Monday, February 7, 2011

What's "need" got to do with it, got to do with it?

What's need, but a second hand emotion?.... Hey Ike, get Tina out of my head!

"Need." There's a word that comes up consistently when you're talking to someone on the left, particularly when the topic is guns. Why does anyone need a "silencer?" Why does anyone need an assault weapon? a small, easily concealable gun? Big, powerful gun? etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. With regards to anything they don't like or are ignorant of the contention is that nobody "needs" said thing.

Need is irrelevant. I didn't need bacon on my sandwich this morning, but I wanted it. If something is avaliable and I have the means by which to obtain it nothing more is necessary. I need not justify my need to purchase any particular commodity, not to you, sue, or joe blow the anti-gunner down the hall.

Why do I need more than 10 rounds? Simple. Because I wanted 12, or 15, or 30. Not to mention that if round 12 saves my life then 10 just ain't gonna cut it. The moment someone brings up "need" in a gun control discussion you can be sure they mean to restrict your rights. At that point any technical or practical justifications for your needs plays right into their hands. You've allowed them to put you on the defensive and frame the debate for their benefit. Don't make that mistake.


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bob S. said...


Was it 'tough-guy fantasy world' that lead you to illegally own firearms?

Was it insecurity?

Time and time again you call gun owners on their ownership, yet you conveniently leave out your own issues.

Why is that Mister Tough Guy?

Mike W. said...

Bob - He's not even worth the response. That said, logic would tell you that if you need 12 rounds and only have 10 you're fucked.

I'd rather have some left over. Hell, you're not likely to need a 2nd mag either, but Murphy's a bitch so I carry a spare.

dog gone said...

Mikey, go take some classes. Go put in some quality time at the range honing your eye hand coordination until it becomes automatic, a muscle memory.

Frankly, if you need that damn many rounds outside of a major shootout at the OK corral from a fictional action adventure movie of some kind, those extra rounds are not going to do you any good - you'll need a SWAT team, not a bigger clip. If it takes you that long to swap out a fresh clip with the usual number of bullets for a new one, you're too clumsy and inept to have a gun without being dangerous. (Hint - practice helps with that too!)

If you haven't hit what you are aiming at with one clip, by the second clip, you're just stupidly hoping to get lucky with subsequent shots, and can't reliably hit the broad side of a barn at close range. You'd do better, in the words of my combat pistol instructor, to simply throw your gun at the bad guys; you have a better chance of doing damage that way.

In your argument Mikey, you're conflating your ineptitude into a full blown right wing gun fetishist paranoia.

Dog Gone,

Bob S. said...

Dog Gone,

When did your gain your mind reading powers?

When did your ability to tell the future begin?

I'm wondering if you would tell the Korean-American shop owners in the Rodney King riots that they only need 1 ten round magazine and if they need more to call the police?

As far as need goes, I need a greater than 10 round magazine because I like to practice at the range.

I 'need' a greater than 10 round magazine because it is better to be safe than sorry.

I don't know how many people might ever attack me.
I don't know how many rounds I will ever need to defend myself.

But I do know how many rounds I am prepared to use -- as many as fricken necessary

Since you believe infringement on Specifically Enumerated Constitutionally protected rights are okay; I take it you will volunteer to help out right?

I expect you will start limiting your blog posts to 10 words or less, right?

@Mike W. -- I'm just obsessed with everyone knowing that Sparky is either a liar or an admitted criminal :)

Linoge said...

No one ever came out of any kind of gunfight saying, "Darn, I wish I had not carried that many rounds." And, as Tam said, anyone proposing a magazine restriction limit of X is simply telling the world that they are perfectly ok with X fatlities due to a spree shooter, but not X+1.

How does that make sense?

Likewise, I am somewhat amused at an Internet Tough Guy attempting to dispense life lessons of how to handle one's self in a self-defense shooting when he is apparently completely ignorant as to the differences between "clips" and "magazines" - way to establish your credibility, "dog gone".

Neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to dictate to me what I "need" or do not "need", sorry, and it simply does not matter what specious ad hominem attacks you level at people who disagree with you, we will carry however many rounds we feel comfortable with, in whatever format we feel is most appropriate. Why does that threaten you so, and why do you see the need to arbitrarily and whimsically hamstring law-abiding citizens?

Mike W. said...

But I do know how many rounds I am prepared to use -- as many as fricken necessary.

Within the confines of situational practicality of course. I often carry a single stack with 8 rounds, but that's a personal choice. That's one thing, requiring by law that my double stack handgun or AR-15 rifle be altered to hold no more than 10 rounds is something entirely different.

dog gone said...

facts are facts; perhaps you should read this, as I also copied you by email relating to redundant gun background checks:

Delaware has not supplied any names to the federal data base of individuals who are dangerously crazy - dangerous to themselves or others. So you shouldn't be feeling quite so very safe if you are in Delaware. (Delaware is second, after Alaska, on the graph.)

As to buying a gun in another state - not every gun sale requires the purchaser to be a state resident, only to have ID, but what I had in mind was an individual who moved to another state and became a legal resident without their pertinent paperwork tracking with them about being either a criminal, drug user, dangerous psychiatric patient, etc. in the data base.

Or don't you believe that people are mobile, between states?

This is also true of private sales at gun shows, where following the rules and regs are demonstrably uneven and frankly, lax to non-existant far too often.

Clips, magazines, whatever you wish to call them - I use the terms that are widely recognized for this discussion. When target shooting, it is not a big deal to change to another pre-loaded magazine. The reason for limiting magazine size is directly related to the dangerous use / misuse exemplified by the Giffords shooting in Arizona.

I took combat pistol training, above and beyond the minimum training for my permit, precisely because I was switching from my preferred 9mm up to a .45 for self defense against a dangerously crazy stalker after being issued a criminal upgrade to a restraining order.

Which I suspect puts me in the position of having actually being at risk in a firearm situation greater than seems to be trueof any of you.

As to limits on your constitutional rights as regards ammo, I'm in the best possible company, Robert Levy, the attorney in the SCOTUS Heller case.

“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”
“It may stop a few of these looney tunes,” Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a “close call," he said that a restriction of “10 to 15 rounds makes sense.”

Bob S. said...

Dog Gone,

I see that you can't respect reasonable restrictions on your freedom of speech.

I believe that was way more than 10 words.

Why does anyone need to say more than 10 words at a time?

Linoge said...

If you cannot be bothered to employ accurate terminology when describing the concepts you are attempting to regulate, I cannot be bothered to pay attention to your arguments.

Which is just as well, considering that your argument appears to hinge on the notion that punishing millions for the actions of one is a Good Idea (TM), and considering that your argument is self-defeating (if magazine changes are so quick and easy, magazine capacity limitations would not have hindered the Tucson shooter had he practiced, as you yourself have said).

Anonymous said...

"I believe that was way more than 10 words. "

If that were popular the world would be much better.

Mike W. said...

And an FYI - There are two people who may not comment here due to repeated personal attacks and attempted "outings." They both blog at MikeB302000's.

That's why the 1st comment got deleted. Then again, most folks here know this already.

As for ammo capacity, intelligent people understand that there's no "magic number" of rounds that will stop a threat. That's entirely situationally dependent.

I personally sat in on part of a murder trial where one of the witnesses who testified had been shot execution style in the head with a 9mm round. Not only did he survive, he didn't even lose consciousness.

As Linoge said, no one ever left a defensive shooting saying "damn, I wish I'd had less ammo."

dog gone said...

Linoge said
(if magazine changes are so quick and easy, magazine capacity limitations would not have hindered the Tucson shooter had he practiced, as you yourself have said).

Can you prove the shooter (alleged) in Tucson had practiced with the weapon and magazine he used? I think it is a pretty reasonable assertion that people who practice changing magazines are consistently better at it than people who do not.

and Linoge also said
"Likewise, I am somewhat amused at an Internet Tough Guy"

Wrong gender Linoge. I'm simply not a gun feteshist, like you are.

If you can't hit what you're shooting at, shooting some more isn't going to save you. At that point you're not good at hitting the target; you're just hoping to get lucky.

As Robert A. Levy so wisely said:
“It may stop a few of these looney tunes,” Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a “close call," he said that a restriction of “10 to 15 rounds makes sense.”

Hmmmmm who do I think is smarter - and wiser - Levy, or Linoge.

That's easy. Levy, no comparison. (And he is not the only gun rights champion to think so.)

Linoge said...

Can you provide any evidence indicating that the shooter had not practiced magazine changes? Or, furthermore, can you provide any evidence that the shooter would not have practiced magazine changes if he had been forced to use only 10-round magazines?

Finally, can you provide any evidence that a new AWB would have prevented the shooter from procuring 30-round magazines? The ban did not prohibit possession of pre-existing normal-capacity magazines, only the commercial production and sale of them, thus the shooter could have procured them from all manner of second-hand sources.

Moving on, you will have to forgive me for not giving a damn about your "appeal to popularity" and "appeal to authority" logical fallacies - Levy may be an outstanding lawyer, but he knows no more about high-stress shooting situations than any other schmuck on the street, and your continued reliance on his one quote to support your position just goes to show how weak that position really is.

Mike W. said...

Thank you linoge for that excellent beatdown of Dog Gone's idiocy.