Time Could Make A Difference

Advertisement

Editor:

In answer to a writer’s assertion that banning high capacity magazines is idiocy, I would like to disagree. He thinks that slowing the Sandy Hook shooter by him having to reload more often would not have made a difference. Well, since it is reported that during one period when he was reloading at least five children were actually able to escape, that proves to me that it did make a difference. And I believe that if one of those five children were the writer’s child or grandchild, then he might think otherwise also.

The shooting at Columbine was of a much longer duration than at Sandy Hook and seemed to be more selective, whereas at Sandy Hook it was just purely a non-discriminatory massacre carried out in a bloody five-minute period. Anything that would have slowed down the number of bullets being shot could have allowed teachers to move more children to safety and to allow time for help to arrive.

And since one of the NRA’s ideas of making schools safer is having more armed guards, then shooters having to reload more often also gives those guards more time to become aware of the emergency and respond. Most school campuses are fairly large, and it could take a few minutes for a guard on the other side of the campus to even be notified and to make his way to where he can confront the shooter. Slowing that shooter down, even by just a few minutes, could save many lives. And isn’t that what our goal should be? To give the innocent victims of these shootings at least a fighting chance?

And remember, with each reload is the chance of a few seconds when the bullets have stopped and perhaps even a weapons jam (which was what allowed bystanders in Tucson to stop the Gifford shooter).

So, banning high capacity magazines can make a difference — and at least to the potential victims in Tucson and for five families in Newtown — it could possibly make all the difference in the world.

Wendy Trainor

Comments

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 6 months ago

Ms. Trainor, I can fairly see the logic in your thoughts. However, I would be interested in some substantiation of just how experienced you are in the realm of "exchanging magazines" and the time it take to do such. Had much time behind a rifle described by banners as "assault weapons"? Ever dropped a 10 rounder and replaced it with another ? Not unlike so many of our politicians who have shown their total lack of knowledge of the subject, I would suspect that your views are likewise based on limited knowledge of the subject at hand. This subject (ability to fire projectiles in volume) is a bit more convoluted than one might think on first blush. For example, the use of a shotgun, as Vice President Joe Biden suggests, loaded with 00 buckshot and fired from even a pump action (as opposed to a semi-automatic) can deliver as many, or more, than the 30 lethal projectiles in those magazines with which you have an issue.

If you haven't already, please take the opportunity to visit the Jim Jones Range some Saturday when it is open to the public, and have someone there show you the "ins and outs" of the subject on which you offer your views . I suspect you would be surprised at what you will learn. True knowledge and experience often change the views of many misconceptions.

0

don evans 1 year, 6 months ago

Look at the Boston bombing. I demand that pressure cookers be registered by the Govt., all purchasers must go through a background check. Neighborhood yard sales of pressure cookers should be banned. Anyone caught in possession of a pressure cooker without a paid for Govt. fee permit can be charged with a felony.....Makes about as much sense as the letter.

0

Dan Haapala 1 year, 6 months ago

The problem at Sandy Hook was not the guns taken illegally into the school by a madman, The problem was no one.....was there to defend the children.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 5 months ago

Ms Trainor, are you by any chance familiar with a principle of logic generally referred to as "Occam's Razor," or perhaps "Ockham's Razor?" It is a principle that says "In any argument of competing theories, the theory requiring the fewest assumptions is generally the correct one." I can give you an example of that principle in operation: Your thesis ASSUMES that smaller capacity magazines will slow (a) shooter(s) down in a massacre because he/they has/have to stop shooting in order to reload. It ASSUMES that the shooter(s) will not have obtained larger capacity magazines in spite of the law. It ASSUMES that the shooter(s) is/are not practiced in rapid magazine changes (some people can do in rapid fire without ever missing a beat). It ASSUMES that a shooter conducting a massacre for his own fun and giggles is going to have the slightest worry about the penalty for not having a politically-correct magazine. It ASSUMES that banning magazines (or guns, or any other artifact) is going to reduce the number and/or severity of massacres. That is five assumptions that must be true in order for your thesis to be true. By contrast, my thesis requires only one assumption: If the adults present have the right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be, someone can shoot the S.O.B. when he walks through the door and starts shooting. And that single assumption supports not only the thesis that the bad guy can be stopped, it also supports the thesis that any number of bad guys can be stopped. Now: A commenter up above invited you to the Jim Jones Range some Saturday (public day) so perhaps you could learn something. I invite you to the Jim Jones Range this Sunday the 28th of April, which is the Jim Jones Range Open House. Weapons will be available for you to try out -- maybe even one of the black rifles that look like "Assault Weapons" but aren't.

0

Donald Cline 1 year, 5 months ago

Wendy, I just found an article that directly addresses your suggestion that magazines should be restricted to ten rounds. This article references a police officer who found out how important adequate ammunition is in a firefight with a criminal, but the thesis defined by the article applies to anyone who carries a firearm for self-defense. At the time this incident occurred, the officer normally carried 47 rounds for his duty carry pistol and his backup pistol total. Now he carries 145 rounds every day without fail. See http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/carry-extra-ammo.htm.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.