See how that works? Gun control advocates don’t care about the balance between our constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and society’s collective need to protect its citizens from murderers. If ONE tragedy can be averted by a draconian gun control law then go ahead and ban shit. Modern home defense sporting rifles, high-capacity magazines, silencers, automatic weapons, .50 caliber rifles, whatever. Sure, some otherwise law-abiding citizens will get caught up by a (supposedly) well-intentioned regulation. But that’s a small price to pay to stop a greater horror. It’s not like anyone needs those things. You know; other than the cops. Here’s how that works . . .
First, you find a victim of a tragedy that could have been prevented by the proposed law. Then you exploit—I mean publicize the case in as emotional a way as possible, based on that entirely theoretical prophylactic possibility. Case in point: Crackdown urged on rapid-fire ammo
In a written statement Monday, the receptionist who called 911 from underneath her desk after she was shot in the abdomen during the American Civic Association massacre urged Congress to pass a law banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one used by shooter Jiverly Wong in 2009.
“How many mass shootings will it take for Congress to protect us?” [Shirley] DeLucia [above] said in the statement, her first public comments since the day of the shooting. “The horror of that day haunts me through flashbacks, nightmares and lasting physical effects. I live with it every day and I’ll have to live with it for the rest of my life, but if there’s one thing I can do to prevent future violence it’s to express my fervent support for this common-sense measure.”
Inherent in this statement: the government must protect us. Excuse me, but have you met a Congressperson? Aside from the ones with military experience, I’d fully expect them to greet a life-or-death situation with a Florida School Board-type “let’s talk them to death” response.
And yes, there is one thing that Ms. DeLucia could do to prevent future violence—at least for herself. Carry a gun.
And that, dear readers, is why gun control has come a cropper; the average person understands the desire indeed the need to have and/or carry a gun. Which is also why gun control advocates have resorted by this “death by a thousand cuts” approach. Score enough non-sensical victories and the cumulative effect on gun ownership will be great. At least in theory.
Anyway, note the next step: calling a high capacity magazine ban “common sense.” As we’ve pointed out here numerous times, “common sense” really means “you don’t need to think about this.” Or “pay no attention to the well-meaning man behind the curtain.” Or “I am the great and powerful Oz!” Speaking of which . . .
Step three: get the cops behind it. For yea, verily, it is Binghamton, NY Police Chief Joseph Zikuski who delivered unto us the quote headlining this post, not Ms. DeLucia. Bet you didn’t see THAT one coming.
Zikuski said a federal ban would give police an advantage over criminals. Had Wong not turned the gun on himself, Zikuski said Binghamton police would have been “severely outgunned.”
While the bill would not completely wipe out the clips, Zikuski said it would make it much more difficult to obtain one.
“There would be an aftermarket, there’s no doubt about that,” Zikuski said. “But at least this would make it more difficult to get your hands on them. Perhaps tragedy could be averted if someone were to be arrested by police for having one of these on them.”
OK, time to wrap it up. Easily done. Begin by not reporting any dissenting voices (check) and end by quoting the victim predicting dire consequences if the peeps don’t get behind the new law.
“As a survivor of the horrific shooting in Binghamton, it’s clear to me that the cycle of senseless gun violence will repeat itself without a federal ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines,” she said. “We need to protect the public from these weapons, which serve only to inflict as much carnage as possible.”
The cycle of senseless gun violence rarely involves large capacity magazines. Banning magazines won’t stop the cycle of gun violence. Duh.
We had a very sad situation here in Denver just yesterday. A woman who was apparently being stalked by her ex husband (who had a well documented history of violence, abuse and threats) hit the “panic button” at her place of employment notifying 911 to respond.
The cops showed up just two minutes later, but she was already dead and the killer was gone. Just goes to show the truth of the old saying that “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
BTW, last I heard the cops were still looking for the ex-husband as “person of interest” in the case.
Here’s the link (minimal story at this time)
i find it ridiculous that these people actively prostitute murder and tragedy to further their desire to ban inanimate objects they find “scary”. when it really comes down to it for example, a 33 round Glock magazine is nothing more than a piece of plastic with metal inserts. Only with intent and a sick human mind loading and firing their weapon at somebody does it become dangerous to society.
these people that cry about mag capacity have little more to frame their talking points on than these tragic events and what they see on TV and movies.
“While the bill would not completely wipe out the clips, Zikuski said it would make it much more difficult to obtain one.”
Mr.Zikuski YOU ARE A POLICE CHIEF and you don’t know the difference between a mag and a clip???
btw have these people ever thought of the possibility of ONE active shooter having 2 or three guns? it seems not with the emphasis on arbitrary magazine capacity arguments instead of screaming for increased funding in mental health services. I live in state where this kind of foolishness is state law with a ban on mags larger than 20 rounds, which solves or achieves nothing other than being a pain in my @$$.
Just another unfortunate victim who has no knowledge of the weapon picking a popular rally cry. I was the victim of a hit and run from a huge, jacked-up pick up truck. Should I start crying about big vehicles and limited engine size?
those damn high capacity engines almost killed me!
You missed the part about framing the argument so that opponents seem unreasonable. By labeling their position “common sense” it automatically implies that anyone opposed clearly lacks common sense and should be dismissed as the dolt that he is.
Seems to *me* that “common sense” dictates that if some evildoer out there has a gun that the best and surest protection is for ME to have a gun as well. Hope, prayer, and 911 on speed dial simply do not even come close as alternatives.
I wonder where you buy “Rapid fire ammuniton”? All I ever see is the regular kind.
Dicks Sporting Goods. It is under the “14 deer, 1 innocent bystander, 1 shell” shells which reside alongside the “I always hit someone’s home when aiming at a turkey” rounds. If you can’t find them they are in the ‘Guns are baadd, Mmmmkay’ section of the store.
A madman good with a single-shot shotgun can do more damage than most morons with a standard capacity mag in a semi…
(Occasional listener, first time caller)
We should make it illegal to have a capacity of ten or more rounds in a handgun magazine. Wait. Last I checked, Binghamton was in New York. Where it is ALREADY illegal to have more than ten rounds in your firearm. *hums The Animals’ “We gotta get out of this place”*
We must enact a NEW law that does the same thing. Maybe that one will work.
I’m recalling a friend telling me that when he lived in Oklahoma they passed a law to make it illegal to do a drive by shooting. I would think that if someone’s going to go through all the trouble of killing someone that they don’t really care if it’s MORE illegal doing it from a car. I guess I don’t have that “common sense” gun control advocates speak of so frequently…
And, to be as dark and terrible as I can be, she was one of the first people the shooter encountered. Magazine capacity wouldn’t have helped her much.