Rothman on Fox News tonight

[scotts87iroc]

No offense to Mr Rothman as I don't know him but have seen his name around, but I agree with Falcon. Am I armchairing, maybe? If you knew you were going to be on the news regarding the Tucson incident, you need to be prepared to answer questions regarding the 33 round "clip" they kept referring to, the Glock he used and the 9mm round. It would also be good to have some statistics on hand and offer knowledge on the laws.

When asked about the purpose of the 33 round magazine, he should have been prepared to offer a few scenarios like, "We here in the Twin Cities mostly shoot at gun ranges that charge by the hour. It takes time to load a magazine, so a larger magazine, preloaded, allows you more practice time at the range and less time loading. It's an attachment for a tool and any tool can be used incorrectly to hurt someone by a person of that mindset."

I was glad that he mentioned the bad guys will still get the 33 round magazine if their intent is to harm, even if they are made illegal, and the regular citizen will be the one that suffers and obeys the laws. I just have a problem with the media spouting information that is incorrect and they are never corrected or educated in the public forum in front of everyone. This happens every night on some news channels and the media gets away with ignorance.

[gyrfalcon]

So, why are they needed? I'm not arguing they aren't. I just want to know what answer you think is best convinces a large part of the population...I was impressed that the interviewerette acknowledged the speed with which people can reload and explicitly questioned, "How many rounds are too many and who decides?"

I would have probably started off with something like this:

"High-capacity" magazines are needed because many firearms are designed to be more effective self-defense tools with them, or when you don't want to reload a firearm as often. They also can cause the firearm to weigh more and be less reliable depending upon the circumstances. If you believe people should be able to defend themselves with firearms you shouldn't be focused on the tools that are available to them. This insane person could have made a bomb to kill and hurt many more people using readily available products. By trying to restrict what law abiding citizens are able to own you're just taking away peoples freedoms and making society less safe overall.

(Over to you Heather)

In the gun "community" there seems to be disagreement on what people are able to own as well. For example, why would anyone need a machine gun?! *gasp*

http://www.chuckhawks.com/column21_magazines.htm

[ree]

Thanks for the possible answers. I'm not sure what is most convincing to your average joe, but I wonder if there's another argument to be made (subtle variation on Dean's first paragraph).

Do we know that the only reason people tackled Loughner was because the shooting had temporarily stopped? Perhaps it took 33-rounds-amount-of-time for people to get their bearing, take stock, and decide to take action. The coverage seems to indicate that the tackling all happened when he was reloading, not necessarily because he was reloading. But had he been shooting 10-rounders, mightn't it have been that people finally decided to finally take action only after the first three mags had been shot, when he was loading his fourth mag?

Then again maybe everyone opted to just sit still and do nothing to save themselves until the noise subsided.

[xd ED]

I guess to perfectly logical, you'd have to ask if Loughner had a magazine that was 1/3 the capacity of the one he had now, could anyone be sure he would have killed 1/3 fewer people? And could they tell me that would have been less of a tragedy?

That would ignore the real possibility that a lower capacity magazine would have been more reliable and easier to change when empty and the real possibility that he would have just been more careful in his target acquisition.

All this is, of course, is silly conjecture because high capacity magazines are a fact. They were legally available before, during, and after the Clinton ban. And the situation will remain the same in any proposed future ban. Unless someone is going to be so foolish as to try and confiscate all of them.

I actually heard one of the anti-s going off about how, when the details of this horrific event were sorted out. and (somehow) the sequence of shootings were established, we would then be able to see which of the victims died needlessly because of the high capacity magazine. The statement was predicated on the 'fact' that he ran the gun dry and was tackled/ stopped only because he was attempting to reload...

[ree]

I actually heard one of the anti-s going off about how, when the details of this horrific event were sorted out. and (somehow) the sequence of shootings were established, we would then be able to see which of the victims died needlessly because of the high capacity magazine. The statement was predicated on the 'fact' that he ran the gun dry and was tackled/ stopped only because he was attempting to reload...

Yep +1

[Bessy]

...There are few people I know who are better INFORMED than Andrew. Andrew had his act together, and performed very well. We are lucky in our community to have a spokesman that comes off as level headed and not a nut case. I think avoiding getting dragged into the ridiculous high capacity magazine debate nonsense was a smart move. Especially given the limited amount of time they had.

He was already dragged into the high capacity debate from the get go, and by not being able to answer a simple question he looked like a deer in the headlights. A firearm with a large capacity magazine can be used in the same manner as any other firearm. Even if high capacity magazines were illegal people who wanted to break the law would have access to them, and law abiding citizens would not. Interrupting Heather was also rude and doesn't score you many points with the reporter... Glad you think he did a great job, but I disagree.

I think you already thoroughly established what great job you think you would have done if you were sitting in his shoes. Disagree all you want but can you do so without implying the man is a glory hound and just wanted to get on TV, or that he was an unprepared fool?

As ptc holders and gun owners we have enough enemies outside of our community. We don't need community members trying to play character assassins to those who honestly do their best to represent us in the media, and strive to further our cause. You do this falcon to what end? So you can play Monday morning quarter back and pat yourself on the back about what a superior spokesman you would make in the fantasy land where someone would put you on tv instead of him?

Andrew reads this forum. How the hell would you feel after going on tv, trying to defend members of the community only to come back and have them grill you over some questions that they felt could have been handled better a different way. Not offering constructive criticism, but belittling you and questioning your motives as well. Criticism offered in that way isn't positive, insightful, constructive or helpful.

Andrew has facilitated many instructors in cutting through the BCA redtape (myself included), and in turn facilitated many thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Minnesotans getting their ptc. The very least you could do would be to treat him and everyone else on this forum with the same respect you would like to be treated. I would go so far as to say you might treat him like a person who has contributed much of his free time, and effort to the carry movement here in MN.

[usnret]

Andrew
Thanks for taking the time to stand up for all of us firearms enthusiasts!

[gyrfalcon]

... Not offering constructive criticism, but belittling you and questioning your motives as well...

Are you talking about me or yourself?

[plblark]

Disagree all you want but can you do so without implying the man is a glory hound and just wanted to get on TV, or that he was an unprepared fool?

As ptc holders and gun owners we have enough enemies outside of our community. We don't need community members trying to play character assassins to those who honestly do their best to represent us in the media, and strive to further our cause. You do this falcon to what end? So you can play Monday morning quarter back and pat yourself on the back about what a superior spokesman you would make in the fantasy land where you were someone would put you on tv instead of him?[...]
The very least you could do would be to treat him and everyone else on this forum with the same respect you would like to be treated. I would go so far as to say you might treat him like a person who has contributed much of his free time, and effort to the carry movement here in MN.

+1000

[JoeH]

Andrew-

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

Joe

[Don L]

+1 on that!

[goalie]

I am very glad a certain someone is on my ignore list. This thread reinforces that decision as the correct one.

Oh, and Andrew, GOOD JOB!!!!!

[gyrfalcon]

It must be nice to have so many cronies who'll laud praises about everything you say and do.

[goalie]

This post was made by gyrfalcon who is currently on your ignore list.

[usnret]

I would have probably started off with something like this:

"High-capacity" magazines are needed because many firearms are designed to be more effective self-defense tools with them, or when you don't want to reload a firearm as often. They also can cause the firearm to weigh more and be less reliable depending upon the circumstances. If you believe people should be able to defend themselves with firearms you shouldn't be focused on the tools that are available to them. This insane person could have made a bomb to kill and hurt many more people using readily available products. By trying to restrict what law abiding citizens are able to own you're just taking away peoples freedoms and making society less safe overall.

(Over to you Heather)

That made absolutely NO sense what so ever!