Yesterday, I discussed the growing effort for a renewed ban of so-called "assault weapons." Such bans invariably incorporate a limit on the magazine capacity--the now expired federal ban stipulated ten rounds as the acceptable limit. The supposed rationale is that without "high capacity" (translation: normal capacity) magazines, a deranged killer will not be able to inflict as much carnage as he would if he had to reload more often. That rationale ignores the fact that a skilled shooter can change magazines in an astonishingly short amount of time--see below:
Granted, Travis Tomasie is to most shooters what Lance Armstrong is to most cyclists, but the fact remains that with sufficient practice, anyone can learn to perform very quick magazine changes.
Actually, even if "limited" to a revolver, a skilled shooter will be able to spend a great deal more time shooting than reloading. Enter Jerry Miculek:
Again, Mr. Miculek combines DNA that most of us could only dream of, with untold thousands of hours of very hard work. Again, though, the point is that the damage an armed man can inflict on unarmed victims has little to do with the amount of ammunition his firearm can hold.
Oh--have I mentioned that a study determined that the average number of rounds fired in a gun battle was 2.04 for a revolver, and 2.53 for a semi-automatic--regardless of magazine capacity (Michael McGonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, “Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective”, Journal of Trauma, 1993)? How, exactly, would magazine capacity limits (even in the rather unlikely event that criminals would not find a way around them) save lives?
Fans of limits on magazine capacity wasted little time in jumping on the Virginia Tech atrocity to support their position. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who was so famously unfamiliar with just what she was trying to ban, introduced H.R. 1859 (a stand-alone magazine capacity limit, without the associated "assault weapon" ban) within hours of the massacre. McCarthy and others blamed the expiration of the original federal AWB (with associated 10 round magazine capacity limit) for the number of deaths and woundings on that terrible day.
Last April, though, I discovered yet another flaw in that thinking, and I'll finish up here with the most important parts:
There are numerous problems with this argument, but perhaps the most telling (and one I don't remember seeing elsewhere), comes from simple mathematics. From the empty cartridge cases recovered at the scene, investigators determined that the VA Tech murderer fired 174 shots.
On Thursday, university officials let members of the news media tour Norris Hall, which has been locked since Cho fired 174 shots from two handguns in nine minutes in four classrooms.
To the uninitiated, this may seem an indication that he used specialized equipment, granting him what might sound like a great deal of firepower.
What that ignores, though, is the number of magazines he used--17.
Crime scene technicians recovered a total of 17 spent magazines of ammunition, the majority of which were for Mr. Cho’s 9-millimeter handgun, a law enforcement official said.
If he had started with rounds chambered in both his pistols, and 17 full magazines--even if they were limited to a capacity of 10 rounds, that would account for 172 of his 174 shots.
Do the citizen disarmament advocates claim that the carnage would have been materially reduced had he not been able to take those last two shots (one of which ended, albeit far too late, his miserable existence)?
- National Gun Rights Examiner: 'Assault weapons' ban jewel in Obama crown
Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Take me shooting, Part II: Personal Dignity in self-rule. - Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Overreacting to gun deaths
- Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Gun Trafficking' bill for NC? Part 3: Traced guns are not 'crime guns'
Comments
The Columbine kids took several magazines as I recall. Deranged people will find a way somehow. They had been making bombs, too. If they hadn't had guns they would have used their bombs.....
AH, a REAL inconvenient truth! Also of interest...multiple guns used.
The extent that some of the bannatics will go to give us the illusory "feeling safe" Someone once commented on that.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, November 18, 1993
"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.
--Dwight D Eisenhower"
Do you think that she may have taken something from his statement? Perhaps that could explain the movie towards a police state where citizens are untrusted, searched, databased, tracked, watched, profiled, and despised.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, November 18, 1993
Continue reading on Examiner.com: What the gun prohibitionists won't tell you about magazine capacity limits - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/what-the-gun-prohibitioni...
Guess you really can't fix stupid; maybe gun legislation would be effective if criminals actually paid any attention to the law...
As usual, a very good read, Kurt. This is something I have been preaching for years; there is no magazine restriction that is going to keep an enraged criminal from inflicting carnage on unarmed victims. Even an untrained shooter can perform a "speed reload" in a few seconds.
Which brings us back to square one; the REAL agenda of anti-gunners. Ultimately, their goal is to disarm every law abiding citizen, leaving only criminals and government with arms. Our founders were very clear on the consequences we would suffer if we were to ever let that happen, and there are plenty of historical examples that prove them right, including Nazi Germany.
Short answer: No! I won't obey any magazine or assault weapons "laws".
I don't want those politicians out there to know how fast I'm able to operate my lever action rifle, because then they will be calling it an assault lever action.
The politicians will be trying to put a scary name on everything soon, you will only be allowed to defend yourself with a feather duster if they get their way.
Correct, someone on the offensive will not be hindered by an arbitrary capacity limit. Someone on the defensive, however, faces a much different and more awkward position, and needs as many rounds as possible, especially considering only one magazine may readily be available. Further, we know that these bans won't affect law enforcement. Is it that their lives are more valuable than ours? That is the implication.
Zach, that's a good point. I had actually hoped to touch on that, but this column had gotten pretty long already.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!