This comment was too long for the comments section on the show page, so I am posting it in its entirety here. Guest commentary is welcome; please write me via email and we'll make it happen. My friend Brian wrote the following. -Jz
Two days ago (18 Jan 11) on your show, your guest Matt said he would support a ban on high-capacity magazines and claimed they have no "sporting" purpose. He even went as far as say the average police beat officer had no use for such magazines and that they should be restricted to SWAT officers.
Most of the guns I have aren't for "sporting" purposes. I bought them for self-defense, i.e. for shooting people, not paper or Bambi.
What exactly does Matt consider a "high-capacity" magazine? If you ask most anti-gun pukes, who want all guns banned period, they'll tell you any magazine that hold more than 6 rounds should be banned.
The magazine used by the Arizona crackpot held 30-plus rounds. So what? Does anyone really think he couldn't have murdered just as many people with a 15-round magazine (Glock 19) or a 17-round magazine (Glock 17)? All it would have taken was a magazine change or two, which can be done fairly rapidly or at your leisure if you're shooting at unarmed people.
It should also be remembered that on 6 September 1949, WWII veteran Howard Unruh murdered 13 people with a 9mm German Lugar. The Lugar Unruh used in his rampage held 8 rounds and he had an extra 8 round magazine and 16 loose rounds in his pocket. (A rampage that was probably stopped when he was shot in the thigh by an armed citizen with a .38 revolver)
Matt claimed the average police beat officer has no use for "high-capacity" magazines and that they should only be used by SWAT officers. I think the beat officers during the 1997 Hollywood bank shootout would disagree. I would think the initial officers on scene at the Columbine massacre wished they had 30-round magazines on hand. High-capacity magazines are very useful when you're in a gunfight with armed assailants. There are also countless other times when officers' lives could have been saved if they had high-capacity magazines.
I know some SWAT officers personally, and while they would be somewhat disappointed that an incident be dealt with before they arrive, they would be relieved that the incident was terminated before to0 many innocent lives were lost.
Lastly, I don't trust any politician or anti-gun activist to tell me what type of gun to own, what type of ammunition or what type of magazine to carry in it.
Addendum: Suppose a `ban on "high capacity" magazines is passed. What happens after the next mass shooting, and there will be another mass shooting.
Will the anti-gun folks then try to limit magazines to five or six rounds, or will they try more restrictive restrictions?
Several years ago ago, I attended a discussion on the UN's plan to limit small arms at the Monterey Institute for International Studies. one of the attendees told me that sometimes the anti-gun lobby needs to propose a law they know will not reduce crime. That way, after it fails the public will accept more restrictive measures.
The anti-gun lobby will not stop at restricting "high capacity" magazines.
Posts
Guns don't kill people, people do.
ReplyDelete