If I lived in MA or NY, I'd start drinking the water straight out of the Charles and get it over with. Fortunately, I got the heck out of there.
I'm just trying to get you to see that the burden of proof in this argument should lie with the person who is arguing to take away your resources to defend your life. If you are a peaceful man, you have the right to defend your life. If you've committed no crime doesn't it follow logic that the burden should lie on the person who suddenly wants to strip your rights?
And the reason I'm framing it this way is to flip it back on you. So, the question is: Has it been demonstrated to you that it is not a violation of human rights, and that it is an effective way to make the country safer, to limit the capacity of a firearm owned by a non-LEO? Has anyone proven that to you?
Frankly, the stats are out there and they come up for me pretty quickly on a google search. There are FBI stats that back up what I stated to you and its been cited quite a few times on the first few hits I found.