Thursday, March 21, 2013

A Quick Thought...

So, the magazine ban in Colorado is a done deal, right? And as part of the rationale behind the ban were the Columbine school shooting and Aurora movie theater shooting, right?

So tell me, if you can. How does limiting the number of rounds a magazine can legally hold to 15 stop shootings - both of which happened in "gun-free" zones - which saw 13 and 12 deaths, respectively?

Honestly, I don't get this. Both the Columbine shooting, where 13 people were killed, and the Aurora movie theater shooting, where 12 people died, could just as easily have been accomplished with a 15 round magazine as a 30. The Aurora movie theater shooting, utilized an AR-15 pattern rifle and a pump-action shotgun, with the shotgun seeing more use after the AR-15 jammed from a high capacity magazine. The Columbine shooting happened right in the middle of the Federal Assault Weapons ban.

In the Aurora shooting - which was mentioned heavily by CO Governor Hickenlooper - there were 12 deaths and more than 50 people wounded. Even with a 30 round magazine (which, by the way, *IS* standard capacity, not high capacity), that's two reloads. If the people being shot were unable to stop the attack when he stopped to reload twice, why is there any indication they could stop the attack if he had to reload four times?

The forces against freedom can't answer this simple question because all they have on their sides is emotion and rhetoric. They would have you believe that there is a magic number that will automatically stop all mass murders, as though someone bent on killing a large number of people is going to care that their magazine is banned. They don't care about gun-free zones or laws against murder, but by gum they're not about to break that ban on magazines! We know that it takes a second or two at most to change a magazine - or to simply switch to a second firearm - and I suspect the forces against freedom know this as well.

They rely on ignorance and fear to push their agenda - when they're not outright lying; what does that tell you about the strength of their argument?

That is all.


Cape Cod Ex-pat said...

It was never about stopping these shootings. It was all about control:
1. Control of the narrative to show that they're "doing something"; and,
2. The ongoing control of that encroaching half of our cake, that fence across half our property.

It's that foot in the door that they placed to keep worming there way in until we have no more doors to shut on them...

Ritchie said...

The fix is in-Governor Howdy Doody is going to Washington.

Dave H said...

I'm curious to see how the nanny governors fare when they leave their little enclaves where everybody thinks like they do and try to convince the whole country to vote for them. Even the President knew better than to make gun control an issue when he was running for the White House the first time.

Even if they never mention it again, these guys (including Gov. Cuomo here) will have the taint of having signed gun control legislation into law following them around.

TOTWTYTR said...

Well said. It's not about actually doing anything. It's about appearing to do something.

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings..."

TigerStripe said...

The Colorado ban doesn't simply ban mags that hold more than fifteen rounds it bans mags that can be modified to hold more than fifteen rounds. They can make that mean anything unless the judge or jury is composed of well informed gun owners.

At least the sheriffs are saying they won't enforce it... TS

Anonymous said...

If I remember correctly the Columbine assholes had a Hi-Point carbine in 9mm.
The Only mags for them hold 10.

Jester said...


I expect some of them honestly think that a 15 round limit will change things.

Some of them.

More of then I would guess know it would make no difference, so the next time a shooting happens they can take another step. "Look, we tried this and it still did nothing we must do more" Next will be 10 rounds, and all semi autos must be registered or they become illegal. What, someone shot multiple people with two or three revolvers? Well now you only get one... and so on and so on.

Anonymous said...

Come April 15 in New York it will be SEVEN. If you have 10 round mags you can keep them but you can only carry 7 rounds in them. And you will never be able to buy any more 10 rounders unless you go to another state and buy them. And NY dealers will only be able to sell semi-auto rifles or pistols that come new with mags that hold 7 or less. I predict a huge uptick in 1911 sales pretty soon.

Ed said...

The Legislators and Governor made the mistake in thinking that some law that they could pass would make these killings stop. However, they are not that powerful or wise. There are no laws that will stop those intent on senseless destruction. The Legislators need to study the concept of hubris.

The ugly truth is that by willingly entering a theater with "No Guns Allowed" signs, the Aurora victims were unwittingly consenting to their own wounding and death. How many, if they saw the signs, thought to themselves "what could possibly go wrong?" The refused to imagine the horror. Much has been said about the effect of armed movie patrons possibly wounding other patrons, but that total effect would have less destructive of life than the one person ignoring the signs knowing that no one would effectively oppose him as he slaughtered them.

Now the Legislators and Governor have these laws thinking "that should help", without thinking "what could possibly go wrong?". Uh, someone ignoring the law just like someone ignored the signs or someone who has trained to rapidly reload.

The only practical solution is to promote the ownership of weapons proficiency with weapons and carrying of weapons, just like we now teach first aid, CPR and how to use a fire extinguisher and expect public buildings to have first aid kits, AEDs and fire extinguishers. It is pitiful that the Legislators and the Governor are deluding themselves with the consent of the governed. They all think those laws will make them safer, just as those signs did. The "did something" alright, but unknowingly made the situation worse.


Daniel in Brookline said...


I have read that there were at least three concealed-carriers in the Aurora theater that awful night. (Why didn't they shoot back? Because they saw the "no guns allowed" signs and left their guns in their cars.)

There were also some genuine heroes that night, including at least three young men who died protecting their ladies. We don't hear about them nearly enough.

A good friend of mine (we served together in the IDF, too many years ago) lives just outside Aurora, and in fact had been planning to attend that showing. I verified that he was all right, and asked him if he was armed. He said no... to which I replied "Why the heck not?" That's basically all it took. He now owns a Ruger 10/22 and a Jericho 941 (IDF, remember?), is shopping for an AR, and goes shooting regularly.

Between that, and the statistic I read yesterday - that applications for gun licenses have doubled IN NEWTOWN CONNECTICUT - I think we're generally headed in the right direction.

Old NFO said...

It's control... Period... And they will keep spreading their lies and hope if they are repeated enough that people WILL believe it...

Shane W said...

NFO is right. Nothing more than control. I'd bet anything that they KNOW without a doubt their "laws" won't do one single thing to deter criminals