> Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look like someone who knows very little about firearms.
Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack, I appreciate knowing what terminology communicates to people.
> There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now.
And billions of people. The argument isn't that we can wave a magic policy wand and make anything disappear, or impossible to make or get. The argument is that it may be possible to make it harder for any one of those billions to get their hands on some of the millions of things.
Here's what I'd expect to happen if we were to legally restrict the manufacture and general possession of some magazines (or anything else, for that matter):
1) Owners would split into 3-4 different categories: (a) some who would decide any legal risk isn't worth it, and get rid of theirs through approved channels, (b) some who would keep what they have but stop buying, (c) some would sell or buy on the black market. Overall, though, unless you assume that (a) is completely negligible, we're talking about a reduction in existing general circulation.
2) Regarding additions to general circulation, I'd expect manufacturers would split into different categories as well. Some would (a) comply with regulations and would no longer make or ship through general market channels, some would (b) continue to manufacture and supply the black market. Some (c) new manufacturers would spring up to fill any demand gap left by (a), but remember, some people in (1a) have dropped out of the market, so demand has probably shrunk, and risk is higher, so it's a pretty big presumption to claim supplies to general circulation from b+c are going to be equal or greater than a+b under no restrictions. Overall, we're talking about a reduction in supply coming into the pipe.
3) So at this point, if my assumptions hold up, the bar's up at least three or four notches:
* perhaps we still have many banned magazines in general circulation (US estimates I've heard thrown around are closer in order of magnitude to the tens of millions rather than hundreds, though), but there's nevertheless a reduction in number vs the baseline of no restriction, so that's increased scarcity.
* anyone wishing to buy/sell will need to have contacts willing to run the risk (your average postal worker or 19 year old suffering from socialization problems may or may not meet this bar)
* greater risk to buying/selling means some people will prefer to hold on to what they have and not sell at any price, except perhaps with highly trusted acquaintances. This effect in how magazines circulate would be more powerful the higher their concentration in a small number of hands is.
* cost would go up do to increased scarcity and risk associated with buying/selling, meaning any given individual would need to be prepared to pay more
4) That's not all, though. Remember what I said about door locks raising the bar in terms of conspicuousness? In a world with no door locks, the act of walking up to any door, opening it, and walking through is easy and unsuspicious to most given observers. In our world, you're going to need to batter the door down or spend time fiddling with tools -- both activities that are somewhat likely to draw attention. There are ways to allay the resulting suspicion, but that's another bar to meet. Similarly, someone incidentally observed with contraband is now under scrutiny; secondhand evidence it's possessed/traded at all in the neighborhood may even draw law enforcement on the trail.
> This is just plain silliness.
Based on your username, it looks like you would know. ;)
So... what part of what I've laid out above do you expect would not happen if magazines over a certain capacity were banned, and why?
"Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack..."
The Associated Press (AP) finally updated their style book to make this important distinction, and I've noticed their writers are actually following it, so it's not pedantry.
Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack, I appreciate knowing what terminology communicates to people.
> There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now.
And billions of people. The argument isn't that we can wave a magic policy wand and make anything disappear, or impossible to make or get. The argument is that it may be possible to make it harder for any one of those billions to get their hands on some of the millions of things.
Here's what I'd expect to happen if we were to legally restrict the manufacture and general possession of some magazines (or anything else, for that matter):
1) Owners would split into 3-4 different categories: (a) some who would decide any legal risk isn't worth it, and get rid of theirs through approved channels, (b) some who would keep what they have but stop buying, (c) some would sell or buy on the black market. Overall, though, unless you assume that (a) is completely negligible, we're talking about a reduction in existing general circulation.
2) Regarding additions to general circulation, I'd expect manufacturers would split into different categories as well. Some would (a) comply with regulations and would no longer make or ship through general market channels, some would (b) continue to manufacture and supply the black market. Some (c) new manufacturers would spring up to fill any demand gap left by (a), but remember, some people in (1a) have dropped out of the market, so demand has probably shrunk, and risk is higher, so it's a pretty big presumption to claim supplies to general circulation from b+c are going to be equal or greater than a+b under no restrictions. Overall, we're talking about a reduction in supply coming into the pipe.
3) So at this point, if my assumptions hold up, the bar's up at least three or four notches:
* perhaps we still have many banned magazines in general circulation (US estimates I've heard thrown around are closer in order of magnitude to the tens of millions rather than hundreds, though), but there's nevertheless a reduction in number vs the baseline of no restriction, so that's increased scarcity.
* anyone wishing to buy/sell will need to have contacts willing to run the risk (your average postal worker or 19 year old suffering from socialization problems may or may not meet this bar)
* greater risk to buying/selling means some people will prefer to hold on to what they have and not sell at any price, except perhaps with highly trusted acquaintances. This effect in how magazines circulate would be more powerful the higher their concentration in a small number of hands is.
* cost would go up do to increased scarcity and risk associated with buying/selling, meaning any given individual would need to be prepared to pay more
4) That's not all, though. Remember what I said about door locks raising the bar in terms of conspicuousness? In a world with no door locks, the act of walking up to any door, opening it, and walking through is easy and unsuspicious to most given observers. In our world, you're going to need to batter the door down or spend time fiddling with tools -- both activities that are somewhat likely to draw attention. There are ways to allay the resulting suspicion, but that's another bar to meet. Similarly, someone incidentally observed with contraband is now under scrutiny; secondhand evidence it's possessed/traded at all in the neighborhood may even draw law enforcement on the trail.
> This is just plain silliness.
Based on your username, it looks like you would know. ;)
So... what part of what I've laid out above do you expect would not happen if magazines over a certain capacity were banned, and why?