Come on, Frank. Sometimes we simply misspeak. You’re going to let that, in a case where you know the man knows what he’s talking about (you think he came from Chicago’s south side without knowing a little about guns?) trump the reality of what we know about our society’s gun situation? I like my leaders to be articulate, too. I think I proved that from 2000-2008. And I don’t want government acting out of ignorance. But, not to put too fine a point on it, there’s a difference between making a typo and not knowing how to spell potato. (more…)
”…when it’s that easy to get these high clip magazines that can fire off hundreds of shots in a few minutes…”
In a nutshell, this is why I remain opposed to gun control at this time. When the political leaders that advocate for it cannot even address the subject intelligibly, this is not the time to have that debate. I don’t care that one can read between the lines to see what he’s trying to get at. The fact is, that string of words is gibberish.
“High clip magazine” WTF?
“[T]that can fire off”… What? No, sorry. The magazine doesn’t fire.
And no, I don’t think I’m splitting hairs. If there is a legitimate argument to be made for a restriction on high-capacity magazines, then it needs to be made intelligently. Full stop. Less than that, and what we are witnessing is more loaded speech and rank emotional appeal. FEAR THE HIGH CLIP MAGAZINE THAT FIRES HUNDREDS OF ROUNDS IN A FEW MINUTES.
FWIW, if I’m not trying to hit a particular target (read: just spraying ammo downrange willy-nilly), about the fastest I could go would be 100 rounds in 1 minute if I were using 30-round magazines, allowing for very fast changes of magazines and chambering the first rounds of the new ones.
How many rounds could I fire using 10-round magazines (again, assuming *very* fast magazine changes)? 80. This I have tested by simply going through the motions, which assumes zero fumbling with ejecting a spent mag, zero fumbling getting a fresh mag out of a pouch, zero fumbling with inserting the fresh mag, and zero issues with jams, i.e., an absolutely ideal use of a semi-auto rifle.
Not only would the actual numbers be lower once ideal/imaginary circumstances are replaced with reality, note the degree of rank emotional appeal. In a “few minutes,” one could still fire off hundreds of rounds with 10-round magazines, ergo, the argument is *not* about magazine capacity. It’s rank politics, pure and simple.
If anyone cares to fund the expense of hundreds of rounds of ammo, a dozen 30-round mags, 36 10-round mags, and suitable web gear/pouches, I’d be more than happy to test this count in real life, using a real weapon, and post the results as a video.
And they should want to read it expansively. A common talking point among gun enthusiasts is that the Second Amendment provides the people with the means to protect their other rights. But what’s the use of having arms to protect rights you don’t believe in? You can hardly claim to be defending the First Amendment in one breath, after all, when you’re demanding Piers Morgan’s deportation in the next.
All in all, Hinkle offers up a well-balanced argument. This is excellent reading, regardless of one’s political leanings, as it invites all parties to really consider the unintended consequences of cherry-picking our freedoms.
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.
Data for all permit categories, unrestricted carry, premises, business, employment, target and hunting, is included, but permit information is not available on an individual basis.
To create the map, The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record.
The level level of journalist malfeasance in this action just staggers the mind. Regardless of one’s sentiments pertaining to gun control and Second Amendment rights, it should be clear to anyone that this is worse than a mere witchhunt, intended to stigmatize individuals, even entire locales.
“Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.”
Tongue-in-cheek caveat be damned. The Journal News has created a treasure map for evil-doers. The lion’s share of an arms-minded burglar’s casing has been done for them. They know where the goods are likely to be. It would be no difficult challenge to scope out an address until assured that nobody is home. After all, home defense only works when the domicile is occupied, right?
If so much as one person, one child, should die from a gunshot wound sustained from a round discharged from a weapon permitted to an owner identified by name and address on these maps that, subsequent to December 22, 2012, goes missing, the blood is on the hands of whatever brain trust at The Journal News decided that this was a good idea.
For those that think this kind of authorized invasion of privacy in the so-called public interest is a fine idea, I might suggest a word: complicity.