January 28, 2011

WaPo: We Know Precisely How to Stop Massacres

The Washington Post has, err, posted an unsigned op-ed calling for the reinstatement of the Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features Ban provision of the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. You may know it better as the "assault weapons ban," but my description is more factually accurate.

The Post claims that as the ban sunset in 2004, it was just becoming effective. That's quite a bit of a stretch, and certainly not an opinion founded upon empirical data. It is a claim that would not stand up to even a cursory pass by someone familiar with the scientific method. Despite this, they confidently claim:

Jared Lee Loughner appears to be a deeply disturbed young man who should never have been able to obtain a weapon of any kind, let alone the kind that easily transforms a lone gunman into a mass murderer. The data from Virginia show that the federal ban worked. Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law.

They strongly assert throughout the article that reinstating the ban would prevent mass murder. The ban, in their memories, was mass-murder repellent.

Let me introduce you to the Hi-Point 995 carbine.


All you really need to know about it for the moment is that it was designed during the Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features Ban, and was designed from the beginning to use ten-round magazines.

I'll let you go to Wikipedia for the full description of this particular firearm if you are interested in reading up upon it in more detail.

As the Post said, "Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law." They are so right.

We need all guns to be as safe as the Hi-Point 955.

Here's another photo of the in-every-way Post-approved Hi-Point 995.

hipoint at columbine

It has been rather tightly cropped, though you can see it more detail at this page if you really must.

The owner of this particular Hi Point 995 used only Post-approved ten-round magazines in this firearm developed during the ban.

To be specific, the shooter used ten of the 13 Post-approved ten-round magazines in his possession, firing this ban-developed firearm a total of 96 politically-correct times during the April 20, 1999 rampage through Columbine High School.

I'm glad the Post is so cock-sure that reinstating a failed law will save lives.

Me, I have my doubts.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 28, 2011 12:43 PM

Didn't the Texas sniper have a small magazine back in the early 70's, or 60's, whenever the nut climbed up in the bell tower and shot up the town? The fact is that the common denominator in all or these mass killings is that crazy, bad people do very bad things, with whatever material is at hand. So we need to address efforts at eliminating crazy, bad people. For some reason, the US feels that when one person does something bad, then all must suffer. I don't think that is a free society.

Posted by: david at January 28, 2011 05:33 PM

Leftists' response to a horrific crime is always to punish everyone but the actual, you know, criminal. Who isn't responsible because Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin. Also Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 28, 2011 08:53 PM

Demoncrats are glad Sarah Palin came along. They were getting tired of saying "Bush did it!"

Posted by: Marty at January 28, 2011 10:20 PM

Wow...I never knew the Sarah Palin was responsible for the Columbine massacre.

Has she disavowed her involvement with Wounded Knee yet? The Biscari massacre?

Posted by: MunDane68 at January 28, 2011 10:24 PM

No MunDane, she has not. And don't you find that telling?

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 29, 2011 01:12 AM

When I hear the magazine argument, I always thought it was stupid, and believe it or not, a movie sorta cemented it.

I have rarely shot a pistol in my life, but I can shoot the crap out of one, and because I was trained in a professional environment in how to use one, one of my friends commented on how natural it seemed to me, when we when joy shooting. I could swap mags pretty effing quick, because, it's not difficult, it's a 3 stage act.

But A GREAT example, true, the speed is slightly exaggerated, is Stallone in the expendables. (I think that rapid change is the best imagery in the movie btw.)

You can swap a mag, even as a trained amateur (as I am) in less than 2 seconds. size of mag is less important than the will to discharge rounds, because there is always more mags, if that is your goal.

Posted by: Douglas at January 29, 2011 03:59 AM

What they try to obfuscate is that the Tucson shooter actually changed mags but his second, 30 round, mall-ninja-mag caused the gun to jam and that's why he was disarmed.

So if he had used 10 rd mags, his gun probably wouldn't have jammed and he could have shot more people even if he had had to change mags a few times.

Posted by: Veeshir at January 29, 2011 10:54 AM

If you want to see how fast a mag can be changed, don't look to some hollywood mope and staged shots.

Google some of the USPSA grand master shooters and see it done for real.

Posted by: george at January 30, 2011 10:46 AM

SOP for gov't in this country - focus on the hardware, rather than the person. Witness the absurdity of the TSA. What we need to do is focus on dangerous PEOPLE, not mindless matter.

Posted by: alanstorm at January 30, 2011 11:04 AM

Not that this comment is relevant to the overall discussion, but this Hi-Point is a lot of fun to shoot. I can go through a lot of magazines real fast and still be reasonably accurate.

Posted by: mike at January 31, 2011 10:53 AM