"Oren" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:
My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit
that a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet
to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:
I'll take a stab.
1 - "Because I wanna"
I'm a woman (not really). The AR-15 is very light and highly
accurate, easier to handle than an 860 Remington pump with a 36"
barrel (they are heavy ended), and I shoot a tight pattern at a
variety of distances.
The real question, Ms. Oren, g is "who are you intending to kill (at a
distance - rifles are not so good in close quarters) that you need 30 rounds
to do it?" Wouldn't a 14 round Glock do? Or probably even a 7 round one?
Are these armed multiple attackers in body armor? Do they not halt their
advance like most rational humans under a hail of bullets? What needs 30
rounds to kill?
Perhaps an ex-prison guard faces that kind of really remote threat but as
the saying goes "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." A
high-powered rifle's swing is mighty long, wouldn't you say?
Thirty rounds of rifle ammunition could kill *a lot* of people. Those
rounds could come out of the AR-15 of my neighbor "Betty Bad Shot" and come
through my window. I've "inherited" a laser sighted Ruger Mini14 with a 30
round clip. Will I ever need it? Very, very doubtful. When I hear a noise
late at night, I go with the Glock. I should be able to take care of any
threat I've ever encountered with a Glock and a standard sized magazine.
Would I give up the hicap mag for the Mini14? In a heartbeat if it were the
national law. Would I give up the gun itself? Nope. Different story.
The reason is simple. One common element of a number of recent gun
tragedies is the high capacity magazine. And it's the *only* factor that
can be pointed to as having reliably limited the carnage of at least three
shootings *in progress* when those three shooters were tackled while
changing magazines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his
pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.
Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding
chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.
Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired United States Army
Colonel Bill Badger who had been shot himself.
Several lives could have been saved if Loughner was using standard magazines
and had to change sooner. I want to give American heroes like Maisch and
Badger every edge they can get when faced with a madman shooter. Limiting
the size of civilian magazines can do that. Bigger magazines just mean more
people killed before there's an opportunity to tackle the shooter. That's
been irrevocably proven with the results written in blood.
The NRA's inflexibility on the subject could prove the old adage "The willow
bends in winds that break the mighty oak tree." The recent polls indicate
that independent voters are siding with the Democrats on the issue of
compromise.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...ho-compromise/
--
Bobby G.