Logical Argument, How not to make one
Over at Simberg's Flying Circus, there's an article up arguing (in part) why one needs a high-capacity magazine in your gun. Now, I am absolutely not opposed to high-capacity magazines, a nd have said so before. But as a simple exercise in making a logical argument, Rand's article fails.
Rand cites an interview of Ryan Moore, a man who used a gun to save his life. Moore was attacked at knife-point by two men. Moore, carrying a 5-shot .357 magnum revolver, fired three shots, killing one of the two attackers. The second one fled, and Moore re-holstered his weapon. This example actually "proves" (or at least supports) the idea that one doesn't need a high-capacity weapon for self-defense.
Here’s the thing - Ryan Moore was attacked by two people armed with knives. Once he started shooting, one of them fled. Even if the attacker hadn't fled, Moore still had two shots. Does anybody think somebody shot twice with a .357 magnum is going to be in any shape to be a threat to anybody?
In addition, what makes anybody think that if it had been three or four people attacking him that things would have been different? Criminals are not noted for loyalty, teamwork and bravery- all things that would be required in order for them to stand and fight an armed man.
Crooks are out for themselves, and like all predators they only attack victims that are perceived as weak. Once the victim demonstrates that they aren't weak, there is a very strong instinct on the (in this case surviving) crook’s part to break off the engagement, which is exactly what happened in this case.
Again, as a point of basic debating skills, if you want to argue for high-capacity magazines, find a case in which the extra rounds were actually needed.
Rand cites an interview of Ryan Moore, a man who used a gun to save his life. Moore was attacked at knife-point by two men. Moore, carrying a 5-shot .357 magnum revolver, fired three shots, killing one of the two attackers. The second one fled, and Moore re-holstered his weapon. This example actually "proves" (or at least supports) the idea that one doesn't need a high-capacity weapon for self-defense.
Here’s the thing - Ryan Moore was attacked by two people armed with knives. Once he started shooting, one of them fled. Even if the attacker hadn't fled, Moore still had two shots. Does anybody think somebody shot twice with a .357 magnum is going to be in any shape to be a threat to anybody?
In addition, what makes anybody think that if it had been three or four people attacking him that things would have been different? Criminals are not noted for loyalty, teamwork and bravery- all things that would be required in order for them to stand and fight an armed man.
Crooks are out for themselves, and like all predators they only attack victims that are perceived as weak. Once the victim demonstrates that they aren't weak, there is a very strong instinct on the (in this case surviving) crook’s part to break off the engagement, which is exactly what happened in this case.
Again, as a point of basic debating skills, if you want to argue for high-capacity magazines, find a case in which the extra rounds were actually needed.