H/T Bearing Arms.
Among many efforts by anti-gunners in Congress is yet another magazine ban. They don’t like the idea of you, a private citizen, having however many rounds you want, and they’re not afraid to try and pass laws that make that so.
They had one during the assault weapon ban, of course, which did absolutely nothing, but when have they let a gun control law’s failure ever stop them from pushing for more of the same?
Yet they may need to be reminded just why such measures don’t work.
Second amendment opponents argue there is no reason anyone outside the military needs a gun magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. However, those who currently own them would be grandfathered in.
Police agencies say enforcement against person-to-person sales would be virtually impossible.
“There would be millions of them out there, so I don’t see how you would ever control that,” says Lenny Miller at Hog Heaven Houston.
And there it is.
I mean, seriously, tons of people have dozens upon dozens of such magazines. There are millions of these in circulation. Even if I bought into the idea that such a magazine ban would accomplish something, there’s literally no way to actually make it work.
Plus, that doesn’t even touch on the fact that magazines are hardly the most technically advanced items in the gun world. If we can 3D print a firearm, we can 3d print most components of a magazine easily enough. You may need to figure out something else for the spring, but that shouldn’t be overly difficult.
With all that going on, you’re not going to stop a criminal from using a standard capacity magazine. All you’re going to do is prevent a law-abiding citizen from having such things.
That is, of course, unless they already have a buttload of them on hand.
So, let’s review this for a moment:
- Tons of people already have them and will be grandfathered in.
- They’re not overly difficult to make.
- They’re not serialized in any way, making any attempt at enforcement of any person-to-person sale bans impossible to enforce.
Why, it’s almost like such a ban is completely and totally useless.
Oh, wait, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Every time they start talking about a magazine ban, they make some idiotic claims. In the above-linked post, the recount how anti-gunners think lower magazine limits will give victims time to run. Yet we’ve seen mass shootings in states with magazine limits and guess what happens? The potential victims rarely get time to run.
Magazine changes don’t take a whole lot of time, especially if no one is shooting back at you. A mass shooter can take his time and swap out a magazine in a matter of seconds. Victims aren’t going to have much opportunity to escape in that short of a window.
Of course, if they were that worried about victims, lawmakers could make it easier for good guys with guns to carry them. While that tiny window might not be enough time to escape, it may be enough time to put yourself into a position to end the threat.
What are the odds of that happening?