AWB ban article - he WANTS mag restrictions


PDA






Deavis
September 23, 2004, 05:17 PM
Saw this article on www.awbansunsetcom and I had to write in.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040921/COLUMNIST22/409210389&SearchID=73184757908187

Assault weapons hot topic for debate


The expired ban on so-called assault weapons deserves some comment: Forget the fact that other than some minor cosmetics, there is no practical difference in potency between post-ban legal armaments and the civilian, semiautomatic, military-like wannabe weapons that were available all during the 10 years of the ban.
Anyone who will claim that a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, or a collapsible stock makes a difference, or that the 19 banned-by-name weapons were so much more horrid than what was readily available otherwise is trying to make a fool of you.

Any weapon used to kill another human being, or multiple human beings, is an assault weapon. Cosmetics don't mean a thing, other than in the warm-fuzzy world of feel-good legislation.

Unfortunately, the TV soundbites pay least heed to the one useful part of the so-called assault weapons ban, the limitation of magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds. There is no legitimate civilian use for mega-round magazines, a la military M-16s and AK-47s. Period.

If, as a civilian, you are using a firearm in self-defense and cannot get the job done in 10 rounds - or have not practiced quick-changing magazines, as you should if you are serious and not just wishfully fanciful - you'd better hope that the cavalry is on the way. And get some tactical practice. Otherwise, sell your gun; you're just going to get yourself hurt.

Ten rounds per magazine are plenty for target shooting. If not, change magazines or change the rules. Ten rounds at a time are plenty for plinking - excessive for hunting.

One last point: Shame on those in the broadcast field who televised film-clips of full automatic weapons in use while the commentators prattled on about the semiautomatic assault weapons ban. I watched this happen at least twice.

This was not about full automatic weapons, which have been regulated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for 70 years and which require a full background check, fingerprinting, lengthy registration application, and licensing with federal authorities to own. But that didn't stop the misrepresentation by the image-makers.

Such antics are ignorant at best, horribly irresponsible at worst, and a pox on all journalists, self included.

my reply...

Dear Mr. Pollick,

Your article, "Assault weapons hot topic for debate", was recently referenced on www.awbansunset.com and I read your article with great interest. First, I would like to commend you on your editorial because it doesn't delve into the useless emotional dialogue that most authors have based their articles around. The article you wrote was based on the facts and your opinion reflected that of an unbiased observer, rather than a mindless parrot of the anti-gun culture. That being said, I would like to take you to task on one of your remarks. Specifically this, " the TV soundbites pay least heed to the one useful part of the so-called assault weapons ban, the limitation of magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds. There is no legitimate civilian use for mega-round magazines, a la military M-16s and AK-47s. Period."

I don't want to insult you, but your comments are completely off base and bring down an otherwise well-written article. It is shame that you have succumbed to the popular, as I call it, "anti-success" culture that seems to be running rampant in journalist circles everywhere today. They tell us, "You don't need an SUV like the xxx," or "You don't need that extra money it could be better spent here," or the worst, "nobody needs an xxx, because I don't!" This type of attitude is completely un-American at its core because the whole idea of being in America is that you can have anything you want, provided you can afford it and it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

If I want a Cadillac SUV, can pay the taxes, and afford to fill it up then who are you to tell me what I need? It is a dangerous game because eventually it will start to hit home with things you enjoy. Maybe you indulge yourself with Starbucks Grand Latte Mocha-whatever (Folger's crystals are all you need), well-made Perry Ellis clothes (Dickies are all you need), large computer monitor (10" black and white is all you *really* need), or even some nice fluffy pillows (you only need some straw for your head). The ultimate in self-righteous blathering can be heard from those such as Ann Landers who loves to write, "Just what Bill Gates needs, another million dollars," and pat herself on the back for her observations while she proposes to take from a man who gives back more in one year than she could in an entire lifetime.

You say there is no legitimate need for a civilian to have regular capacity magazines, well let me go ahead and tell you that you are completely wrong. Period. There is no legitimate reason why magazine capacity even matters for law-abiding citizens and I believe that you will be unable to come up with a single rational reason why an arbitrary number of 10 is any different than 15, 30, or even 5. Not to mention, most people would not, and wrongfully so, consider an AR-15 with a 30 round mag a great self-defense weapon. You should clarify what type of weapon you are talking about, handguns or long guns when you discuss self-defense. Having a pistol with a 15 round magazine for self defense is completely different than trying to use an AK-47 with a 100 round drum magazine on it, but you are trying to lump them together.

Let me turn your argument against you, " There is no legitimate law enforcement use for mega-round magazines, a la military M-16s and AK-47s. Period. If, as a trained law enforcement officer, you are using a firearm in your job and cannot get the job done in 10 rounds - or have not practiced quick-changing magazines, as you should if you are serious and not just wishfully fanciful - you'd better hope that the cavalry is on the way"

That statement is no different than yours except you probably draw exception to it. Trained police officers should only need one shot, right? They are trained professionals and far more capable than the citizens they protect. Get real! There is no way you can anticipate how many rounds a person will need to defend themselves properly in every situation. What if there are multiple attackers? What if you are faced with a drug crazed attacker who doesn't go down after 6 or 7 shots? What if you are a scared and shaking woman (gender doesn't matter) and your weapon is a .32 ACP and you have expended 10 shots and not destroyed a vital organ yet? What if you are woken suddenly and don't have the proper clothes to mount your mag pouch on?

Don't presume to tell anyone how many rounds they may need to expend in one magazine to protect their life. If you are willing to bet 10 rounds and a speed change is all you need, that is fine, but I'm not willing to lower my odds of survival even .0000001% on an encounter requiring 11 shots because I enjoy being alive far to much.

Do some research, if a gun fight is not settled in under 3 rounds, it usually goes well over 10 (you could look at some statistics published by Ayoob I believe). Most encounters don't even result in a single shot fired for the majority of people, but I'm willing to bet that if you bought a pistol today for your home defense, you would make sure it had regular capacity magazines in it. Please, don't be a hypocrite and tell me you will never buy or have never bought a gun with a magazine larger than 10 rounds. If you do practice what you preach, send any mag you have over 10 rounds to me and I will personally replace it with a 10 round magazine or modify it to only accept 10 round in my shop.

I welcome any dialogue you have concerning this issue, I would consider it an honor considering how well written the rest of your article was. Good day and thank you for the opportunity to write back concerning your column.

His reply

Many thanks for the lengthy, thoughtful reply. Should I revisit the
subject -- if legislation is proposed -- I will take these into
account. The
bulk of e-mails received, howevcer, does not allow me time for further
discussion. I do appreciate your remarks.

Somehow I doubt I will be getting any magazines in the mail from him, although I have considered writing back and giving him my address. I just don't want to be too over the top. Maybe it will sway him a little but I doubt he read it over more than just once while shaking his head. I tried. :fire: You guys think it was too much at once?

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB ban article - he WANTS mag restrictions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PMDW
September 23, 2004, 05:23 PM
If, as a civilian, you are using a firearm in self-defense and cannot get the job done in 10 rounds - or have not practiced quick-changing magazines, as you should if you are serious and not just wishfully fanciful - you'd better hope that the cavalry is on the way. And get some tactical practice. Otherwise, sell your gun; you're just going to get yourself hurt.

I guess if for some reason 10 rounds dosen't stop the guy(s), or because you're under so much stress that you miss a few times, you deserve to die. :rolleyes:

ClonaKilty
September 23, 2004, 06:01 PM
Deavis: that was very well written response, esp. because you pointed out what he got right. Which was a lot, besides the 10-rd cap thing.

May I steal your blurbs about the 10 rd capacity in any future letter writing I do?

OldStar
September 23, 2004, 06:27 PM
I saved the entire exchange to my hard drive and will undoubtedly plagiarize from your statements in the future.

Great work.

:D

Standing Wolf
September 23, 2004, 10:27 PM
Well said!

Greg L
September 24, 2004, 12:06 AM
but I'm not willing to lower my odds of survival even .0000001% on an encounter requiring 11 shots

You could put one in the chamber & then top off the magazine again giving you 11 :neener: :D .

Seriously, good reply to the article. Thanks for fighting the fight.

Greg

Zundfolge
September 24, 2004, 12:15 AM
If, as a civilian, you are using a firearm in self-defense and cannot get the job done in 10 rounds - or have not practiced quick-changing magazines, as you should if you are serious and not just wishfully fanciful - you'd better hope that the cavalry is on the way. And get some tactical practice. Otherwise, sell your gun; you're just going to get yourself hurt.

Ten rounds per magazine are plenty for target shooting. If not, change magazines or change the rules. Ten rounds at a time are plenty for plinking - excessive for hunting.


Lets say for a moment that he's right ... that you and I and every other law abiding gun owner out there has no legitimate reason for >10rd magazines; What is the good solid reason for banning them?

If having 3-5 more rounds isn't necessary for self defense then how does having that 3-5 more rounds make it that much more effective for crime?

Lets not also forget the constant argument that all you "need" is about 1500-2000 calories a day, some water and shelter from the elements but that doesn't make it okay to outlaw everything else in existance.

Henry Bowman
September 24, 2004, 11:07 AM
The burden to prove need is not on us. What proof does the government have of a compelling need to impose even the slightest restriction on a basic, expressly Constitutionally-protected, human right? That is the question.

Mikul
September 24, 2004, 11:26 AM
A criminal is going to misuse 5 rounds, while your average citizen wouldn't misuse 100.

Deavis
September 24, 2004, 08:24 PM
Thanks for the replies and please feel free to use any of what I wrote. If you improve on it, send me a copy so I can use it in the future as weel :)

I just hate it when I hear the words, "what do you need that for?"

Why is it any of your darn business?

You could put one in the chamber & then top off the magazine again giving you 11 .

I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was some sort of wacko who actually prepared for the worst and had a round chambered in my carry weapon! After all, we all know that in the movies you have to chambver the first round in your gun and then listen to it make all sorts of clikcing and clanking noises as you place it on target. :rolleyes:

I wanted to include a part where I showed how much time a 15 round mag saved me when I go target shooting but I thought that might be over the top. I figured out when I go I have either 100 mag 10-round loads or 67 15 round mag loads for my 9mm. I timed it and found that getting the 14th and 15th round in my new regular capacity magazines, formerly known as evil highcaps, that I could only save a few minutes overall :mad:

Then again, I only have to shoot two mags over my chrony instead of 3!

jefnvk
September 24, 2004, 10:39 PM
I never quite got why the media didn't put more attacks on the higher capacity mags being available. If anything in theat ban made sense, that would be it.

Yanus
September 24, 2004, 10:49 PM
Ditto to the above. VERY WELL WRITTEN......

I carry 10 rds in my Glock M30 because...... that's all the damn thing holds!!!:D

Yanus

angrywalkindude
September 25, 2004, 12:12 AM
Very professional.



I tried. You guys think it was too much at once?

Your right on in my opinion. (Hell you convinced me, and I didn't need convincing.):evil:

Kamicosmos
September 26, 2004, 05:31 PM
I always use the argument that most mass murderers who go on a killing spree reload several times during their crime. This includes handguns, rifles and shotgun cases.

That usually gets a little light bulb if the person is at all open minded.

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB ban article - he WANTS mag restrictions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!