Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

This point of view, while sounding very reasonable, is the result of how we have been viewing law over the past 75 years or so. Before that, we would have wondered if there was a legitimate reason why someone should not be allowed to have a 33 shot clip in a pistol. We have come to accept limitations on individual rights as equal to or more important than limitations on government. Rather than embracing individual freedom and the responsibilities of that freedom (responsible gun ownership, responsible behavior regardless of what others say no matter how "inflamatory" it might be), we react with fear to isolated incidents and believe that we can dispense with another "extravagant freedom" that some lunatic has used to kill by being "inflamed." All responsible citizens can, in our current view, shed an "unecessary" freedom and allow a government, that used to be prevented from doing so, dictate what arms or words we can possess.

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

Right. and that m-16 is just for squirell hunting.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right. and that m-16 is just for squirell hunting.

I don't own a gun. There are times in some of the places I go that I think having a gun handy would be good. If some one wants to hunt squirrels with an M-16, it doesn't offend me--don't really care. What is your point?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

"Legitimate"? I'm not sure...

"it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one."

Fun does not trump public safety. Some people would have fun driving 150 mph on the highway, but we outlaw it anyway, for reasons of public safety. Pedophiles think it's "fun" to be with little kids, but we outlaw that too. "Fun" is not the litmus test for what's right and what's wrong. That is a very, very weak argument.

"If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. "

How many situations do you know of where a private citizen needed a 33 shot clip to defend himself, where a 12-shot clip would have been inadequate? If you say that self-protection is a "legitimate" use for a 33-shot clip, then it stands to reason there ought to be historical precedent for that need.

"it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it"

Tell that to the parents of that beautiful 9 year old girl. If the rampage was only stopped after he took the time to reload, then it stands to reason that if he had run out of bullets sooner, he would have been stopped before he was able to fire as many bullets.

I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm no liberal. I am a former Marine. I have no problem with responsible folks having reasonable access to firearms, as guaranteed in the constitution. But I'm not brainwashed by the NRA either, I dropped my membership long ago, because as far as the NRA is concerned, more availability is always better then less availability.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Legitimate"? I'm not sure...

"it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one."

Fun does not trump public safety. Some people would have fun driving 150 mph on the highway, but we outlaw it anyway, for reasons of public safety. Pedophiles think it's "fun" to be with little kids, but we outlaw that too. "Fun" is not the litmus test for what's right and what's wrong. That is a very, very weak argument.


[COLOR="Navy"]Need context here. Context here is if the gun was used for sport--for example a firing range. There are those who legitimately drive 150 miles per hour and much more--on legitimate race tracks. Crowds watch for the "fun" of it. Pedophiles--geeze--can't think of any legitimate pedophilial fun. Yeah, illegal fun is outlawed, but let's not outlaw legal fun. As far as the argument being weak, it wasn't meant to be strong. The serious (hopefully strong)portion was the first paragraph which RIROCKHOUND ignored and picked on the throw-in demo of some offhand possibilities of why someone might want a 33 shot clip. I'm not more frightened by the idea that someone can kill 33 people instead of 12. One person stabbed 90 times is chillling enough. I probably should have left the second paragraph out.[/COLOR]

"If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. "

How many situations do you know of where a private citizen needed a 33 shot clip to defend himself, where a 12-shot clip would have been inadequate? If you say that self-protection is a "legitimate" use for a 33-shot clip, then it stands to reason there ought to be historical precedent for that need.

Again, this was just conjecture. I can't remember, offhand, the many situations (I live in Detroit) where 33 shots were "needed" instead of 12. I know there are a lot of high powered illegal guns in my neighborhood. It sounds like a war zone at 12AM January 1, and on the Fourth of July. The chatter of automatic weapons rattling off several rounds as well as thunderous sounds go an for a good half hour and more. We have Latino gangs and white trash gangs and black gangs that still manage to do some bad chit, though not as bad as it was a few years ago. There have been incidents where they have even had standoffs with the police. I don't know if there is a "historical precedent" where a private citizen needed a 33 round clip, or even a 12 round clip. I just conjectured that there could be situations where 33 rounds would be better protection than 12.

"it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it"

Tell that to the parents of that beautiful 9 year old girl. If the rampage was only stopped after he took the time to reload, then it stands to reason that if he had run out of bullets sooner, he would have been stopped before he was able to fire as many bullets.

I was responding to Moshulu, not the parents of the beautiful 9 year old girl. Her death was the greatest tragedy in the lunatic's massacre. The death of children at the hands of lunatics, rapists, pedophiles, murderers of any stripe are tragedies that I have no answer for. Not those caused by 33 rounds or 12 rounds or one round or knife, or hands. Don't ask me to tell the parents of that girl anything. I have nothing to offer but sadness and grief. Nor do I have a solution to stop the killing of children by madmen. If you think my previous argument is weak, it is at least as weak to argue that outlawing 33 round clips will stop or diminish the mad killing of children. I don't know which number bullet killed the girl and I feel queasy even thinking in those terms.

I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm no liberal. I am a former Marine. I have no problem with responsible folks having reasonable access to firearms, as guaranteed in the constitution. But I'm not brainwashed by the NRA either, I dropped my membership long ago, because as far as the NRA is concerned, more availability is always better then less availability.

Again, the main point of my response to Moshulu was not the so-called "legitimate" reasons for someone to own a 33 round clip. I was pointing out that we are prone in current times to place the burden of "legitmacy" on the individual rather than on the government.