Let me start by declaring my positional basis regarding gun control. Guns are defensive tools. The vast majority of guns are used lawfully and safely by lawful and safe gun owners. Those that choose to defend themselves and others through conceal carry are GOOD PEOPLE. Gun owners should be trusted by default. I also believe that those who would do harm with guns would not be stopped by laws therefore - truly - gun control only controls the law abiding (a topic for another blog entry). I also believe that gun controllers are only starting on "assault weapons" because it's the easiest story to tell the public but they won't stop there - behind closed doors if you could see their strategic policy roadmap - I guarantee it includes a handgun ban.
Back to magazine count. What does a ten round limit mean? It means that a reload is necessary after shooting ten rounds. Let's dive into that.
Those arguing for limits on magazine count seem to believe the following (I'll call it fantasy): a mass shooter, intent on doing harm has only ten rounds before having to reload. So Mass Murderer X kills ten folks with single shots, and stops to reload. So what happens here? The fantasy is what? Someone is able to bum rush the shooter during this period of reloading? Someone can throw a rock or a book at the shooter and force him to stop? Somehow people can run away?
Look - swapping a magazine doesn't take much time. And if that mass murder HAPPENS to be following the law and really has a magazine that has only ten rounds - I think we can safely presume that person will have a lot of magazines with him/her. Let's further assume the person isn't stupid and he/she will neutralize the people in the room most likely to fight him/her with those first rounds. Safe assumptions I think.
My point? There is very little anecdotal evidence that a shooter will kill FEWER with a magazine size limit.
It is certain that this limit applies to the law-abiding so let's talk about my concerns.
First - you have no idea how many shots are needed to stop a threat in a defensive situation. Is it 10? Who knows? You shoot until the threat has stopped. Period. If there are multiple assailants how many shots do I need? Don't know. But being artificially limited to ten sure doesn't feel good. Examples:
In the home. An AR-15 has a standard magazine capacity of 30 rounds. It's a very efficient tool for defense and police use it for a reason. If someone is using an AR-15 for home defense, that means things are really, really bad. But let's take an example that is not unlike what occurred during Katrina and Sandy - say a hurricane has rendered services down for three weeks - food is short - police are unavailable or at least not nearby. There is a mob looting each home in a neighborhood and the homeowner is aware of it. They are stealing and who knows what else. They come to the front door and back door and are attacking the home and the residents are sheltering in place. The homeowner would want the 30 rounds before reloading. Period.
Outside of the home. The most evil thing that the 10 round limit on magazines does is limit what you can carry concealed. The Glock 19 is one of the most common pistols that folks will carry concealed. It is a 9mm pistol and carries 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber (15+1). Folks generally carry a backup magazine in case a) you need to reload in a fight but more likely b) you have to solve a weapon malfunction by replacing the magazine. So you can carry 31 rounds. Now the 10 round limit doesn't just apply to so-called "assault weapons" - it would apply to handguns. So let's say you're at a gas station or walking down the street and two people approach from the front and one or two from the back (very plausible) - now you're limited to try and defend yourself with ten rounds when you're carrying a handgun that has the ability to use 15 rounds. You are forced to reload after ten shots! Will the criminals stop and pause for that reload? You *could* have had 15 and you had 10.
If you filter gun control laws from the perspective of someone trying to defend themselves instead of the fantasy of limiting someone with evil intent, I think you'll start to see things differently.
If you filter gun control laws from the perspective of someone trying to defend themselves instead of the fantasy of limiting someone with evil intent, I think you'll start to see things differently.
Gun control focused on things like banning a particular weapon or a magazine size isn't solving the problem. If they pass a ban, Joe Public will give up his/her magazines and "assault weapons" but Joe Criminal certainly may not. You are allowing the criminals to out-gun the good guy. Flawed.
My take? Trust the gun owner but make laws brutally strict and punishing for those that misuse guns. Here's the four part plan:
1) Background checks for all weapon transfers (without registration)
2) Mandatory sentencing without parole for crimes with a gun
3) Elimination of gun free zones unless enforced with metal detectors, strict entry/exit points and sufficient armed security
4) National conceal carry reciprocity
I'll expand on these in a future post.
I'll expand on these in a future post.
