In a matter of days after the Tucson atrocity, we saw all manner of BS gun control arguments raised yet again. A case of simple minds seeking unworkably simplistic answers to complicated issues, and pointedly avoiding the real problems that need to be addressed. The London-based Economist sniffed pompously that in no other civilized country would a private citizen be able to buy a Glock 19. This will come as a shock to my French, Italian, Belgian, and other friends overseas who legally own them. But when does truth ever get in the way of rhetoric? When does the snooty brie-and-chablis crowd miss a chance to bully what they perceive to be blue-collar rednecks who own firearms?

The criminal use of extended magazines – that is, magazines that hold more cartridges than the gun was originally designed for – is exceedingly rare. I remember one case in the 90s with an AK47 clone and an oversize drum magazine. One from the ‘80s in which a cop-killer had an aftermarket 40-round magazine for a rifle designed for 30-round mags. From there, I’d have to go back to the 1930s, when Dillinger and company had a few Colt semiautomatic pistols made up into full-automatic machine pistols with extended mags, by an outlaw gunsmith in Texas. (If I’ve missed any, please point them out here.) By contrast, there are MANY cases where the good guys, cops and armed citizens alike, ran out of ammo and could have greatly benefited from extended magazine technology.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy, who rode into Congress on public sympathy when her husband was murdered and her son wounded by a spree killer, has already introduced a new bill to ban not only extended magazines such as the 33-rounder the Tucson mass murderer used, but ordinary magazines of full capacity. She would limit us again to ten rounds, which did no good in the decade of the Clinton Assault Weapon ban, and will do no good if it passes again. The way it’s worded, however, it will ban many ordinary sporting guns and magazines that have been in law-abiding American families for generations.

I empathize with Representative McCarthy, and I understand her pain. But this is the lady who, when asked if she knew what a barrel shroud was – one of the evil “assault rifle” appurtenances she wanted to ban – replied that she thought it was something to do with the rear end of the gun.

Sorry, but those who would pass legislation controlling law-abiding use of automobiles should, if they’re not drivers themselves, at least know the hood from the trunk. When the lawmaker doesn’t know her butt from her business end about the thing she would ban or even confiscate, it is Nature’s way of telling us that, however well-intentioned and deserving of compassion she may be, she may not be the person to be making those laws.

There is much more to discuss in regard to this issue, and many unintended consequences that can ripple outward from ill-advised, knee-jerk legislation. Right now, the “high capacity magazine ban solution” seems as empty as an unloaded magazine.

I’ll have more to say about it here soon…but what have YOU to say on the matter?

1 COMMENT

  1. What have I to say on the matter? I do not comply with unconstitutional or immoral “laws”, no matter the consequences. Period.

  4. I was not into shooting sports back when the Clinton Ban went into effect. It would be good to hear from those who were aware of the political climate at that time. and could offer comparisons to now. I want to believe that 10-round magazine law couldn’t make it through both the house and Senate. But it pays to leave nothing to chance.

    If such legislation were to be approved, what is likely to happen to us who already have magazines that are more than that? would they be grandfathered in? Would we be reimbursed for having to buy new magazines to replace those we already own? What a mess! And for no good…

  5. Regretfully, most politicos would much rather go after an inanimate object like a handgun magazine, than take on an issue like mental health and why certain individuals demonstrating certain tendencies should be constantly allowed to walk around free. More than once in my career, I’ve had to argue and/or beg physicians and health care professionals to commit people that I knew were self destructive or a menace to others. More importantly, why is the information on such folks darn near impossible for most law enforcement types to access? Even though as a 30 year LEO, I don’t want the “authorities” to know my list of prescriptions more than anyone else would, but when I start becoming “too” vocal in my opinions and beliefs and become looked upon by others as a potential threat to human safety, there needs to be a red flag that can be thrown that will, momentarily at least, take me out of the game for some evaluation.

  6. Other side want blame the glock 19 extended magazine instead nut job who was shooting in Tucson. It much easyer to ban the gun or magazine than is fix issues of guy shooting it. What silly again ban the magazines well do nothing stop if happens again. What really bad Mas Sent Tucson event the ant-gun congressmen who brandy bunch love good gun oweners like your self me dislike have used event push ever silly ant gun law they can. You have had Mayor New York send private eyes gun shows buy glock 19 33 round magazine to prove that safer if none state had right sell guns becuase make New Yorker safer if they could. Have McCarthy who does have clue about guns for long time kept call her bill high cap clip ban. Some one need explain her clips are used in rifles not in handguns. Than got people at Msnbc attack gun oweners Nra with silly opion loon toon guest brady bunch facts. Mas high cap magazine what there start off with push for is ban on all firearms . Look for assault rifle ban return becuase ever sent expire other side been try push new assault rifle ban back in place. Again no suprise who pushing these silly ant-gun measures on ever body again same cast ant-gun congressmen who are all try take way firearms for owen safty.

  7. Carolyn McCarthys’ qualifications to suggest firearm legislation are just as valid as the Pope’s qualifications to discuss sex.
    Tom

  8. You know what would be a great law we should pass? Make it a felony to murder someone!

    Wait, don’t we already have a law like that? Hmmm maybe we should try enforcing it and stop with early releases. Isn’t something like 60-70% of murderers have previous felonies on their record?

    Personally, I would like to see people who commit crimes serve out their sentence. There was a P1 article that talked about how prisons help criminals network and learn “trade skills”. Prisons really need to be more of a punishment and less of a tax payer funded resort/vacation.

    Mental history is a dicey one because on one hand any law-bidding citizen who owns gun might be considered “at-risk” by some agency…BATFE? However, it seems a lot of the recent shooters have had some kind of history with warning signs. If it could be done right, I would be for LEOs having some kind of access to at-risk individuals. But chances are we’d have some biased agency deeming gun-ownership alone was sociopathic.

    @Kevin A.- I’m sorry buddy but I really doubt we’d be compensated at all. The Clinton AWB grandfathered banned items but then I think the People’s Republic of Kalifornia required registration of them.

  9. As Mr. Emmanuel has said,”Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The effect of blind emotion in such legislation must never be discounted. I think that having people who are so obviously mentally disturbed,(the university expelled him for his behavior), run around without treatment or any other precaution is far more dangerous that an extended capacity magazine.

  10. The answer to this problem hasn’t changed in the last few HUNDRED years. Honest, law-abiding, armed citizens are the answer. Not police, not legislation, and certainly not giving the state more power to intrude into our private lives or medical records. I’m a doctor, and I understand how totally unacceptable it is for the state to have individual medical records. Any legislation attempting to deconstruct doctor/patient confidentiality is a dangerous affront to the doctor/patient relationship and has the potential to destroy patient trust in our medical system.

    It is not possible to legislate evil out of the world. Stop trying and arm yourselves.

  11. Yes, we have laws against murder with dire penalties. Gee, that didn’t work in Arizona, so — I know, let’s pass another law with a much lighter penalty, yeah, that will stop ’em next time!

  13. Just like many people believed the AWB banned machine guns, many people think McCarthy’s bill ban’s “high capacity” magazines of 30 rounds or more when it actually attempts to ban magazines of 10 rounds or more.

  14. Yes,

    Mark M. is right. I’m one of those MH professionals but also a gun owner. Stopping dangerous folks before they act out their fantasies would be a better way (and less, easy, of course) than banning big mags.

    Mas, this is WOT but have you learned the circumstances of the embassy employee in Pakistan who took down two bad guys? MO, weapon, etc. Like your book on the “Files”, I try to learn something from every encounter.

  15. I feel Ms. McCarthys pain but I feen the constitution has been stomped on enough by people like her and Charles Schumer, and ilk. I am affraid the real threat is in Washinginton due to thier lack of knoladge of firearms and the Law itself. They let the emotion of the moment guide them.

    We need to continue the perging of the idiots in D.C. every election year until they are all gone.

  16. I said it before and I’ll say it again, if we let them ban any magazines of over 10 rounds and some nut case uses one of THOSE we’ll be looking at a ban on 10-rounders, down to say 5. THEN, when a couple of 5-rounders are used (by quick mag changes) by some nut case we’ll be down to single-shot guns and then…..
    We need to resist NOW if this “Hi-cap” idea gains any momentum. The anti’s are always spouting that we need “common sense” gun laws. Well apply common sense to this plan and anyone who HAS a shred of common sense will see that it’s ridiculous. I just hope that enough people in Congress HAVE enough real common sense….
    (I know that’s asking a lot).

  17. I, and probably we, will never understand the liberal mind. Liberals believe that the individual is never directly responsible for his actions. It is always the system, the environment, some inanimate object or other thing “beyond their control” that is at fault. If that Liberal is also a politician, they believe that the offending object needs to be regulated in order to guarantee that whatever happened will not happen again. The media supports such madness because sensationalism pays its bills. The current make-up of the House should contain and offset the irrational reactions to the Tuscon event, despite the generous media coverage.

  18. A couple weeks ago there was a shooting at a Detroit police station. One gunman with a shotgun walked into the station and managed to do all kinds of damage before the officers in the area (there were at least four of them) managed to kill him. They fired far more than 10 shots. Seems like a timely-enough example to me that more than 10 rounds per mag can be awfully useful sometimes.

  19. I really do not understand where the magic number of 10 rounds comes in to play. When whas it established that if three home intruders break into my house, that I have only 10 rounds to adjudicate my response. Seems as if the Congresswoman would rather have the advantage go to the black hats than the person attempting to defend their family. I understand her loss and her reasons for the legislation, but I must state that they are misguided in my opionion. Limiting the good guys in their ability to defend their homes will in no way limit the criminal in ther ability to invade and administer their murderous intentions on the innocent. Possibly I am overlooking something here, but it must be something so obtuse that it is not visible to the average citizen. Sorry if this is offensive to the general readership, but it seems like a 10 round limit in magazines is no magic bullet for silencing the criminals or evil minded persons from carrying out their acts of violence against us. What part of this legislation is going to help me defend my home and family?

  20. We so-called civilians who carry legally in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia cannot possess (center fire) magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity. Just means that we have to practice our tactical reloads often.

  21. Things like this make me afraid for our country, when I realize what kind of willfully ignorant boobs we allow to write legislation. It’s not that they don’t know; it would take five minutes to find out. It’s that they DON’T WANT to know. It would have taken Carolyn McCarthy two minutes to find out what a barrel shroud was, if she’d cared. But no; she was given a list of “evil features”, probably by the Brady Campaign or Josh Sugarman, and told to list them in her bill; and so she did, just like a good little puppet — without once ever wondering what any of them actually meant.

  22. Jasmine:  In short, NONE of it. You’re absolutely correct. Gun control legislation is written on the assumption that criminals — which, let us not forget, is a term that we apply to people who habitually and knowingly violate laws — will decide out of the goodness of their hearts to obey them. As Tim in Colorado says, murder is already a felony, and that really hasn’t stopped anyone, has it?

  24. Talking to dedicated anti-gun people is like discussing the subject with a cabbage. It’s a total waste of time as their feeble minds are already made up and set in stone. Common sense and logic are foreign to these types whose actions are based purely on emotions or the words of some liberal celebrity surrounded by bodyguards in Follywood. The only people who possibly could be corrected and saved are the clueless zombies who listen to the liberal talking heads of the so-called “Mainstream Media” and run like lemmings with left leaning Democrats. These folks might be convinced through logic and fasts, and enough patience, to realize the folly of their ways and become normal again. But with die hard anti-gunners, don’t waste your time and breath as those kinds are beyond help. You can quote all sorts of facts and statistics to prove that inanimate objects do not cause crime, but those words will never pentrate their thick skulls or just go in one ear and out the other. Limiting a gun’s magazine capacity is like ordaining a knife could only be sharpened to a certain extent, that a blade’s increased keeness makes it more suitable for criminal activities.

  25. Many have fought the battle of bad government, gun rights groups trying to take away our freedom, guns and right to own them. I am truly grateful. When an unfortunate incident happens it always seems to focus on the guns rather than the people that performed the act. Criminals will always be criminals no matter how many laws are in force. That’s why they are criminals.
    The movement to regain our rights is in our favor I believe and we need to focus and keep it moving.

  26. The problem could be simply addressed at the local level. Instead of banning weapons and accessories, the local municipalities should ban open air political rallies. They seem to be an attractive nuisance and can attract the dangerousand cause danger to attendees.

    All that needs to be done is a simple ordinance requiring all political rallies be held in a venue with access control (arena, hotel ball room, meeting hall etc). Require armed security payed for by the politician or group holding the meeting etc. Require metal dectors and possibly TSA type security if the initial measures aren’t enough.

  27. Massad we can not outlaw stupid or evil. Should not even try. What scares me is that with 10 round mags the damage and death toll could have been higher. I am a far leftwinger–one that does not follow party line. I think for myself. America has bigger problems to deal with than mags. Our thoughts and prayers go to the dead and injured. No more victims. I carry legal.

  28. if it were not for the U.S. Constitution, guns would have been banned long ago. Laws like this chip away at our freedom.

    more gun control is on its way and this time it will be illegal to complain about it!

  29. I think George Carlin said it best when said “not to blame the politician, blame the idiots that elected them.” It truely amazes me how some of these people get elected and stay elected. Has the population of this country become that stupid.

    But I guess when most people get their “news” off the Cable media and just take it as truth, what can we expect.

  30. The irony of the whole thing is that every law passed in this country is ultimatly enforcable by the end of a gun. Break a law, even one that someday is deemed unconstitutional, and you can be arrested. Resist arrest and the level of force goes up. Resist enough and deadly force becomes authorized.

    This is a fact that escapes most legislators when they are writing feel good emotional laws that address their personal fears more than the problem at hand. Having a law that makes handgun possession punishable by life in prision wouldn’t have stopped the tragety in Arizona. But it would stop lawful citizens from defending the innocent once the carnage began. Instead of making it a crime to partake in the God given right to defend oneself this action by the private citizen should be encouraged by our lawmakers. But that would be placing the true power back where it belongs.

  31. Here in Illinois a criminal can enter an establishment relatively assured that they can do their job unrestricted because the law abiding citizen cannot defend himself. The Illinois no-carry law only benefits the criminal while restricting the citizen.

    It makes me ask who my legislators are truly working for – me or the criminal.

  32. @Roger in NC

    The Liberal agenda makes a lot more sense when you think of their legislation in terms of expanding government.

    The most viable solution to crime would probably be arming the public and teaching them to defend themselves. Won’t cost taxpayers a cent and with proper training you’d have a lot more good guys and gals out there.

    But that goes against several core beliefs of liberals. It seems they hate guns and self-reliance.

    See if they condition you to feel helpless then you’ll want more government to take care of you. Furthermore, by allowing more criminals to walk free and commit crimes against you and your loved ones, you’ll want even more government to protect you since you’ve been taught helplessness. Never mind the fact that it’s been ruled police only have a responsibility to protect the public at large and not each and every individual.

    This is the only way the liberal agenda makes sense to me. By teaching you helplessness and allowing bad guys to roam free, you’ll want more government which is what liberals like.

    @cliff in sd

    Nah, if the liberals could the 1911 and .357 would be banned by name. Just like the AR-15 was in the previous AWB. Far too scary, I mean a 1911 is properly carried cocked and locked.

    I could see the liberal “common sense” law banning the 1911 and AR-15 on grounds that the 1911 is “old and unsafe” while the AR-15 is too military-isqe (I believe the original AWB banned it just because it was black and scary). Then maybe Glocks because they’re plastic and can just slip through metal detectors, doesn’t matter they’re +80% metal by weight. See they’d only be banning 3 guns and there’s plenty of others, these are just “common sense”, isn’t that reasonable?

    PS- Perhaps 10 is the magic number because that’s as high as some politicians can count without their aides and advisory panel?

  33. Talk about bad have Cnn video link of below New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg talking about how spent New Yorkers money send two private investigators buy guns Arizona. When watch his vidoe you well hear that two guy buying guns are from Arizona are asked for Arizona drive licenses before can buy guns they want. People who live Arizona know that that buy gun there they use your drive license tp do back round check on you before sell any guns there no drive license no guns. Than there issue with video it so bad that if he went court with try use it any lawyer good or bad would got toss becuase so graining that hard see what they bought at gun show. The video edit show the part where give out cash only not part where have fill out from for the gun. Been Cross Roads West gun shows I can tell ever gun buy from they make do all paper work that state that there in has you do before leave there gun show. It show Mayor Michael Bloomberg really has no business send any stakes forces out New York some other states where clear does under stand there gun laws. It alls very clear he waste New Yorker money on fool task. Enjoy link below Mas real good one of New Yorker mayor make your point.
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/31/new.york.gun.bloomberg/index.html

  34. Roger, the liberal mind has decided that all men and women are really like children, often irresponsible but also guiltless. We all need shepherding and monitoring. Pass the plastic kiddy scissors…

    Amazingly, these same ‘brie and chablis’ types believe in their hearts that they ascend this mental/moral state themselves and are self-ordained saviors ready with legislation to control and ‘protect’ the masses. Those without God become their own.

  35. Essential reading. Anything by Thomas Szasz. In a nutshell (pun intended) he makes the argument that “mental illness” has a pretty sorted history. Remember forced lobotomies? Forced sterilization? Involuntary commitments for masturbation? Lovely little episode of poet Ezra Pound being committed for 50 years for writing anti-American poems in WWII. In today’s world how about the VA hospitals now interviewing veterans for PTSD and then setting in motion the confiscation of any guns they or their family have? It just goes on and on.

    Politics and thought converge in the mental hospitals of most totalitarian states. Beware. You punish people for what they do, not what they think. If you don’t think so, then when the left wing psych organizations define gun ownership as a sickness, we are all toast. And don’t dismiss that idea. Why do you think the CDC has been getting involved in gun legislation? Oh and in between Googling the CDC and guns, maybe re-read 1984 by Orwell again.

  36. So, out of curiosity Mas, have you ever met a strong gun control advocate who *was* well-informed about the operation of firearms? To what degree are the superficial and inane regulations the product of “pass what you can now” legislation, and to what degree are they the result of pure ignorance?

  37. The plan is to sneak Carolyn McCarthy’s Magazine Ban into law as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Bill. Please contact your elected representatives in DC and tell them to vote NO.

  38. In 1996, John R. Lott, Senior Research Scholar and William M. Landes, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School published an in depth study. They repeated the study later and published a revised version of their findings in 2000. The subject? “Multiple Victim Public Shootings.” Among their many findings? “While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce “normal” murder rates and these [multiple victim] attacks lead to new calls from more gun control, our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.” So, I say that if lawmakers are not going to take the time and responsibility to do thorough research before passing knee-jerk legislation in hopes of garnering votes and staying in office, then the voters, and that means you and I, need to make sure that their ride on the political gravy train is short and not repeated.

  39. I’ve often wondered where were the armed citizens who could have stopped this nut and a friend reminded me these were people coming out to see a Democrat. Coincidence…Democrat…more likely to be anti-gun and therefore unarmed?

  40. I have it on good authority that Judge Roll who was killed at the scene was armed, but never drew his weapon. We have a lot of eyewitness accounts saying that he had TIME to draw, but instead of fighting he went into “rescue other people” mode. Judge Roll is credited with saving Ron Barber’s life.

    Judge Roll was a good man, and a defender of the 2nd Amendment, but he appears to have completely lacked any sort of combat mindset.

    I live in Tucson and have ties to politically connected Democrats who seem to quietly know that the Judge was armed. I don’t know if we’ll ever get official confirmation on that point.

  42. Carolyn McCarthy has no business introducing any gun legislation. Never mind that she has no clue about what she is trying to regulate, she had a man’s (Gabriel Razzano) legally owned guns seized for trying to talk to his representative (Carolyn McCarthy) about a political issue — something supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment’s right to petition clause.

    Carolyn McCarthy denied any knowledge of the 911 call. It wasn’t until the magistrate ordered it at a discovery hearing that the name of the staffer who made the call became known. What we have here is an American citizen — with no criminal charges against him, no convictions, no mental health diagnoses, no adjudication of any kind — being stripped of his Second Amendment rights because he exercised those promised in the First. She now faces a $5 million federal lawsuit. Why is that not all over the news? I hope this guy takes her to the cleaners!

    The article can be read here:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_12_54/ai_n30956064/

  43. Mr. Ayoob keep in mind that the Economist is based in the U.K.. Therefore, when they use the term “civilized country”, they mean “the United Kingdom”.

  44. gun shop owners in the southwest are saying the ATF told them to allow straw purchases of “assualt” weapons as part of a sting operations to find arms smugglers.

    then the ATF turns around and accuses these same shops of illegal activity.

    is the ATF covering their screw ups or setting us up for another weapons ban?

    my tin foil hat is itching!

  45. Nice unspoken point about the misuse of magazines-as in magazine covers. Time cashing in on the image of this spree killer will only do more damage by encouraging the next guy. Time is playing to their demographic, and cashing in on fear. Their doing it under the pretense of improving society is sickening.

  46. And the MARXIST agenda goes merrily on it’s murdering way.

    Can’t have all those guns and ammunition out there if we are going to rule.

    Sooner or later, they’re going to find out about the lies we’ve been telling in order to seize power. They’re going to find out how we’ve been manipulating them through our “friends” in the media. Sooner or later, one of our more stupid members, is going to show off their red beret and or their hammer and sickle pin or broach, and then the cat will be out of the bag.

    I wonder, what do people do, when they find out that they have not only been lied to for decades but also, that they have paid every penny of that bill, for all those lies?

    Maybe I should get a Net Jets account, just to be safe… Hmmmm, somewhere warm and far from them…

  48. I heard that the BATFE is just banning the import of Saiga 12 gauges by a fiat stroke-of-the-pen. Can anyone confirm or disspell that?

    @Jim March: Very interesting. Judge Roll was the judge presiding over the famous Sheriff Mack case against the Brady mandatory wait period for handgun purchases.

  49. Mas,

    Clueless Carolyn wasn’t/isn’t the only anti-2A cultist who’s made an revealingly asinine statement like that one. Recall the idiocy spewed from the maw of Rabid Rosa DeLauro who declared that ‘deadly laser sights’ should be included in the Clinton semi-auto ban because, & I’m not kidding, “they guide bullets to the target”! Interesting how little the mentality of the cult & its acolytes has changed over the years, & by years I mean DECADES.

  50. Does anyone have a rough number for the people at the event in Tucson when the shooting started? 50, 100, 200? Just like 9/11 the only reason this lunatic didn’t do more damage was that 3 people out of the crowd rushed the ambush instead of running in panic like sheep. Which ones were morally superior PC liberals? Running from a serious threat and hoping the police will save you just means you will get shot in the back. But invariably they want the rest of us disarmed so they can FEEL safer.

Newer Comments »