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.