January 11, 2011
Why Magazine Limit Laws Don't Save Lives
Gun control advocates are hoping to use the bodies of those killed by Jared Loughner as a podium to spread their views. New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy—Democrats all—are using the tragedy to rush forward a ban on magazines of more than ten rounds, claiming that by limiting the number of cartridges held in each magazine, the number of casualties in shootings would be reduced.
Really?
Here is a magazine change of a Glock 19 pistol (the kind used in the shooting in Tucson and at Virginia Tech) by a shooter with average skill.
He fires two shots, drops the empty magazine, reloads, and fires two more shots within three seconds. That includes shooting two rounds from each magazine, not just the magazine change, which takes roughly a second. Such results are not atypical, and skilled competition shooters are even faster.
The bills being proposed by these freedom-hating lawmakers aren't about guns.
They're about control.
Of course, they found in LA that with the reduced capacity mags, deaths on a per shooting basis are up. It seems that when they take time to aim vice spray and pray they kill more people. On the bright side though, less innocent bystanders are being hit.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at January 11, 2011 02:21 PMReduced mag capacity resulted in smaller, easier to conceal guns. A few extra mags are a small price to pay. Handgun ammo still comes 50 to a box no matter how large the magazine is.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 11, 2011 03:59 PMLoughner was not well trained, in fact MAYBE was untrainable. They tackled him when after 31 shots he DID have to reload. I guess that we should be glad he only had the 31
Posted by: John ryan at January 14, 2011 08:55 PM
