Ammo For Sale

« « Quote of the Day | Home | Even more ALL GLOCK ALL THE TIME » »

Gun Control: What we do instead of something

The proposed limits on regular capacity magazines are asinine for a few reasons. You’d have to presume people will not reload, which is done pretty easily and quickly:

And under the presumption no one will ever reload, you’re also admitting that a body count of X+1 is fine and dandy.

Also, in the video, I like how they note they use a magazine designed to hold 8 rounds to simulate legislatively reduced magazine capacity.

29 Responses to “Gun Control: What we do instead of something”

  1. Bobby Says:

    Wow… That was cringeworthy. a “Metaphor” about shooting people on the left does not help us at all, and neither does screaming, calling them idiots.

  2. Bobby Says:

    Some good points though, dont get my wrong.

  3. Weer'd Beard Says:

    Well playing the numbers game (ie a 10 round magazine is safe, while an 11 round magazine is criminal) is pretty idiotic. Not only does it do nothing for safety, the magic line they draw in the sand is 100% made-up.

  4. Monte Says:

    Agreed. There’s no way I’d show this to the people who need to see this kind of demonstration the most: those on the left. They’re not only preaching to the choir, they’re calling the unconverted idiots…over and over again.

    Joe Huffman’s reload time video was at least as effective a demonstration, if not more so. It’s shorter and leaves out the left-bashing and “metaphors.” For those who might have missed it:
    http://blog.joehuffman.org/2011/01/11/ReloadTime.aspx

  5. DirtCrashr Says:

    A quantity-restriction inevitably leads to guns as a quantity, and their restriction. Because there’s always the “New York” reload – another gun – and then guns become the “quantity.”
    Bean counters don’t care what they count, whether it’s les boulletz in la magazine or les guns ’emselves. Play numbers games with them and you lose like betting against the house.

  6. Bobby Says:

    Agreed, Huffmans video is very good. I watched it with no audio, and it became eerie in its truth.

  7. Extreme Tolerance Says:

    +1 for Monte.

    Your not going to win anyone over by call them names out of the gate.

    I vote to redo this with Kelly from Top Shot. 🙂

  8. ViolentIndifference Says:

    I agree with Bobby. Personally I think this is what the left points to when they talk about angry rhetoric. These two are doing more to hurt our side than to help. Thanks, boys. We appreciate the demonstration. We don’t appreciate you effectively handing ammo to the left.

  9. Paul B Says:

    Well, they did not seem angry to me. I might have picked different actors, like women or some black dudes. The the leftards might have got the message.

    I would agree that calling idiots, idiots, to their face is not the best policy. Even though I find myself doing it more that I like.

  10. Adam Says:

    Does anyone else think that pointing out how a 8 round magazine is just as effective as a 17 round magazine, might actually make the wrong argument?

    Using normal logic, one would say: “there’s no reason to ban standard magazines, since magazine size makes little difference.”

    Using the lefts logic, though, one could say: “there’s no reason to NOT ban these magazines, since a handgun is just as effective with the reduced capacity magazine. By banning them, we’re not effecting a citizens right to defense, nor violating the constitution (as if they cared, anyway), and there’s a chance we might save a life or two in these violent rampages on our city streets.”

    Perhaps we should focus more on the differences that DO exist: a one armed man who wants to defend himself will be better off with a standard magazine. A homeowner who awakes to a window breaking and grabs a handgun from the nightstand, but doesn’t have a second magazine ready would be better served by a standard magazine.

    A criminal setting out to commit a crime would have the time to prepare extra magazines, and could bring as much firepower as he wants to a fight. A citizen acting defensively doesn’t have the same benefit.

    To me, this seems like the better argument to make.

  11. Lautius Says:

    Here are some criticisms that I think our side needs to take seriously, or we will have a tough time persuading honest people of good faith who do not share our position:

    1) I, too, can change mags in under 2 seconds under tranquil conditions in a controlled setting. But under combat conditions? Wasn’t Loughner taken down during a reload?

    2)The reload, however fast, might be the only opportunity to interdict an active shooter. If this is the case, then a mag restriction proponent can say that the 10 rounds restriction (or whatever they propose) is proposed in an effort to strike a balance between having enough ammo in a defensive-use scenario, and limiting the shots (and time) a rampage shooter has before reloading. Whatever you think of the “x+1” argument, 12 dead is more tragic than 11. And if you think that ANYONE really can reload that fast under combat conditions, then why worry about a 10-round restriction; you should be able to reload just as quickly in a defensive-use scenario. It is tempting but useless to respond that the bad guy will use your reload as an opportunity to attack; swap “bad guy” for “good guy” and you are making the proponent’s point for him.

  12. Lautius Says:

    Adam, I wrote my piece before seeing yours. This is exactly the kind of response I’m looking for, as it focuses on the far more common everyday uses of firearms, and not on the vanishingly rare rampage shootings.It is hard for such arguments to find traction in the aftermath of a rampage shooting, and that seems to be when bad legislation is proposed. Our most effective strategy is a long-term strategy, but we need good short-term strategies for when these things DO happen.

  13. Alec Says:

    unintelligent cheap shots towards left/ liberal intelligence is counterproductive

  14. Wes Says:

    I saw a mention yesterday of linking Columbine to high-capacity mags. ..except that three of the four Columbine guns were shotguns and a 10-round carbine that was shot 95 times.

  15. Chas Says:

    from:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_164_27/ai_101879030/

    “James’ bloody career began under the tutelage of famed guerrilla leader William Quantrill, and after the latter’s death under Quantrill’s protege “Bloody Bill” Anderson. Writes Stiles of the band, “The most common pistol in use in Missouri was Colt’s 1851 Navy Model, a (cap and ball) .36 caliber revolver … Loading was such time-consuming work that each guerrilla carried four or even six revolvers into combat, simply drawing a new pistol when one was emptied or jammed.” (4) Anderson was said to keep as many as eight readily at hand, either on his person or in saddle holsters.”

    When the over ten-round magazine ban is thwarted by a shooter with multiple pistols, the anti’s will push for a one gun per person limit. Either we keep them from limiting our magazines or they will next move to limit our guns.
    Who are they to say that my life is only worth ten rounds?

  16. snoopycomputer Says:

    Adam makes a good point I never considered before, one of the appeals of handguns vs long guns is their capacity to be wielded effectively one-handed. If you have been injured (stabbed/slashed) in one arm, or have no other arm, or the other arm is busy (holding pressure to a wound, using a flashlight, carrying a child away from danger, cell on 911) then the ability to fight one-handed for as long as possible is of paramount importance. Standard capacity and increased capacity (even +2 extensions) are of help.
    Someone make a YouTube video illustrating that need.

  17. Lyle Says:

    So far there are fifteen comments and not one has touched upon the main point regarding prohibitions;

    Criminals are not limited by these laws (see; they don’t obey them [but don’t tell anyone]). They are in fact empowered by these laws, as they will have the prohibited item or substance and the law-abiding will not.

    Therefore, prohibition laws are, in practice, anarchist, or destabilizing, or pro chaos, in their nature. They create an imbalance of power that favors law breaking, and being nonsensical laws, they create a general disrespect for law.

    I thought we’d have learned that lesson once and for all back in the 1920s, but alas, no.

  18. DJMoore Says:

    I see the comments saying, don’t show this to the liberals, it’ll make ’em widdle their shorts.

    Do you understand that they think we, all of us who advocate for and exercise the right to arms, are responsible for Loughner because we haven’t compromised enough?

    Do you think that none of them will find this if we don’t show it to them?

    Do you not understand that you are arguing for the “civil discourse” they want to impose on us by force of law?

    Show them. Over and over. Make them understand that we’ve compromised enough, that if they want our guns, we’ll start by giving them the bullets one at a time out of the biggest mags we can afford.

    They started this fight back in 1934. We’ve been playing nice for 75 years. It’s gotten us nothing but a 5-4 split on Heller and McDonald; one vote away, each time, from having liberty declared unconstitutional.

    We’re not the crazy ones. They are.

    They cannot be reasoned with. But if we want to avoid the bloodbath, our enemies (and that’s what they are, our enemies) must be made to understand the cost of further infringement.

    (Joe Huffman’s video is no better, by the way. It’s confusingly edited, and nowhere near as realistic. I could do without the political commentary here, yes, but I don’t think it hurts, and this presentation makes the central point absolutely clear. )

  19. junyo Says:

    “They cannot be reasoned with.”

    Nevertheless, they’re allowed to vote. Being technically right doesn’t really count for jack or shit the vast majority of the time in a democracy (I know, republic). What you can convince most people is right does. Therefore alienating without cause is people is counterproductive, and as the Joe Huffman video shows, unnecessary.

  20. mariner Says:

    Actually Unc, she said a body count of X would be ok, but a body count of X+1 would be terrible.

  21. Bryan S. Says:

    That attitude and presentation, just 20 seconds in made me stop watching.

    And that guy was annoying and condescending on Top Shot, so I am biased from my first impression.

  22. Bobby Says:

    DJMoore, What I said wasnt a compromise, just saying there is no reason to act like a jackoff while telling them how wrong they are. Sort of a kill em with kindness sorta thing. Stomping our feet and screaming while having the same point as Huffman or anyone else takes the focus away from the point, as seen from people who view us as unhinged already.

  23. DJMoore Says:

    Let me get this straight: these people think you are accessories to mass murder because you own evil guns bought from the hideously capitalistic manufacturers which form the gun lobby backing the NRA’s frighteningly successful bid to overturn the perfectly reasonable assault weapons compromise, you rich white rabid bitterly clinging religiously delusional mass murderers with more health insurance than undocumented workers get, and we need to be careful not to trod on their delicate little sensibilities?

    Your attempts to politely point out the facts offends them. Haven’t any of you been told that no sane, decent person would know those facts?

    Get the facts on record. Don’t be raving loons. But remind the disloyal opposition, over and over, that their laws and SCOTUS decisions have nothing to do with your natural right to arms.

    Make it clear: they keep on keeping on, and there will be blood.

  24. ATLien Says:

    I say we start with the media, and then the cops that are in favor of violating the Constitution. After that, we move up the food chain until either they’re all gone, or have surrendered. Finally, all the people who think our rights are negotiable get exiled to africa or mexico.

  25. charles Says:

    My theory on them wanting to draw the line at 10 rounds is that they think once they’ve used all their fingers to count the shots, it will be safe to pop up and run away. Taking off shoes to keep track of additional shots would make it harder to run.

  26. Iain Says:

    My opinion of the video, pointless to bash the “lefts”. Like teasing a fat kid with cake. You’ll just piss em off to the point where they eat you to get what they want. I agree with the point that regulating magazine capacity is utterly pointless, when a person can buy multiple mags.
    If the regulation does’t work then what? Regulate how many guns one can own? Or try to regulate how many magazines a person can own.
    Like another person said a criminal doesn’t care about laws in the first place.
    Our government should find ways to make laws clearer and avoid political jargon to help our society battle it’s nauseating ignorance levels. Too many people walk this country with no idea or concern for our fellow man. Until we treat each other with mutual respect. None of these regulations will matter or make a difference.

  27. dave Says:

    People that think passing more laws restricting people’s rights will make us all safer deserve to be called idiots. Left, right (I’m looking at you, Patriot Act), center, it doesn’t matter. Expecting to win such people over by being polite is an exercise in futility.

    We have not made it this far by being polite, we have made it this far by fighting idiotic legislation in court, educating people, and standing our ground.

    Calling for magazine size restrictions and saying it would make anyone safer, all the while having no evidence to prove it, IS idiotic. Yes, they could have been nicer about it. I’m glad they weren’t.

  28. K-dAUG Says:

    Two years ago, in rural upstate NY, there was an incident where 14 people were killed. The killer had NY legal magazines. How’d he get around it? Multiple guns and extra magazines. As unfortunate as that incident was, it is a glowing example that reduced magazines do not reduce killing.

    My biggest problem with this type of legislation is that once they realize 10 round magazines can still cause these sort of killings, the size will be reduced to 6, then 1. If this goes through, then the groundwork will be laid for them to reduce it further in the future.

  29. Adam Says:

    I’ve got an idea…
    Murderous rampages are against the law, right?

    What if they simply passed a law that made it illegal to break the law? Then “rampages” would be Extra Super Illegal.

    That’d work, right?

    Maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe the very definition of a criminal is someone acts with disregard for the law, and if that’s so, what’s the point of making things MORE illegal?

    Look at AZ:
    Attempting to kill an elected official is about the most illegal thing one can do, a capitol crime. If one is willing to do that, does and extra misdemeanor, or even a felony, on top of that make a difference?

    If he was limited to only ten rounds per magazine, would he have suddenly said, “well, jeez. Only ten rounds? What’s the point? I guess I’ll go get a massage.?”

    Like I’ve said, ban or no ban, it’s not going to make a difference to criminals; so lets focus on where it DOES make a difference.

    You’re trying to find out what/who just broke your kitchen window. You’re in your PJs; where does the extra magazine go?

    You’ve got your pistol in your right hand and your flashlight in your left, how do you reload?

    Could a stroke or medical issue impair your ability to reload in an intense situation?

    Have you practiced one-handed reloads?
    I have. It can be done, but it’s not fast. I’d rather not have to reload in the first place.