By Jeremy Knauf
Anti-gun activists and self-serving politicians are eager to proclaim that there’s no reason for anyone (except the police, of course) to have a magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition. They claim that these “high-capacity” magazines are simply tools to facilitate mass murder. On the surface, this seems logical; however, upon deeper investigation it becomes clear that their claim is nothing more than emotion filled rhetoric . . .
First, a magazine holding more than ten rounds is technically not “high-capacity.” In fact, many modern guns are designed to hold between twelve and thirty rounds of ammo to make them suitable for their intended purpose, whether that’s self-defense, hunting or target practice.
Semantics aside, a magazine capable of holding thirty or even one hundred rounds is just as safe as a magazine capable of holding only ten. Magazines don’t possess magical powers that somehow transform an otherwise sane and upstanding citizen into a maniacal killer bent on mass carnage. Ask yourself, does the possession of a “high-capacity” gasoline can make you more likely to burn down the local day care than one that’s capable of holding only one gallon? Like gasoline cans, magazines are simply tools, nothing more.
So what happens when someone does snap? Wouldn’t reduced capacity magazines limit the damage that the murderer could inflict? It would be nice if it were that simple, but life in the real world almost always works out differently than the utopian dream world that anti-gun activists like to pretend exists.
They’d like you to believe that because reduced capacity magazines force a shooter to reload in order to continue his killing spree, it means an inevitable lull in the shooting (which is sure to take place in dramatic, Michael Bay-style slow motion, just like in the movies), giving a hypothetical Good Samaritan the opportunity to tackle and disarm him. Do you see a problem with this theory?
Picture yourself in the midst of a mass shooting, hiding under a desk wearing noticeably wet pants. (Don’t worry; your secret is safe with me.) You hear a brief pause and the click of the magazine release, followed by the empty mag hitting the floor. Do you A) jump from your hiding position and run towards the shooter while replaying scenes from The Expendables in your head, or B) grab your family and get the hell out of there?
If you’re still unsure, I’ll give you a hint: your membership at the local YMCA gym and all the action movies from Netflix are not going to turn you into Jason Statham.
It’s an epically bad idea, even from a distorted Hollywood perspective of what’s possible. It’s a still worse idea when you realize that even an untrained shooter can change magazines in a little less than one second. Do you really think you have the physical prowess to burst from hiding, cover the distance from you to the shooter, and successfully disarm him in less than one second?
I’m a very well-trained veteran Marine and in excellent physical shape, but unless the armed bad guy was blocking me from the exit, I would not physically engage him in hand to hand combat. I’d either draw my own weapon and eliminate the threat, or grab my family and get them out of there. I recommend you do the same.
What makes ten the “magic” number, anyway? Is the eleventh person somehow more valuable than the tenth? But I digress.
The anti-gun activists believe that the police, unlike citizens, need magazines holding more than ten rounds because they’re often placed in harm’s way. Common sense dictates that everyone — not just the police — needs access to enough ammunition to adequately protect themselves. It’s undoubtedly true that the police are far more likely to encounter a violent situation that must be neutralized with a gun. But when someone does find themselves in that situation, as millions of people do, should their ability to effectively defend themselves depend on whether they are a police officer or a citizen?
Think about it like this; I used to live in an area where flooding was relatively frequent, so I was required by law to purchase flood insurance which would pay off my entire mortgage in the event that a flood destroyed my home. I recently moved to an area where flooding is very infrequent, but still possible. Because I’m now less likely to experience a flood, should my insurance now only pay off half of my mortgage in the event that a flood destroys my home? Of course not, the damage would have the same impact regardless of how statistically likely it was to occur.
Your self-defense is no different. You may not be as likely to be forced to defend yourself with a gun, but if that time comes, is it any less important for you to have the necessary tools than it is for a police officer? In fact, 15 minutes on Google will turn up a plethora of home invasions, robberies, and assaults involving multiple assailants—would you want to face two, three, or even more violent criminals with only 10 rounds?
Some people have claimed, “a few more bullets won’t help you” or “if you can’t do the job with one or two bullets, you shouldn’t have a gun in the first place” but if that were true, why do the police routinely fire hundreds of bullets at a single suspect? Why even after being hit multiple times does the suspect often get up and run away or worse yet, continue attacking the officers? This isn’t a video game. This is real life and it rarely goes according to plan. I will continue shooting the bad guy until he is no longer moving and that might take more than ten rounds—especially if there are multiple bad guys.
If, as the anti-gun crowd claim, a few more bullets won’t increase my safety, then it’s only logical that a few more bullets won’t increase their danger either. In which case, what possible reason could they have for wanting to prevent you and I from owning magazines holding more than ten rounds? It’s not about “gun control,” it’s simply about control.
I will do everything in my power to ensure the safety of my family. That includes a plentiful supply of ammunition, on my body, in my car, and at my home.
This article originally appeared at jeremyknauff.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Mona Charen and her post about racist white hatred goes mainstream….
http://wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/mona-charen-exposing-white-racist-hatred-in-america-kinda-sorta/
She speaks true.
I understand that people ARE using AR15s for Hunting, Target Shooting, and 3 Gun Type Events.
What about the reason we REALLY have, incase shit gets real? Are we so brow beaten that we can’t even talk about the intent of the 2nd Amendment anymore?
Ive been making this argument forever, if Adam Lanza had driven through a crowd of kids with a car would the libtards be demanding lower capacity gas tanks? To “limit the amount of damage one car can do?”
So if she had been wearing an Autism puzzle print would that have freaked them out as well? Clearly Newton was a combination of wacked out, moral devoid animal and colossally shit parenting. The device used was immaterial, simply a means to an end. Should we ignore radical Islam and how it drives terrorism or just ban air travel and pressure cookers?
Best part of the show, gun dealer shows a SOCOM II .308 next to a AR15 and says the AR would be banned for being more dangerous under the failed proposed AWB.
AR15 popularity is a recent phenom, last 10 years or so, in the 80s=90s ARs were somewhat rare and not that popular, with just a few companies like Colt, Hesse and Bushmaster making them. Back then cheap AKs were the thing, when 1000 rds of 7.62×39 was 99 bucks and a MAK was 300.
AR is a much improved platform but still pales to the AK in terms of ballistic punch and reliability. As far as accuracy the Saiga AKs have dispelled that myth with quality barrels and fit and finish. And AKs have mostly fallen under the radar in the latest tumult that the AR is getting the heat for.
Its a case study how the media gloms onto an issue and controls the narrative, with no history or context.
10 is as arbitrary as 11,12, 9, 20, 7, or 5. and when 10 is deemed constitutional based on no evidence comparing 10 vs 11, they will lower it to 7, then 5, then 1. Its very simple and that’s how this works.
Bullseye Dan!
Wow. The comments debate over at PBS.org are running 95% against gun control.
Davis,
Link? I’d like to see this.
Click the pbs.org link at the end of the article above.
“They claim that these “high-capacity” magazines are simply tools to facilitate mass murder. On the surface, this seems logical;…”
No, it doesnt…its stupid people trying to put the blame on everything/everyone else other than the person thats truly responsible.
Any updates on the plastic parts problems?
I would likely grab a KSG if they fix that and the prices return more to normal. But “normal pricing” is a thing of the past. We are in a new era. Ammo, tactical weapons and anything other than items approved by “Shotgun” Biden are all going to cost us more. A lot More.
Hope this passes. Though the dems will probably block it
I have to wonder what will be attached to it…….
Only an AWB, magazine cap ban and tinfoil rolls for all Americans.
“should their ability to effectively defend themselves depend on whether they are a police officer or a citizen?”
police officers are citizens.
Other than that, spot on article
I know some of the, shall we say, “jumpy” pro-gunners said that DHS stockpiling ammo was suspect for nefarious reasons, but the reality is, for whatever reason, DHS did purchase copious amounts of ammo. This is true and is not merely “boogity-boogity” rhetoric.
Why did DHS need so much ammo? I mean, what, are they doing live-fire training 4 times a day, organization-wide? Hm.
Not sure where the officer vs. enlisted rounds allocated comes from. O’s and enlisted don’t have separate DODACs, go to separate ranges, or receive separate draws, so I’m curious to see how they arrived at this. Maybe it’s just because I’m still in the golden time of my career, but if my guys are shooting, I’m shooting with them.
CRAZY is what facilitates murder of any kind. Can legislators regulate that?
Again, this makes as much sense as a fella getting a vasectomy because his neighbors have too many kids. Yikes.
It’s a Prada dress – they also make dress shirts with this print, and also one that is similar, but handguns only.
Best regards.
How is it, reviewing those 76 self defense incidents between 12/26/12 & 2/15/13 from GunsSaveLives.com website we see that 26 incidents had 2 attackers and 8 incidents had 3 to 5 attackers?
Since the police at best only hit their target 15% of the time, that = only 4.5 hits out of a standard 30 round magazine.
Since you antis always infer civilian gun owners are so poorly trained that 7.5% hit rate is an agreeable # to start with.
7.5% x 30 rnd mag = 2.25 rnds hit
So explain again how many rnds does it take to stop an attack?
Oh wait, all self defense courses state clearly, shoot until the attack stops, hmmmm, thats more than 1 rnd eh?
After all 47% of the time, there were multiple attackers, but then your fantasies always outweigh facts eh!
Since the police are that poor of shots, and it takes on average more than 1 shot hit to stop an attack, where again is your logic that civilians don’t encounter the same dangers as police and therefore don’t need to be just as equally armed?
http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/
17 rounds of .45 ACP into a suspect hell bent on taking him out, imagine that!
My good friends brother was SWAT and during an encounter with a hopped up on drugs 145lb felon holed up with a hostage, a breach was initiated (shots were fired) where the first team member through, came down on the hostage and bad guy like a sandwich. Now the 1st team member was shall we say NFL linebacker sized and strong as a bull, he had both hands on the bad guys arm, and couldn’t stop him from turning the hand gun towards him. My friend, the second member through the door in the breach, didn’t hesitate, and put a .40 right beside the bad guys nose, an immediate kill shot, and the bad guy still struggled for almost 10 seconds before his body let him know he was dead! Lot can happen in 10 seconds.
The distance for such a shot was less than 3ft.
The US Army in the Phillipine’s fighting Moro warriors after we took the Phillipine’s from the Spanish in the little dustup we had, had then standard Army issue .38 spcl. revolvers, and many records of Moro warriors taking out multiple soldiers even after being riddled with .38 spcl. rounds. It was why the 1911 in .45 ACP was developed, and as noted in the link above, even then a bad guy can absorb a lot of .45 ACP and keep going until that certain kill shot can be used.
But who here can or will even claim to make such a SINGLE FIRST shot in the heat of an exchange of gunfire, no sane person familiar with firearms will!
That is the reality.
The simplest way you stomp the antis and their rhetoric on this, is to do a time study.
See as per the police dispatch recordings, from the time that Lanza began shooting, to the time police got to engagement distance and confirmed he was down, was 21 minutes.
When one counts the actions, the distance traveled, the number of shots fired, reloads, etc, etc…..Lanza only needed less than 5 minutes to do all the killing and in fact took his sweet time.
Last shot was heard at the 16 minute mark, Lanza offing himself.
http://www.politicalswagger.com/sandy-hook-police-audio-timeline/
Then the following videos proving the magazine changes as posted here before. tested..
Sheriff in IN, Ken Campbell, Boone County (just north of Indianapolis) proving exactly what is stated above both with pistol, rifle, and the Biden solution!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXA&feature=player_embedded
So unless the antis can magically transport the police via Star Trek technology, their response time will never equal the 2-3 minutes response time a person on site, or and armed teacher could respond in.
Antis hate simple math, it shows them to be utter idiots!
NBC= NOGOOD BASTARD COMMIES! THE MS PART STANDS FOR MUST SUCK!
Would they have killed that MIT cop if they weren’t so spooked by an all-out militarized police operation to find them? What if instead of flexing muscles for the cameras law enforcement just watched them for a little bit and picked them up safely and quietly? How many innocent people were put at risk by having adrenaline soaked cops with itchy trigger fingers running through their homes and neighborhoods in apc? I’m not blaming the police either. We all put these expectations on them. We and the media and the politicians set it up so that anything less than an all out balls-to-the-wall “at any cost” operation. When we start demanding “at any cost” we’re going to get it. At the cost of safety, at the cost of liberty, at the cost of rights, and so on.
I agree. I think they could have picked them up quietly and avoided a citywide shutdown
Much of America is already lost. Years of pu$$ification, sensitivity training, and the glorification of tolerance has weakened our collective psyche. There are precious few independent spirits left, they have been replaced by mewling cowards seeking government guidance.
Proof that the marriage of an AK and an AR would produce ugly children.
Very good observations Robert. Most people with a carry permit, will get the training necessary for that permit and that will be it. Tactical pistol training covers many scenarios including multiple assailants. For those who cannot afford tactical training, the multiple target training is a wonderful stand-in. Now let me go back and check out the chick.
Nick, that’s you and a buddy in high school? I thought it was an old picture of Flo & Eddie from The Turtles.
It’s a red-dot sight, clearly.
Funny how some people who tell us not to use a gun for protection, tell us to get a “guard dog” instead. Now, they’re trying to outlaw the ownership of certain breeds.
This is a perfect example of “mala prohibida”, that which is illegal, because the state says it is illegal.
As opposed to “mala in rem”, that which is inherently a crime. Rape, arson, murder (not justifiable homicide), and theft, are a few examples.
what happened to the time honored prison pasttime of zip gun making 101!
As Ken asked above, that’s the problem with gun buyback programs right there.
It does waste taxpayer money, that is a problem, but that isn’t the biggest problem with it.
The biggest issue is that far from helping to “stop crime” it’s going to have unintended consequences…
1. Common sense tells us that the guns turned in by law-abiding citizens won’t be guns used in crime anyway. They are, if you look at pictures, mostly old rifles. Even if someone turns in an AR or AK, that’s irrelevant–modern semi-auto rifles just flat out aren’t used in crime in a statistically significant fashion. The few handguns turned in by law abiding citizens who weren’t using them (or were using them, but legally) will have a statistically insignificant impact on any crimes. I have no idea what the number of crimes might be prevented by these programs (ie, someone turns a gun in that would later have been stolen) but it’s probably a handful per year (if that).
2. If you are a criminal who has used a gun in a crime, this gives you a way to dispose of your crime weapon in a no-questions asked method, AND get paid for it. This is paying a criminal to have the police dispose of evidence for them. They can then use the money from the buy back (or sell the gift card, whatever) to get another gun that won’t be traced to their crimes. Rinse, repeat. The police/communities are literally paying the criminals to destroy evidence that could be used to convict them. Does that make any sense??? It’s completely backwards.
What SHOULD happen, if someone wants to do a gun buyback program is:
1. You go turn the gun in and get the money (or gift card, whatever).
2. Guns must be in working condition, and must be guns that are statistically used in crime OR must be a way to dispose of illegal unregistered NFA items in a way that will give you amnesty for having them (ie, the buyback would only buy back handguns and unregistered illegal NFA items).
3. NFA items go to an FFL that can handle them, and are registered with the ATF. If they are useful items, the FFL pays the police for them (yay, the taxpayers get their money back and maybe some profit) and then can sell them to someone legally and get the item entered into the system. If they are ghetto illegal machine guns, etc, they can be turned over to the ATF then the ATF can destroy them.
4. Handguns are sold to an FFL (yay, profit for the taxpayers, they get their money back + maybe some extra that the cops can keep for their department, much better that they make some cash that way than from forfeiture and such!). The FFL then sells them for profit to people who go through a background check, getting them out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of law abiding citizens. Then, if the gun ends up having been used in a crime, the gun is in the system and the Police could (after compensating the legal owner) use it for evidence if needed.
Logic, it’s so hard~
Great message to pass on to her children. I bet her kids wind up complete douche bags. Something didn’t go the way you wanted, so go ahead and act like an adult baby and whine and cry and bully those who view things differently than you. If my wife ever acted like this around the kids I’d flip.
I can think of four folks who will need 10 rounds. The Benghazi whistle-blowers being threatened by the White House as they head to Congress to speak. Hope and Change? Pfft. Pure Chicago thuggery, of course.
http://brushfiresinthemindsofmen.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/post-10-benghazi-whistle-blowers-threatened-by-white-house-officials/
Why does Shannon Watts always looked like she’s doped up on Xanax?