More Gun Control Idiocy

From :

So, it seems they were serious about trying to crack down on guns. Because you know, for the chillldrun, and all that.

I was at the shooting range today and while I was there, an acquaintance whom I frequently encounter there mentioned this story to me. Blogger friend Philmon was also discussing it over at the Hello Kitty of Bloggin’ to which I replied: “SHH! Don’t give California lawmakers any ideas.” The nine or so they try to pass each year is enough.

New York state has enacted a new law (signed by Governor Cuomo within minutes of its passage by the NY State Assembly) which alleges to provide stronger tools to crack down on gun crime:

Under the new law, ammunition magazines would also be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10 — owners caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.


Got that? SEVEN bullets is the new limit. Seven. Not ten. This is going to be really interesting, because even here in California ten rounds is OK. That’s considered a “standard capacity” magazine (a term which I suspect dates back to the original federal assault weapons ban of 1994-2004). Because that’ll do it, you know. As any fool knows, it’s that eighth round which turns a gun owner from a peaceful law abiding citizen, into a murderous psychopath. Or was it the eleventh round? Honestly, I can’t even keep it straight anymore. Over at (, a poster left the following comment:

Governor Cuomo is effectively saying that while it’s not going to be allowed to walk into a school and shoot 30 children before changing magazines, it is going to be allowed to walk into a school and shoot 7 children before changing magazines.


Also, this one got my attention:

As for 7 round magazines, will anyone start manufacturing them just for sale in NY? My guess is that few companies will. Even if any are made, they’ll likely be quite expensive. That being the case, most semi-auto pistols in NY will be legally unusable. Andrew Cuomo doesn’t want to take your guns (yet), he just wants to prevent you from using them.


As one guy said…EGG-Zactly. That’s the whole point. There’s no such thing as a 7-round magazine. There are FIVE round detachable rifle magazines available for some semi-autos since several states (even those that allow hi-cap mags as a rule) prohibit hunting with anything bigger than five…and 6-round detachable magazines available for some pistols, but I’ve never heard of a 7-rounder. Many bolt action rifles use five-round feeding devices, but these are intended for hunting from long ranges where it’s unlikely the shooter will have a chance for a “follow-up shot” anyway…not defense.

As a rule, it’s unusual to run across a detachable (or fixed, for that matter) magazine for a semi auto rifle (one bullet per trigger pull) with a capacity smaller than ten rounds. I can give you three examples off the top of my head – the SKS, the Hakim, and the PSL-54c. All three use ten-round feeding devices as originally designed by their creators.


I’m suddenly reminded of the debates I’ve gotten into on Facebook and other places where some self-styled “moderate” demands to know why gun owners “need” high capacity magazines, especially the now-infamous 30 round ones that are standard equipment for most AK pattern (AK-47 and its many relatives) rifles. I have a few questions of my own for these people:

1) Why is the onus always placed on gun owners, to explain to others what they “need,” thereby justifying the reason they should be “allowed” to buy or keep it? Shouldn’t this obligation instead fall on the government (or more precisely, the gun-grabbers within it and without) to explain why they need to take it / ban sales of it? Shouldn’t it be incumbent on them to point out exactly how this move would be of any public safety benefit whatsoever?


Aren’t they the reformers, with gun owners as the defenders of the status quo? It’s like with the proposals to legalize gay marriage – I’ve never understood this nonsensical, upside-down, ass-backwards world the Left lives in, the one in which people who want things to remain as they are are required to justify their position. I thought the world worked the other way around, with those proposing a change being the ones obligated to explain their reasoning – the exact proposal, the implementation, and the benefits that are expected to follow. You don’t go around demanding that people explain to you why they think your idea won’t work or is unwise. Your job is to tell them why it’s a good one. Got that?

Furthermore, since those who ask this question can’t think of a lawful or practical use for a high capacity magazine, they immediately assume that nobody, anywhere, anytime would therefore have a need for such at thing…and since all these mags (in their minds) seem to do is enable mass shootings, we might as well ban the things.

(For my part, I’m just sick of having to stop and reload every ten seconds while plinking at the rifle range. I’m sick of having to break my concentration on the target, change mags, and take aim again. To me, that alone justifies owning a 30-round magazine, if you insist I really need a reason.)


2) Why is it always assumed that high-cap mags – 50 rounds, 30 rounds, 10 rounds, whatever – make a rifle or pistol more dangerous? Why the assumption that this maneuver is going to save lives?  Awhile back, I argued with some nitwit who suggested that Jared Loughner’s massacre at the Gabby Giffords rally in AZ only ended when it did because he had to stop shooting long enough to change magazines…at which point some bystander allegedly tackled him, bringing the rampage to an end. In the gun-grabber’s mind, this observation justifies getting rid of hi-cap mags. My response was simple:

If someone else on the scene had been armed, that person could simply have dropped Loughner with a single round to the man’s chest or head. It wouldn’t have been necessary to wait for him to stop to reload, thus allowing him to kill several more people before someone felt it was safe to attempt to tackle him. Someone could have simply shot the SOB after he’d fired his first or second round, even while he was still trying to gun down rally attendees. If you are a good guy with a gun, you don’t have to wait for the bad guy to pause. You just shoot him, regardless of whether he’s shooting or not.


(To this day, I have no concept of why nobody at that rally was armed and thus in a position to stop Loughner more quickly. Arizona doesn’t even require a concealed carry permit. It’s one of four states where any non-felon over 21 can simply stuff a loaded handgun down his pants, no questions asked.)


Moreover, it only takes a few seconds to change a magazine, even with a device in place to make it more time-consuming to do so. California requires a “bullet button” – an magazine lock which requires the use of a tool of some sort – on all centerfire rifles which use detachable mags and which have some additional cosmetic feature such as a pistol grip. In fact, we’ve got legislation in progress right now to effectively ban detachable magazines, after its author (State Senator Leland Yee (D, San Francisco)) saw a news report on TV showing AR-15 owners legally using them to safely change mags on TV. It’s frustrating that even limiting us to ten rounds AND requiring us to have these stupid little hassle-buttons on our rifles, apparently still isn’t enough for these gun grabber types.

3) Why are rifle magazines the focus of the gun control debate, when study after study shows that handguns are the murder firearm (actually the murder weapon, period) of choice, not “assault rifles” or any other sort of long arm? Is it just because the gun banners have a couple of polls which purport to show this is the form of gun control they’re going to have the easiest time getting through Congress or via executive order? Let’s cut the crap – is this really about public safety, or is it about what they think they can get by the electorate – about being able to pass something so they can claim to be serious about reducing gun crime?

Although extended mags for many models of semi-auto handguns do exist, the majority of handgun magazines hold 8 rounds or less, well under the 10 limit that most gun-control advocates want. (I won’t even get into what a mess NY’s new law is going to make for handgun owners.)

Can someone explain to me how all this is going to make a dime’s worth of difference to gun crime, instead of simply making things more difficult for the good guys? Again?



Loading Likes...

4 thoughts on “More Gun Control Idiocy

  1. nightfly

    We know the answer to your final question… the point isn’t to make crime harder or the innocent safer. That’s why the great majority of people go along with it, because it sounds pleasant. But at bottom, the law is engineered to make the legislator’s life simpler. “I did this for that reason” – and check off the box. If it has the opposite effect, it’s obviously because those who are not the legislator lack the legislator’s elevated sensibilities; very well, there are ways for those sorts of people to be further punished. Check off the next box.

    It has exactly as much to do with Sandy Hook, or the theater, or Gabby Giffords, or Columbine, than the Benghazi attack had to do with the Mohammed Video.

  2. philmon

    The logic of “7” as opposed to “6” here … I haven’t read the law but it might be because you can chamber one, eject the magazine and add another, and end up with 7 in the gun instead of the magazine capacity of 6. This configuration is often called “6+1”, or a “+1” configuration in general.

    Not that it matters. A mass shooter who for some inexplicable reason decided the one law he was going to observe was the magazine capacity law could carry multiple magazines (it doesn’t take long to change magazines) or … simply multiple guns.

    But … pssst! Shooting innocent people is already against the law, and there are stiff penalties for it. Carrying guns into “gun free zones” is also against the law, and there are penalties for that. And somehow neither of those laws seemed to stop our whackjobs.

    Neither will these.

    They’ll just make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, or reduce law-abiding citizens’ ability to repel attacks.

  3. bridget

    Why is the onus always placed on gun owners, to explain to others what they “need,” thereby justifying the reason they should be “allowed” to buy or keep it?

    The first thing I will point out is that many people do, in fact, NEED many bullets when they are being attacked by a crowd. Likewise, you need a lot of bullets when you aren’t standing up straight, shoulders back, arms in front of you, breathing evenly, aiming at a stationary target. Attackers move, try to grab the gun from you, force you into a corner (or, as of a few weeks ago, a crawl space), drag you out of your car, or do any other number of things that would necessitate using way more than seven bullets to take them down.

    That also reminds me of this passage from Atlas Shrugged:

    There was this old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. In the old days, he used to skip meals just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records – ‘personal luxury’, they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean ugly little eight-year-old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth — this was ‘medical need,’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who lived music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious anymore. But it seems like there was this one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

    Let me know how analysing everything based on your own perceptions of people’s “need” works out.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *