David Gregory’s use of a 30 round AR-15 magazine as a prop on Meet the Press to support their national banning was clearly in pre-meditated violation of the law banning their possession in the District of Columbia where his show originated.
Gregory’s act exactly proves what opponents of such restrictions have been saying: such a ban will not stop a person hell-bent on breaking the law. If Gregory is not prosecuted it also proves other commonly held beliefs about liberal government and liberal media.
Advocates of banning magazines above a certain capacity ask who needs them. Putting aside that we tread on dangerous ground when we put any Constitutional right to a test of need (for example, who really needs to trample on the American flag), the burden of proof is that the cost of such a ban will be justified by improving public safety. In an era of trillion dollar federal deficits, this raises a question of best use of finite government resources. If history is any guide, few people who already own any of the estimated 100 million such magazines in private hands can be expected to turn them in. Aren’t we better off allocating our money to improve school safety rather than fund a war on newly-outlawed firearm accessories?
I would remind people that while we are now having a “national conversation” on firearms regulations, we have yet to have a similar conversation about what changes we must make to the treatment of citizens with mental health issues, not to mention how we are going to fund any changes that we decide to make.
If we get down the road a few months on these topics and the loudest voices on the left still give the highest priority to funding the waging of a new war on firearms accessories, above funding improvements in mental health or school safety, we will know who the real ‘gun nuts’ are. And they won’t be the people with NRA bumper stickers.
Even a draconian law banning the existence of all hi-cap mags would not work for the reasons you mentioned, but there is one more.... Most people have no idea how easy hi-cap mags are to fabricate. I won’t provide the instructions here, but trust me, it is easy.
As far as I am concerned, the advocates of more restrictions on firearms ownership have yet to even acknowledge their burden of proof of the efficacy of their proposals. That is, when we outlaw a previously-legal style of firearm and outlaw previously legal accessories to those firearms like 30 round magazines, what level of NET improvement in the public safety should we expect and at what NET cost?
The horrible Sandy Hook massacre started with the murderer shooting his own mother four times in the head while she lay in bed. So, please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me how the law would have stopped even half of the murders on that sad day. But people who propose laws also expect those laws will be enforced and enforcement costs money. They also expect that the new law will bring some concrete improvement in society.
How much money are we going to divert from, say raiding medical marjuana clinics, to hunting down people
with newly-outlawed 30 round magazines? This is not an unimportant because with our trllion dollar deficit we can only allocate so much borrowing to fund new government programs. The Sandy Hook massacre invites, we are told by the media, three “national conversations” that the media like David Gregory hopes to control. Those are on firearms regulations, school safety and treatment the mentally disturbed.
The media and politicians appear to have chosen to hold the conversation on firearms first, so that must be the most important one. But when we start to deal with school safety and mental health, those items will eventually have budget impact as surely as night follows day. If we pass changes to firearms law that must of necessity divert expensive law enforcement resources, how much of our borrowing capacity will remain to fund improvements in school safety or mental health services?
And if, based on history documented below, that few of the estimated 100 million magazines in private hands are destroyed or turned in, what level of real public safety improvement are we to get for the money we must spend to enforce the law? Is this a fool errand, or are politicians just pandering to people who see and end to the failed war on drugs and are looking to fund a new (equally fruitless) war on something else? I am beginning to think the latter is sadly true, at least in part.
Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets
For reasons of their own, most people, in many countries, defy anti-gun laws
J.D. Tuccille | December 22, 2012
In a white paper on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Gun Control and the Reduction of the Number of Arms, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria, wrote,
non-compliance with harsher gun laws is a common event.
Dr. Csaszar estimates compliance with Australias 1996 ban on self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns at 20 percent.
And even that underwhelming estimate gives the authorities the benefit of the doubt. Three years after Australias controversial ban was implemented, when 643,000 weapons had been surrendered, Inspector John McCoomb, the head of the state of Queenslands Weapons Licensing Branch, told The Sunday Mail, “About 800,000 (semi-automatic and automatic) SKK and SKS weapons came in from China back in the 1980s as part of a trade deal between the Australian and Chinese governments. And it was estimated that there were 1.2 million semi-automatic Ruger 10/22s in the country. That’s about 2 million firearms of just two types in the country.”
Do the math. Two million illegal firearms of just two types, and only 643,000 guns of all types were surrendered
The Australian Shooters Journal did its own math in a 1997 article on the gun buyback. Researchers for the publication pointed out that the Australian governments own low-ball, pre-ban estimate of the number of prohibited weapons in the country yielded a compliance rate of 19 percent.
Csaszar points out that, after Austria prohibited pump-action shotguns in 1995, only 10,557 of the estimated 60,000 such guns in private hands were surrendered or registered.
And when Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, he says, owners complied by filing the appropriate paperwork on 3.2 million firearms. This was a bit awkward, since estimates of civilian stocks were in the 17-20 million range...
he high water mark of American compliance with gun control laws may have come with Illinoiss handgun registration law in the 1970s. About 25 percent of handgun owners actually complied, according to Don B. Kates, a criminologist and civil liberties attorney, writing in the December 1977 issue of Inquiry. After that, about 10 percent of assault weapon owners obeyed Californias registration law, says David B. Kopel, research director for Colorados Independence Institute, a free-market think-tank, and author of The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy, a book-length comparison of international firearms policies.
That one-in-10 estimate may have been generous. As the registration period came to a close in 1990, The New
York Times reported only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered...
We already know who the real gun nuts are, they expose themselves almost daily, they are almost anybody who calls himself/herself a democrat, the MSM, and some of the “grand old party.”
***Advocates of banning magazines above a certain capacity ask who needs them.****
Forty years ago, Viet Cong blacksmiths, hiding in the jungle, could take a pair of tin snips, some sheet metal and turn out a perfectly functional 30 round magazine for a captured M-16.
Do these idiots think Americans can’t do the same with power tools?
Maybe e can start selling cardboard patterns for 30-40 round magazines so people can cut out their own.