Monday, January 17, 2011

High-Capacity Magazines - What's the Purpose?

Earlier today, I was a guest on the radio show "On Point with Tom Ashbrook" of which the first hour of the show was titled "The 33-Bullet Magazine: How Much Firepower is Too Much?" This segment focused on high capacity magazines like the one used by the Tucson shooter earlier this month and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's bill being introduced in Congress tomorrow that would limit magazine capacity to 10 bullets.

Other guests on today's segment included the Congresswoman herself; Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; and Robert Levy, co-counsel in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which led to the Supreme Court to uphold an individual's right to possess a firearm. A lot of heavy hitters and me as the citizen gun owner who supports the 2nd Amendment and who takes a more progressive view on gun ownership.

The basics on magazines: they are attached into a particular type of gun to provide an individual with a certain number of bullets without having to reload. A pistol, like the one I own, only has 5 in the chamber and does not use a magazine. If I use all my bullets, I have to reload in a hurry if I need to get more rounds off. For a weapon such as a Glock, there is the ability to use larger magazines than the clip that may come with the gun itself. You can purchase a separate magazine that has a larger capacity so if you expend all of your ammo, you take the magazine out and put in another one with very little down time.

Why the average gun owner needs more than 10 bullets in a magazine is beyond me. One question that I was asked during the show was if I was worried about a mob or riot outside my door (like in the Los Angeles riots back in 1992) and that I wouldn't have enough fire power to defend myself. First off, we're talking worse case scenarios to the extreme. My worse case scenario is someone actually breaking into my home while I'm here. No gun owner ever wants to use their gun to defend themselves, but I will definitely shoot to kill if someone enters my house to do me harm. But a riot or mob breaking into my home - odds are very VERY slim that will ever happen.

I've lived in two states (Oregon and Texas) with pretty large rural areas that I wouldn't want to be in without some firepower. But do I need a 33-bullet magazine to do that? Heck no - that's way too much firepower for what may face you out there - person or beast. Coming from a family of elk and deer hunters, no one would use a high capacity magazine attached to a semi-automatic gun to kill game. Worse case scenario may be a rabid bear, but a 10-round magazine should take care of that, esp. with a couple of kill shots to the head.

The other guests on today's show brought some very valid points to the table. Levy wasn't completely against the idea of this ban, but he wants to see some valid statistics that show this would curb violence. Helmke mentioned that previous items that have been banned, such as cop killer bullets and guns with plastic components that make them easy to pass through detection, with no impediment toward the general ownership of guns. The Congresswoman, who was personally impacted by a high capacity shooting in 1993 that left her husband dead and son critically injured, strongly defended her intent and reason for introducing this bill.

My take: this bill banning high capacity magazines will NOT prevent a legally-able person from owning a gun - period. It is not taking away someone's right to bear arms. It is very similar to a component of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - and a sensible component too. A high capacity magazine is a massive amount of firepower - not the type that is used for personal protection, hunting or target shooting. The intent of this type of equipment is to provide the user with some serious firepower such as for the military and law enforcement - definitely not for the common gun owner and user.

I don't see this as some slippery slope for future bans on smaller magazines or clips used in guns. We've had this provision before and it didn't lead to even smaller amounts. There will likely be a large uproar by the NRA and other pro-gun groups pushing for this bill to not see the light of day, but it's just good gun ownershop. Just as we're not able to have certain type of bullets or silencers for safety reasons, high capacity magazines need to fall into this same category. One possible consensus - maybe we can propose that high capacity magazines are treated the same way as silencers/suppressors - if your state allows them (only 38 of the 50 do), you have to go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to register for silencer ownership and have it registered. It doesn't mean that you can't have one in your gun collection - it's just registered through the ATF.

While we can't regulate crazy, we can establish reasonable and sensible laws and procedures to protect the general public from people who should not own/use firearms. In addition to taking actions such as this bill, we also need to urge our lawmakers to make sure mentally ill people do not gain access to guns. Although mentally ill people probably don't care if they are abiding by the law, we still need to get those laws on the books. It's a complex issue with no easy solutions, but we need to start the dialogue now with the medical community to craft and pass the right legislation to protect the public.

I wish Congresswoman McCarthy the best of luck and will offer to do what I can to help make this bill law. It will be interesting to see what statements the NRA will make in countering this bill, and I'll plan to break those down as they come across the news lines. I hope others take today's show as an example of what is means to have a civil discussion about guns and use it as a basis to create sensible regulations that protect our rights to bear arms without giving too much firepower to those who should not have it.

Heck, it would be nice to see Washington and other talking heads in the news media today to have civil and rational discussions - imagine that. Civility and rationality on the airwaves - something to strive for.

26 comments:

  1. So... How long have you been an Anti-gunner? Lets see.... Were you ever associated with the "American Hunters and Shooters Association"? The fake pro-gun organization that vanished* a while back.

    *Website is currently Offline

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously this is a false-flag operation here. You might be able to fool a few independents, and many liberals (so easy to fool - the socialists have been fooling them for years. The ones that aren't already socialists already, that is.)

    But conservatives know your "credentials" are false and foolish. Go back to Helmke and let him know this was a bust.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, you should have gotten a few more posts and a few more followers under your belt before you let your true colors show.

    Crawl back under your rock.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nobody needs more than 10 rounds in a magazine eh? Then why do cops need them?

    What are you and the gun banners going to do? Go door to door collecting/confiscating the masses of 10+ magazines? Ban their transfer from person to person?

    The problem with MOST gun control is that it runs roughshod over most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. When are you and your ilk going to grok that as a bug and not a feature?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmm, how about we call them what they are, that is "standard capacity magazines. Most pistols these days are manufactured to accept magazines with a capacity ABOVE 10. This includes most pistols carried by the police.

    What you are really advocating is laws requiring regressive engineering of guns to accept new "low-capacity magazines."

    ReplyDelete
  6. You know it would be nice to have the media have a reasonable discourse these days. But then the facts that gun control dosen't work, and that less guns = more crime would get out and then were would we be? No, the talking heads have an adjenda to stomp on our rights and ignore the facts so they will keep doing what they are doing. . . and you are helping them.

    How anyone can call you pro gun rights is beyond me, heck you are not even pro rights by the sound of it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, based on your description of your personal firearm, you use a pepperbox, probably black powder? Otherwise, how do you get "5 in the chamber" without malfunction?

    Come on, if you're going to masquerade as a gun rights proponent, the least you could do is do some homework and get the descriptive terms correct.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As the curent President of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party, I cannot share your opinion on these magazines - I own a few 30-round magazines, myself. But I do respect your right to speak out on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What does NEED have to do with anything? I mean, do you NEED a car that can drive faster than the speed limit, or a power drill when a hand drill would do just as well, or to eat delicious juicy steak every now and then when beans and rice are nutritionally adequate? Of course you don't need these things. That means that can be banned without infringing on anyone's rights, no?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "American Hunters and Shooters Association"?

    Please. You'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope my tax dollars that unfortunately already go to fraudulent and inaccurate "stories" as reported by NPR don't contribute to this anti-gun front.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, what does "need" have to do with it? You don't "need" a blog to exercise free speech, so if the government wanted to ban blogging you'd be just fine with that, correct?

    If not then why aren't you willing to apply the same logic to the 2nd Amendment.

    You are no friend of mine. You're a shill for AHSA, which is an always will be a GUN CONTROL group.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Helmke mentioned that previous items that have been banned, such as cop killer bullets and guns with plastic components that make them easy to pass through detection.

    Why must your buddy Helmke be so dishonest? Cop-killer bullets are a myth. They simply do not exist and never have. The same is true for "plastic guns" that can pass through metal detectors. There is no firearm on the market today that can do this and there never has been.

    Tracee - Why aren't you calling Paul Helmke out on his lies? Do you support lying to the American public if it furthers the cause of gun control?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I misspoke earlier. I'm the current CHAIR of the Texas Caucus, not the PRESIDENT. I have no idea how I goofed like that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Tracee Larson was previously a member of the Advisory Board of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a “false flag” organization that pretended to represent gun rights while actually calling for more gun control.

    AHSA was founded by millionaire Ray Schnoenke, a leading contributor to Democratic causes. Schnoenke previously also contributed to Handgun Control, Inc. the predecessor to the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence."

    Looks like your opinions rank right up there with the likes of Mccarthy and Schumer. Stop pretending to be someone you're not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is easily the most pathetic rouse de guerre you lefties have pulled yet.

    And now we will expose it everywhere.

    Try again, Tracee.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I don't see this as some slippery slope for future bans on smaller magazines or clips used in guns. We've had this provision before and it didn't lead to even smaller amounts."

    Actually it did. Or at least it would have had gun owners not been so burned by previous legislation. I suggest you go Google "Brady Bill II", the bill that would have made you buy a $300 "arsenal license" if you wanted buy a $15 brick of rimfire ammunition.


    "Just as we're not able to have certain type of bullets or silencers for safety reasons, high capacity magazines need to fall into this same category. "

    False. Silencers were never banned for safety reasons. They were banned for purely political reasons. Specifically, to keep poor people from hunting for food undetected on rich peoples land during the Great Depression.

    "One possible consensus - maybe we can propose that high capacity magazines are treated the same way as silencers/suppressors - if your state allows them (only 38 of the 50 do), you have to go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to register for silencer ownership and have it registered. It doesn't mean that you can't have one in your gun collection - it's just registered through the ATF. "

    Are you seriously proposing a $200 (1000%!) tax, 3-4 month waiting period, and law enforcement permission for a magazine? Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  18. PHONY. WE ARE CALLING YOU OUT FOR WHAT YOU ARE. ALL LIE.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Want to ban magazines?

    Molon Labe.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "A pistol, like the one I own, only has 5 in the chamber and does not use a magazine."

    What kind of gun do you have? if there are 5 in the chamber, wouldn't one set the next one off? Would that be a machine gun?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tracee, it's time to take this blog down. You've been discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Do you mean Tracee is a phonee?

    ReplyDelete
  23. My father owned a Winchester .22 bolt action single shot rabbit killer (it's mine now). It helped put a lot of coney on the table in the 30's when he was a boy on a struggling Montana farm. But you had to be good. You needed actual skill, because you had one shot. Be accurate, or be hungry.

    Machine and semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines demand little to no skill to eliminate a target. So they are not sporting equipment. Sports are about skill.

    People wanting to own and use non-sporting guns have the option to join a "well-regulated militia", their state guard.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ask Helmke again about that "plastic gun" ban - I don't remember that one so well...

    On a related topic, McCarthy's bill would require serial numbers on magazines and belt feeding devices, like individual M60 links. That is more hilarious than microstamping ammo.

    Good luck being taken seriously as a gun-rights blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Leo:

    Perhaps you missed or misread the Heller case. D.C. V Heller unanimously determined that the Second Amendment applied to 'the people' not 'the militia'.

    That settled, perhaps you could point out where in the Constitution is mentions a requirement for a 'sporting purpose'. I must have missed it.

    ReplyDelete