine would have resulted in fewer deaths.

        The evidence you present:
        1) A High Capacity Magazine was involved
        2) A certain number of people were shot

        The missing piece is showing that a lower capacity magazine would have resulted in fewer deaths.

        At Columbine:
        Harris carried a 12 gauge pump action shotgun (fired 25 times) and 9mm Carbine with 13 10-rd magazines (fired 96 times)
        Klebold carried a 12 gauge double barreled shotgun (fired 12 times) and a 9mm pistol with a 52, 38, and 28 round magazine (fired 55 times).
        Despite both carrying nearly identical amounts of 9mm ammunition, Klebold fired around half as many times as Harris did, despite having exclusively high capacity magazines.
        They killed 13.

        At Virginia Tech:
        Cho carried a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol and 19 10-round and 15-round magazines. I suspect the .22 matches with the 10 round magazines, and the 9mm with the 15 round magazines, since Glock’s factory magazines hold 15 rounds, so these were not extended magazines. I can’t find listings of how many rounds he fired out of which gun. Cho was carrying ~400 rounds of ammunition.
        He killed 32.

        At UT Austin:
        Whitman carried a variety of rifles, none of which had extended magazines.
        He killed 16.

        Loughner killed 6.

        There you have the 3 most significant school shootings in 50 years compared to Tucson and I would suggest that the volume of the magazines carried does not correlate strongly with the number of people killed.

        To Paraphrase the West Wing:
        These are acts of Madmen, you think a regulation is going to stop them?

        • Listen, mine is a reasonable assumption based on a recent case. Yours is a bunch of double-talk blah blah blah to justify your position.

          Your position, which you’re trying so hard to justify, is to never ever give an inch, never admit that anything is a reasonable restriction and to resist to the bitter end.

          It makes sense since you’re talking about god-given, natural human rights. Even lying and twisting is justified in such a noble cause as that.

        • Mike B, read your statements twice before you hit “post comment” you are the one not giving an inch, you are the one not using logic but assumption. I can’t speak for every poster, I can speak for myself. Logic and reason are the basis for my posts. You are getting reaction to your posts, that is all you are after I fear as you are using all of the classic logical fallacies in your “arguments”

        • I don’t agree with you on that. And another thing I don’t do is pretend to be able to read your mind. But, you somehow think you know my reasons for doing what I do.

        • Anyone who has read even half of your posts knows your reasons for doing what you do.

        • How is a listing of similar incidents, complete with magazine size, weapon type, and persons killed, “a bunch of double-talk blah blah blah to justify your position”?

          As far as my position, “why would you put those words in my mouth? Is it easier to argue against an absurdity like that rather than what I really do say?”

          My position is simply that high capacity magazines don’t seem to be positively correlated with the number of people killed in this kind of mass shooting event.

          If you have a series of events where you can show a positive correlation between magazine volume and number of people killed, please show me.

        • A single isolated incident, while tragic, is not enough. There are thousands of “high capacity” magazines, but not thousands of mass homicides involving them. Empirical evidence is actually contrary to your premise. Virginia Tech had no “high capacity” magazines. Columbine didn’t either. The mass murderer Timothy McVeigh used a box truck packed with explosives to kill his victims. This could have been prevented or lessened if it were illegal for manufacturers to make trucks so large that they might be miss used for murdering people in this way. Trucks should be limited in size to prevent using this tool for mass murder because of this one incident in American History. This is a parallel to your argument on “high capacity” magazines. A gun is a tool. Just as is a knife, a screw driver a hammer or a truck. Murder is a crime, without regard to the tool(s) used to commit the crime. Show us a rash of crimes from “high capacity” magazines, a statistical sample of one is not enough. It is tragic, but it is not a pattern.

        • You claimed that high capacity magazines cause more deaths in spree/mass killing events. That requires more than one point of data. You cannot make reasoned inferences from one point of data.

          Ideally, to prove your point, you would have a set of reasonably similar shootings, some of which would involve guns with small magazines, some with large ones, and the data would show that more people died in events involving large magazines.

          Unfortunately for your argument, the only data we have show that magazine capacity and number of people killed are not positively correlated (in fact, the two shooters in the data set who did have high capacity magazines shot the fewest bullets and killed the fewest number of people, but I’m not willing to call that a negative correlation).

          Like I said before, if you have data (a list of events) that shows a positive correlation between magazine capacity and number of people killed, please show me.

        • Great idea, Dan. Let’s wait till we have a dozen Loughners to prove our point. In the meantime let’s not use our heads, we need proof.

        • Yes, we do. We need you to provide logic, MikeB. You aren’t. The case you continue to harp on does not support your argument (as we have pointed out) you need more than one example. In the loughner case he fired FEWER shots than in other mass murders cases which did not involve high capacity magazines. Show us a correlation between the horrors of high capacity magazines that support your proposed ban. THEN you might sway someone to your otherwise ill formed argument. We are demonstrating the fallacy of your argument and the best you can reply with is “your arguments are blah blah blah. If you cannot form logical coherent arguments then there is no point to you contributing anything to this site and no point in attempting a dialogue with you.

        • We have had *more* than a dozen mass shootings at this point. The details of most (if not all) of them are available for study. I listed a few if you bothered to read my post.

          I didn’t suggest that we wait for more shootings to mine for data, I suggested that you look at events that have *already happened.*

          I also didn’t ask you for proof. I asked you to show a correlation, which is a much, much easier burden than showing causation (aka proof).

          I am asking you, in the interest of honest debate, to show some evidence for the claims you make. I even helped you by suggesting a pathway to finding that evidence on both this topic and the one about “Gun Free Zones.”

          Again, I am asking you to look at *PAST* events to find a correlation. I’m not asking you to show causation, not even asking you to do any statistical analysis, just look up a couple of incidents that seem similar where you can find magazine size and death toll. See if bigger magazines result in a larger death toll.

          That’s it, the barest, meanest, scrap of evidence is all I’m asking you to provide.

          Implying that I want to see innocent people killed because I want policy to be based on evidence isn’t going to stop me from insisting that policy be based on evidence.

        • Dan, I’m truly sorry it’s so hard for you to get through to me. You’re asking me for this and you’re asking me for that. It must be so frustrating.

          Since we’re not talking about causation (proof), and we’re only talking about correlation, I say the Loughner incident is enough. That combined with a tiny bit of common sense, unhampered by the biased need to justify, which, I’m afraid you suffer from, not me, I say that one example is enough.

        • Mike, you cannot find a correlation between two variables with one point to study. Imagine the data plotted on a graph and the correlation the line drawn to best fit the availible data. The slope of that line is the correlation between the two variables. If you only plot one point on the graph, you can draw your line with any slope you want and it’ll fit, but that’s not useful. If you have two points you get a slope. If you have more points plotted, you reduce the likelihood that you get a false result by chance.

          So I presented a half dozen points, and found a negative correlation between magazine size and death toll. I think that there are too many confounding factors to suggest that high capacity magazines reduce the number of people killed, so I just said that there’s no evidence of a positive correlation. Now, I picked the shootings I presented by looking at Wikipedia’s list of school shootings and picking the ones which had multiple victims and information on the firearm used availible. I picked my category before looking at the capacity of the weapons used. Feel free to check the numbers I presented or present your own data set, but it does need to be more than one piece of data, and try to include all the data in your identified subset.

          As for “using common sense” to interpret one point of data into a correlation, that’s not how statistics, science, or reasoned discussion work because there have been so many times that data has shown our “common sense” to be wrong. From psychology, we have Milgram’s fameous obedience study where his collegues predicted 3% of participants would administer the ‘fatal’ shock 3 times; 65% actually did. From physics, there’s the structure of matter itself where a “solid” rock’s ratio of matter to empty space readily rounds down to 0. Just about every time we think we know something because “common sense” tells us so, we’re proven wrong. Common sense has a place in telling us where to look, but no place in telling us how to interpret what we’ve found.

          Holding you only to the standard of showing a correlation was an effort to get you to provide some data to support your causative claim that high capacity magazines *cause* more people to be killed in mass shootings.

          As for bias, sure everyone has biases, that’s why we don’t use “common sense” to interpret data, we use math and we strive to be ethical and avoid cherry picking data. Math has no biases, and I don’t think I cherry picked my data, though if you disagree, please show me what data I skipped (keeping in mind the data set I laid out).

          As for being frustrated, nah. I like debate. I really like showing people how to properly present arguments and back them with data, even when they refuse to.

          Here’s my promise. If you present an argument and back it with good evidence, I will back you. I won’t be quiet, I will actively back you.

  44. “…isn’t it possible that your run-of-the-mill bad guys might benefit from such an accessory? Yes indeed, however, just like your run-of-the-mill bad guys can misuse guns, and total prohibition is not the answer to that, outright bans on sound suppressors is not the answer to this either.” – Mikeb30200.

    We already have reasonable and fair gun control laws. Everyone who is not a convicted felon has a RIGHT to own guns. This is where the idea of personal accountability comes into play, because you have a right to own guns you also have a right not to own guns. Owning a gun is absolutely the answer to gun violence being able to take responsibility for your own personal safety is the ultimate form of gun control. If you choose not to own a gun that’s fine, no skin off of my nose but don’t try to force your own morality or personal choices on me.
    In addition to this your eighth item:

    “Loss of gun rights for every negligent gun offense.” Is inferior to just about the only gun control law that most reasonable Pro-Gun Americans are willing to tolerate: namely that a convicted felon may not own a gun. I would think that since this is far more draconian than your proposal in that you don’t even need to have done something naughty with an actual firearm yet it takes away your right to have one that you would be satisfied.

    But to be fair I suppose I should ask what exactly you mean by item number eight? What is loss of gun rights for every negilent gun offense? If you happen to end up recieving an IGOTD then do the rest of us Americans get sent to time out? If you say… I don’t know shoot yourself in the foot, literally, at the range do I and every other responsible law abiding American have our concealed carry permits suspended for a week?

  45. Mikeb302000 from a few post above this one: “Listen, mine is a reasonable assumption based on a recent case. Yours is a bunch of double-talk blah blah blah to justify your position. ”

    Well, I’d say that pretty much sums-up most of his arguments and positions. He’s being reasonable (even when he is assuming), and our logic and examples are just noise to him. Just like the other anti-gunners, he, and ONLY he, gets to define “reasonable” and “double-talk blah blah blah” and any/all other terms of the so-called discussion.

    I asked for details on how his goals would be accomplished, because we all know the Devil’s in the details. None were forthcoming. More generalizations, anti-gun points of faith, and complaints about the folks he asked for input (“What do you think?”) being tedious when we asked for details or clarifications.

    Stick a fork in this one, folks; he’s done. I say ignore his future posts completely, and maybe we (or the TTAG team) can find another gun control advocate to replace him that will engage in REAL discussion, and TRY to support their position with facts and logic.

    But I’m not holding my breath…

  46. One final question Mike; try hard to focus on answering it.

    Can you name one nasty, dangerous, or immoral thing a person could do with a firearm that is not ALREADY illegal? Anything?

    That’s right — there is nothing bad you can do with a gun that is not already against the law (or several laws). Making any of this behavior super-double-plus-more-illegaler by adding more and more laws that will not be followed, either by life-long criminals OR the “law-abiding gun owners” you fear are about ready to snap and turn on the public at large, will not make a damn bit of difference. None! Only in the deluded mind of a gun controller can words on a page (new laws) stop future violent behavior.

    • Yes. You can sell a gun to your crack-addict brother-in-law without having him go through a background check first. It’s not your fault if he’s really a disqualified person. How were you to know?

      • I didn’t know that the NICS had a spot for drug addictions. It doesn’t? Huh, sounds like a heck of a loophole when someone who can buy a gun from an FFL can buy one from a regular person. (Himt: You actually have to be convicted of felony possession or drug trafficking to become a prohibited possessor).

        As for how we are to know, the law that created the NICS prohibits access to it by anyone other than FFLs calling in on privacy grounds, so it is, in fact, illegal to run a gun check through NICS on a private sale.

  47. “Yes. You can sell a gun to your crack-addict brother-in-law without having him go through a background check first. It’s not your fault if he’s really a disqualified person. How were you to know?”

    The same way the background check would know. Has he met the legal criteria to be categorized as a user of a controlled substance, defined below (courtesy of the FBI/NICS general info fact sheet)?

    “An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year. ”

    If so, I know, and he doesn’t get the gun (arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing (or even multiple arrests) does not take place in my extended family without me knowing about it; maybe it’s different in your family). If he hasn’t been convicted of any drug-related crime, or have multiple REPORTED drug-related arrests including one within the last year, or an official failed REPORTED drug test within the last year, then the background check would not stop a firearm transfer to him, either.

    Actually, I’m much more concerned about the average guy out on the street trying to buy my gun from a classified ad; I don’t know anything about him, and that sometimes makes me uncomfortable. You probably don’t know that it is currently impossible for a person to get a NICS check done without getting a licensed gun dealer involved, and the law was set up that way for a reason. They didn’t want every Tom, Dick, and Harry using NICS to screen new hires for their small business, check out their teenage daughter’s new boyfriend, or dig up dirt on the local politician’s new competition, any of which would let this controlled private info spill out into the public sphere. In states where background checks are required for private transfers, I’ve heard that both parties have to physically appear at the dealer during a time he is open and allowing transfers, and one or both people have to pay a steep fee for the service ($50, $75, or more). So now we’ve gone from a private transaction that can take place at any time and location convenient for both parties, to a 9-5/Mon-Sat deal at a cross-town business (IF you’re lucky enough to have one; many small towns don’t), IF they aren’t too busy, with a “poll tax” added on top, just to exercise your gun rights.

    Yeah, gun owners will be lining-up to support THAT procedure.

    Do you know (or care) that gun permit renewals have been denied for excessive parking or speeding tickets in some areas? Do you know (or care) that gun registration has been used to collect or require disposition (at a huge monetary loss) of guns newly added to “prohibited weapon” lists? Do you know (or care) that felons are exempted from gun registration, by law, due to self-incrimination concerns, and that this makes it completely ineffective for anti-crime purposes? Do you understand that most gun owners are not blindly resisting these proposals for no reason; we have VERY GOOD REASONS for resisting them, as many of them have been tried before in other places, and found wanting?

    Or is it just the chance to slowly squeeze gun owners into a smaller and smaller box, making ownership more and more difficult/expensive/time-consuming, adding more and more restrictions, until the ultimate goal of no privately-owned guns is reached (as has been occasionally revealed by a few looser-lipped members of the gun control movement)? Not everyone is paying attention, but a few of us are. And as long as that is true, your dying movement doesn’t have a chance.

    • “we have VERY GOOD REASONS for resisting them, as many of them have been tried before in other places, and found wanting”

      That’s made-up crap. We were talking about background checks on all gun sales.

      • So was he. Then he continued from your topic 7 to your topic 6, registration of guns, and what purposes those registries have been put to use in the past.

        As for being made up, gun registries have been abused in the past, and that abuse has been documented.

  48. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough on the connection: all of these laws started out as “reasonable restrictions”, just like your background check proposal. Then they were modified (sometimes by bureaucrats, no voting needed — or allowed) to be more and more restrictive, until they ultimately became far more than what they were intended (or “sold”) to be. Because there is no way to prohibit modification of a law once it is in place (short of repeal), the only thing gun owners can do is play defense and keep the camel’s nose out of the tent from the start.

    Were it not for the anti-gun folks always pushing, pushing, pushing for more, then this might not be the case. But until the complete failure of one gun control law is not perpetually seen as an excuse for a more restrictive one, the situation will continue.

    Remember my reference in one of the above posts about me being “uncomfortable” with selling a gun to an average guy off the street? As a private seller, I’d actually like to be able to run a background check on these folks for my own peace of mind. But I cannot endorse a law that requires or even allows it, because I absolutely KNOW how it can and will be abused by the anti-gun forces, due to these past examples. That’s right — you would have a pro-gun advocate for one of your points, except for the fact that your cohorts have proven to be so untrustworthy that I cannot support a law that would probably do some good, because I know it would be perverted to support their cause.

    And how do we fix THAT problem?

  49. “On the other hand, isn’t it possible that some people might misuse them to better commit their crimes?”

    The same is true of pens. I can kill a man with a pen. Clearly, this means that, as a precautionary measure, the populace ought to be disarmed of ballpoint pens. Heck, this should be pretty easy, too! Pen ownership isn’t even a constitutionally-guaranteed right! Go nuts!

    By the way, Mikeb, I too think the constitution is a living document that needs revision in order to best meet the needs of society. It is my personal conviction that the first amendment is outdated: It allows people like you to run their mouths, which can be dangerous to society. Thus it should be constantly and haphazardly modified to shut people like you up.

    Whoa! There goes a radical constitutional revisionist, I hear you say! Clearly my opinion is invalid due to my belief that the first amendment is out-of-date.

    Of course, if you believe that, then you just demonstrated to yourself what an enormous hypocrite you are. Not that any of us needed reminding.

  50. Mike,

    What must be frustrating for you is that we are demanding logic. We are asking for logical arguments. We are asking for more than what “you say” particularly when what “we say” is “blah blah blah” (your words) as counter arguments. The Loughner tragedy was a tragedy. We agree on that. But the evidence is that more shots were fired in other mass homicides with regular magazines than were fired in that incident. We are asking you for a correlation between mass murders and high capacity magazines. You are providing only a sample of one. If there is any evidence that high capacity magazines equate to higher death counts then, of course, there would be an argument in favor of ruling them out. You have been provided counter arguments to your position which you choose to ignore. But you do not have anything but “use common sense” which 1) is irrelevant to the argument because you have a different version of “common sense” than we do. YOU must provide arguments and counter arguments if this is to be a dialogue. If this is to be a ranting or rambling of your “feelings” or irrational diatribe then I will no longer waste my time reading or countering your posts. There just will be no point. I don’t make the rules on this website, but the way reasoned people debate does involve a burden of evidence, logic and proof. We are providing that from our side of the argument. You are not using reason or well defined terms. If you hope to sway anyone to your side of the argument you MUST use logic. We aren’t liberal (at least I am not) enough to be swayed by the weight of “feelings” and undefined “common sense” in an argument.

    • I happen to be a VT liberal. Hippies with Guns, yee-haw. I grew up in a household without firearms as my parents do not like them. I also was taught how to think rationally, and the cornerstone of rational thought is evidence.

  51. Mike B… I thought I might just throw this your way. I mean, by your reasoning a world with more guns is a horrible horrible place. crime ridden, dangerous. So, what about a country where the law requires men between the ages of 21 and 32 to maintain and train with an assault rifle and keep it in their home? Crime rates there, particularly gun crimes must be through the roof. Why, there must be killing sprees galore, right? And yet gun crimes in Switzerland are so rare that the country does not even keep statistics. Yes, the Swiss are polite, and kind, and armed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

      • Your source for “debunked” is a group of greens and social democrats numbering SEVENTY people? The BBC is as reputable a news source as there is. I’m not a fan of their liberal politics, but their story has plenty of weight and sense they lack Dan Rather, we can rest assured they confirmed their statistics before printing them. Speaking of, in the article you linked to (no, not your webpage, but the actual article you liked to) there were no numbers from http://www.swisinfo.ch There is absolutely nothing in your “debunking” reference. Your reference may as well be a blog. So someone printed another opinion piece and you chose to source that. A source which has no references to how many “high profile murders” there have been. Sorry about your “debunking” effort. Pulling a story that there are 70 people in a coalition who are ultra liberals (green party) who FEEL it is time to disarm the population because of a number of “high profile murders” to which they do not have any quantifying data, not even the number 1, is like me arguing that Americans are thrilled with Obama as a president because the Huffington Post says it is true.

      • http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Murder_often_takes_place_in_the_family.html?cid=5499228

        I will admit, I am doing some of your work for you. And when I do a google search of “high profile murders switzerland” what comes up are multiple references to an honor killing by a muslim father with an AXE. This article from the same source you referenced which is remarkably light on substance with any data to back up their single paragraph (one sentence) which was inserted to push the agenda of the writer about the “renewed debate” about guns. There are some gems. 36% of attempted homicides are committed using KNIVES followed by 34% with guns.

        Only 213 murders in 204 in a population of over 2 million. Most of these are domestic. And most of those are not with guns, but with knives. The percentage of homes with guns in Switzerland is the highest in the western world. following your argument they should have the highest gun violence numbers since they have the most guns per household. But that doesn’t work for you. Who on EARTH is going to invade a house when they know without a doubt that there is an assault rifle and a person trained in its use on the other side of the door?

        Rather than trying to disarm Americans to limit gun violence the proper course would be for America to learn from the Swiss model and require all American citizens to be trained and maintain a high capacity modern firearm in their homes at all times. If Obamacare proves to be constitutional this Fall and the government can force us to buy things, then we should be forced to buy guns, be trained in their use and maintain one in the home because this will prevent gun related violence as it has in Switzerland.

      • Ok Mike, we’ve been doing all the work here (and your blog leads to one sentence in a second blog which links to a page not found error, so I don’t know what evidence you tried to link).

        Here’s the evidence that will cause me to accept tighter restrictions on firearms ownership.

        Show 1 instance where relaxing gun laws have resulted in an increase in violent crime unattributed to other causes (you’ll need two similar jurisdictions, one which relaxed its gun laws and one which didn’t).

        OR

        Show 1 instance where tightened gun laws have resulted in a decrease in violent crime unattributed to other causes (you’ll need two similar jurisdictions, one which tightened its gun laws and one which didn’t).

        Is there any evidence that we can present that will change your mind? If so, what is it?

        • Wow. Ad hominem instead of providing specific answers to clearly-worded questions. I am aghast. Not.

        • Show me numbers Mike. I believe in a lot of things, but Numbers and Statistics are what change my mind.

          So, I’ll repeat the important question of my above post;

          Is there any imaginable evidence that I could present that will change your mind about firearms?

          If not, then we’re not having a two sided discussion.

          As for your accusation that I’m not arguing in good faith, that hurts. I’ve made every effort to avoid impugning your motives, and I’ve never maligned your goal of keeping people safe. I don’t see why you’re accusing me of blinding myself to clear evidence. More than that, if I’m blind to some evidence, for the love of god, Montressor, show me the way out of this tomb of ignorance.

        • I’ve been hoping for a reasoned debate or discussion on the merits of gun control. Regrettably one side of this argument is using reason, providing data and the other side says air arguments are blah blah blah. If this is to be the quality of the content then I’ll not waste the time countering the non argument from Mikeb. There is no point. He will be a short time contributor if the best he can do is make statements and refuse to back them up. I’ll not read further posts and I won’t justify his threads with my time or commentary. Should he choose to have a two sided discussion utilizing logic and reason along with evidence, I’ll willingly participate. Otherwise you may as well be explaining the merits of welfare reform to an occupy wall street tent dweller.

  52. “Have you forgotten about that one I presented about intentional
    homicide UK vs. US? You sound like some of you more passionate
    followers now, conveniently forgetting things in order to insinuate
    and insult. Not only have I presented citations and facts and
    statistics a time or two, what I argue using nothing more than
    common sense and logic, makes sense too.” Since I cannot find the
    thread to rebut your last comment, I have pasted it here at the
    end. I’ll blame the server switch and we can attempt to make this
    work, but I have a feeling it will not. I have explained why we
    reject your common sense, and we have also rejected your brand of
    “logic”. The difficulty you have, MikeB, is that you are using what
    is common sensical to YOU. Common sense to me is entirely different
    from your brand. You say it is common sense that if we reduce the
    number of handguns legally available that criminals will have a
    more difficult time getting their hands on guns. Therefore there
    will be fewer firearms related crimes. We point out the fallacy of
    your position (Time after time after time) with data and statistics
    which clearly demonstrates that not only is this NOT the case, but
    rather the exact opposite is true. When law abiding citizens have
    freer access to firearms, when there are fewer restrictions on
    carry laws, violent crime with handguns drops precipitously. We see
    the common sense to be that MORE guns reduce crime. More people
    should be armed should they so choose. So using common sense to
    argue is a fallacy. We don’t agree on the terms so saying that
    “common sense” says we should all agree on what Mike B, or Wild
    West, or Joe Six Pack (or anyone else you want to throw in) is
    fallacious. And Mike, you repeatedly make fallacious points in your
    arguments. Earlier in this reply chain you rejected an argument out
    of hand by stating (paraphrasing) “your arguments are blah blah
    blah and I am being reasonable.” That is hardly logical good faith
    argument or discussion. It is one step above putting fingers in
    your ears while dancing in a circle while chanting “I know you are
    but what am I” repeatedly. I have different expectations in a
    debate. My expectations are not limited only to myself. I have
    several degrees related to philosophy. I have been on debate teams.
    Many of my fellows on this discussion stream have argued their
    positions logically and in good faith.
    http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/writing-the-paper/fallacies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *