This post is a bit late, but after seeing our President address the nation at the memorial service for the fallen and injured in the wake of the attack at the Safeway in Tuscon, Arizona, I would like to drop all divisive rhetoric. I will say that I do honor my president, I think he is a great man. If there are times when he has disappointed me, I speak out, but this is not one of those times. He has instructed me, us, all of us, not to use this event to polarize the country. I listened. I hope we all listened.
I do believe that we can come together as a country and pass legislation to ban these high capacity magazines. I strongly believe that this could saves lives and if just one life were to be spared as a result of this legislation, it would be in the name of Christine Taylor Green, and all the other lives that were taken out that day.
Let me state this as clearly as I can using the following conditional statements:
If a gun had more rounds of ammunition, it could kill more people. This statement is true. If you had a counter-example to prove it false, I would love to hear it!
On the other hand, the converse of this statement: If more people were killed, then the gun used had more rounds of ammunition, is clearly false. There are an endless amount of counter examples that can prove it to be false, such as the skill level of the shooters ability to change magazines, etc. You can find counter examples all over the internet.
The original statement, not this false one, is the only argument required, in my opinion, to remove these magazines from the market. If even one more life could be taken using high round magazines, if even one persons liberty could be taken away at the expense of the freedom of their shooter, than this argument is enough to ban this high capacity magazine. If you disagree, tell me how many people is your limit? Is it ok if only 5 more people could be killed? 10? I say 1, just one life, is enough to ban these magazines.
You see, I am pro-life.
Advertisement
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Filed under: Politics
Real gun control is impossible becuse the NRA owns Congress. They bought it. They paid for it. At the very least we must get rid of semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines.
The problem with specious arguments is they cheat us from discovering the truth.
Your title is Let’s Unite Against Killers and who can argue with that. Certainly we all agree with the twin goals of preventing the occurrence of multiple homicides and limiting their damage. But I disagree with your conclusion that uniting against extended magazines would materially contribute either of those goals. Mass shootings are actually so rare, with so little in common as to method, motive, and result, that they require study and analysis as discrete events. In the Arizona tragedy, as far as I am aware, there is no empirical evidence to support the proposition, that this shooting was more deadly because an extended magazine was used. Or that restrictions (actually more restrictions) would have changed the tragic events of that day.
Besides, it’s not like we haven’t already tried this. Indeed, from Sept 13, 1994 through September 13, 2004 federal law limited magazines to 10 rounds throughout the US, except for law enforcement. In that decade long experiment no data emerged to show the ban saved even one life, or prevented one mass shooting. There was absolute nothing to conclude on either side of the equation. Private citizens bent on criminal mayhem were not rendered less efficient, nor were law enforcement agents, exempt from the restriction, measurably more so.
The Columbine shootings, in the 6th year of the ban, were done with 10 round magazines. The Fort Hood shooting was perpetrated without extended magazines, although they were again available. If there is a common thread running through mass shootings it is the deranged mania of the perpetrators, and their preference for crowded “gun free zones” like workplaces with firearm restrictions, schools, shopping malls, and ironically military assembly halls.
Magazine changes take seconds, around 3 for almost anyone familiar with firearms, under 2 seconds for someone who is moderately trained or proficient. Competition shooters change magazines in less than one.
It would be just as easy for me to speculate that the extended magazine, and the false sense of lethality and competence it gave the shooter, were contributing factors in his being overpowered, and limited his murder and mayhem, but I prefer not to do so. Instead, I believe the responsible and most effective thing to do, is wait until the days events are fully understood, and then determining if there is material action that can be taken to prevent or limit a like occurrence. That would much better honor the memory of the victims than making a hasty, largely symbolic gesture. Which, while it may make some feel better, is unlikely to have any positive results at all.