This is short, sweet, and to the point. I have poorly thought out, weak, and unqualified opinions on gun control. But there are views on guns which match my own, but they’ve been formulated by someone who did think them through,who presents strong arguments, and comes with excellent credentials. Larry Correia is a highly experienced CCW instructor, competitive shooter, former gun store owner, and firearms instructor. He’s also a published author. So, as of right now, basically, if you want my opinions, I’m going to say, “What Larry said”.
Larry wrote about 10,000 words that accurately summarize the issues surrounding gun control. You can read his article here.
My Only Addition to Larry’s Arguments
The only thing I really think I could add to his argument is on the topic of magazine size. The Aurora shooting involved a rifle with a high-capacity magazine ( a drum, actually). If the shooting in Connecticut did involve that Bushmaster, then we’re talking about a 30-round magazine. In upcoming weeks or months, I think it’ll be discussed more, and I think it’s worth expanding on.
The thing is, it seems like a logical reaction to ban magazines over a certain size. In fact, out of all the responses I think we could have, addressing magazine size would be the most logical. However, just because it’s the most logical argument, that doesn’t make it a good one.
How Do You Pick a Magazine Size?
It’s harder than you think. Here’s why: A Glock 17 can hold 17 rounds. You can get other Glocks with 19 rounds. Then there’s the magazine extensions. My Sig Sauer P229 holds 13 rounds + 1 in the chamber. So if the argument is that we should cut rifle magazine sizes back to that of handguns, you aren’t really losing much. If you’re talking about my AK, you’re saying that I can only have…. 20-round magazines? Fifteen-round mags? That’s not much of a change.
The bigger problem with reducing magazine size
Think about this for a second. A rifle, such as my AK-74, has a 30-round magazine. Sure, it’s a ‘high-capacity’ magazine, compared to my Sig, but guess what? You can see a rifle. No one is going to tuck an AK or an AR in his pants. In fact, that’s probably the reason that the vast majority of gun-related violence happens with handguns. Of the 8,775 gun-related murders in the US in 2010, about 4% were with rifles and 69% were with handguns. I wonder why Larry didn’t bring this up – or didn’t think about magazine size regulations in this way: The fact that rifles aren’t concealable is a natural counter-balance to the high volume magazines. Reduce their magazine size and there’s a risk of an increase in murders (because now the weapon is concealable).
So, on the surface, reducing magazine size seems logical. But it isn’t.
Other Ways To React To Gun Violence
1. Ban the sale of guns and ammunition
Because in a down economy, it’s a good idea to shut down an entire sector of that economy.
2. Ban ’assault rifles’
Forget that we don’t have a real definition of ‘assault rifle’. Sure, when you legally buy a gun, you have to get a background check from the government, and the purchase is tracked. Let’s go ahead and stop tracking the purchase and movement of guns. With that black market we’ve created for these guns, nothing awful could possibly happen. And I’m sure millions will like being turned into felons over night.
3. Confiscate guns
You want to take guns from people who have…guns? By force? And you think that’ll stop violence?
4. Confiscate ‘assault rifles’
See # 3.
5. Mandatory waiting periods for buying guns
Because psychopaths don’t plan ahead.
6. Mandatory licensing for guns
Right, you want to send millions of gun owners to the DMV?
7. Psychological evaluations for gun owners / purchasers
Because it’s better to disregard two amendments rather than one. Why disregard your right to firearms when we can have undue search and seizure, too?
8. Mandatory training for gun owners / purchasers
This is something I’ve argued for in the past, and actually still favor. But still, it impedes the 2nd amendment. Where do we get the trainers, and how do we track it? It’s like #6 but with more government employees.