A letter published in this morning’s Contra-Costa Times:
Why 30 rounds?
I’m all for Second Amendment rights, but real sportsmen don’t need 30-round magazines.
Only crazy, mass-murdering spree killers do, because 30-round magazines have only one purpose: to kill a lot of people, quickly.
The Arizona shooter could’ve been stopped before he killed six people if he only had access to 10-round magazines. After firing his 30 rounds, he fumbled trying to reload, which allowed his victims to fight back. More would have survived if he had to stop after just 10 shots.
I propose restricting large capacity detachable magazines to military and police forces, and exchanging existing ones in private hands with equivalent amounts of 10-round magazines through the constitutionally-sanctioned process of eminent domain.
The Second Amendment remains inviolate. Owners will retain their guns. But whether their intentions are good or bad, shooters must pause after 10 rounds to reload.
Thus, the next crazy person who tries to commit mass murder will find that we have given his intended victims a fighting chance.
Ed Chainey
The bit that gets me: the idea that limiting spree killers to 10 rounds gives some of the mass murderer’s victims a fighting chance. Thanks a lottery.
Anyway, who the hell wants a “fighting chance” against a spree killer? I want the armed loony terminated with extreme prejudice. No fair fight. I want him (or less likely her) to face immediate and overwhelming firepower. Did you know that LEO trainers are now instructing police in the fine art of contact head shots for just such an occasion? Sounds about right to me.
At the risk of going all MATAFOME on ya, I believe Americans have the right to the best possible self-defense firearms systems available, including extended magazines. The only thing worse than not having a gun when someone’s trying to kill you with a gun is having a gun without enough bullets. How many is enough? As many as I want, really. More specifically, the most I feel I can carry comfortably and use effectively. I feel. Me. And I’ll be the judge of that, thank you very much.
The argument against this right to ballistic self-determination: why not a flamethrower? Biological weapons? Nukes? Because those are weapons of mass destruction, not self-defense. A gun with a 30-round magazine can be used for mass murder (obviously) but it is not necessarily a weapon of mass destruction.
Here’s the thing: you don’t have to use all 30 bullets in a 30-round magazine. Legally, you are only allowed to continue shooting until the threat against your life and limb, or the life and limbs of innocent bystanders, stops. At that point, the rounds in the gun, or in your pocket, or sitting on a nearby table, are out of play. I repeat: you’re only allowed to use as many bullets as you need to defend yourself. What’s wrong with that?
For the good guys? Law-abiding citizens with legally owned firearms? Nothing. If they want spare ammo in the gun rather than secreted on their person, that’s smart thinking! If they can be bothered to lug around 309 rounds, bully for them! Meanwhile, the bad guys should be restricted to 17th century muskets. Reloading will take them AGES. Now, how do we legislate that?