Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Illinois Attempts to Limit Ammunition Magazine Capacity

May 21, 2013

DK: My bill will " ... minimize the damage" the magazines can cause. ... the legislation a "perfect blend" of gun rights and public safety. When a gunman uses a high-capacity magazine, "you have real-life, dead bodies," Thank you to all my colleagues who voted to pass it out of Executive Committee.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-legislature-0521-20130521,0,5605012.story





— Grieving parents of children killed at a Connecticut elementary school gave haunting testimony about their lost sons Monday as they tried to persuade the Illinois Senate to approve a ban on the sale of high-capacity gun magazines in Illinois.
www.chicagotribune.com

JO: please focus on jobs...................

RG: Senator, this kind of law will only apply to already law abiding citizens. Criminals and mentally deranged people do not follow these laws when they are intent on causing harm. I think a focus on addressing the eradication of the criminal elements and mental health issues is a more common sense approach.

CR: Criminals will not follow magazine restrictions.

JC-N: Powerful work. We are all indebted to you, Senator.


ME: I strongly disagree!

" ... minimize the damage" the magazines can cause”? Magazines and firearms don’t cause damage. People do. Sometimes they use firearms – just like the myriad of other ‘tools’ they can and do use. I hate resorting to this because it rarely advances the debate, but the comparison is sound – how will we deal with pressure cookers? Ban them outright or limit them in capacity (volume) so when they’re used to make bombs they won’t be as large? Pressure cookers aren’t designed to kill people? Neither are magazines. Magazines are designed to feed ammunition into firearms. Firearms are designed to shoot targets. A person determines if that target is a person, an animal, an object or a piece of paper.

"perfect blend" of gun rights and public safety”? The opposite, actually. This is an assault on 2nd Amendment “gun” rights and is harmful to public safety.

Murder is already a crime and it’s done anyway – with firearms and other tools. Conspiring to murder is a crime and mass murderers plan and prepare their activities for months – sometimes singly but sometimes in groups, as with Columbine and the Boston Marathon Bombing.

Our US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled the 2nd Amendment extends to individuals and includes an individual’s right to defend himself. By further extension that includes family, property and others. It’s also been ruled that law enforcement does not have the responsibility to protect citizens. They cannot be everywhere they are needed and cannot be held liable for not being there in time to protect or save anyone nor can they be held liable for not risking their own lives in defense of others’. That leaves a person’s self-defense as their personal responsibility. Some people accept this responsibility for themselves, their families, their communities and their property through firearms ownership and carrying of firearms. Others hope for the best and put blind faith in organizations that, again, cannot be everywhere they’re needed and are not responsible for protecting them. “Protect and Serve” is window dressing and an idealistic view that does not exist in reality. More than 500 people killed by people (using firearms) in Chicago alone were not “protected” in 2012.

The average number of rounds fired in a crime is 4, therefore a 10-round magazine capacity limit will have no effect on normal, violent crime where guns are used.

Magazine capacity limits will not affect mass murder because somewhere between 10s and 100s of millions of them are already in circulation and cannot be tracked. You cannot prevent purchasing magazines exceeding 10-rounds of capacity from other jurisdictions. You cannot prevent their manufacture in basements or garages with basic metalworking skills – their designs are simple. You cannot prevent “printing” them with 3D printers. These magazines have already been “printed” and demonstrated as being functional. They exist today. (This predates and is a different issue than the recently publicized “Liberator” printed plastic handgun.)

Magazine capacity makes virtually no difference to someone who is practiced at changing magazines. Mass murderers plan their activities for months. They’re the ones prepared for the event. Everyone else is taken by surprise and is reacting. Criminals can obtain or manufacture the magazines they want and practice magazine changes. Here are 2 videos showing how quickly magazines can be changed and why capacity limits are ineffective for a determined killer. Note the 2nd one was produced by a law enforcement officer for the purpose of demonstrating this. Also note, at the beginning of the 2nd video, when we discuss magazines with capacities up to 30 rounds, we’re NOT talking about so-called “high capacity” magazines. These are “standard capacity” magazines – designed for use with their corresponding firearms by the manufacturer. When talking about 50-200 round magazines then we’re in the “high capacity” range. From the 30-range and downward is a political invention and intentionally misleading propaganda.

Magazine capacity limits only affect and endanger law abiding people. Military servicemen and law enforcement officers will always carry more than 10 rounds in their pistol magazines. Pistols are used primarily for defensive purposes in the military (excluding special operations). Officers’ pistols are not for “assault” – they’re for defending the lives of the officers and others. They carry more than 10 because the criminal is only limited by their planning and preparation – not by ridiculous laws in addition to the ones they’re already breaking. Citizens need the same rights, capabilities and lack of restrictions that law enforcement officers do simply for defense of self, others and property.

There have been many statistics published about the “hit rate” of bullets fired. One statistic is that New York City police officers have a 17% hit rate. Politicians and people want to put faith in the training and professionalism of law enforcement officers – who are not responsible for protecting us and have a 17% hit rate in spite of their training. Many things affect shooting accuracy in an emergency situation – training, proficiency, surprise, mental preparedness, shock, adrenaline, body perspiration, increased heart rate, moving targets, one’s own movement, fear, cover or concealment, shooting positions, etc. We can’t expect better performance from an armed citizen. Even in a short engagement we cannot expect high, target shooting accuracy because many of those complicating factors exist. Armed citizens therefore need the same ammunition supply available to them as does a law enforcement officer. The criminal has all the ammunition they want.

It sometimes takes more than 10 rounds to end an engagement or turn away a determined attack. Earlier this year a woman in Georgia defended herself and children in their home. She emptied her 6-shot revolver at point-blank range at a single intruder. Five of the 6 hit the intruder in the face and neck and he still walked out and drove away. http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/ That’s 6 shots for a single intruder and he still wasn’t killed! What if there were multiple attackers? Here’s a recent story where there were 3: http://www.khou.com/home/Resident-shoots-robber-during-gunbattle-in-southwest-Houston-207431391.html Here’s a dramatization showing a realistic home invasion scenario: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/shock-video-makes-case-for-high-capacity-magazines/ It’s an empty argument to say this shows 7 (New York) and Illinois (and other states) are considering 10 or 15 (Colorado). The scenario shows 2 attackers, not 3 or more. It shows that not every round will hit its intended target; a round-limit will endanger the law abiding person defending themselves without the luxury of planning, preparation and magazine changes; that multiple attackers dramatically increases the need for more rounds for defensive purposes; etc. Here’s an article about a police officer shot 12 times who was still alive, conscious and functioning: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584049/obama-honors-cops-renews-push-for-stronger-gun-laws/ Do you think criminals are not capable of the same resolve? Obviously the criminal here had more than 10 rounds and it’s extremely unlikely he was limited to 12 and 100% of them hit the officer. I can’t answer how many were fired by the criminal. How many could the criminal have fired? As many as he had – unlimited by any arbitrary magazine capacity limit.

There are some well-intending politicians who think they’re benefiting public safety. They’re misguided and fail to realize the real implications of their actions. Others are exploiting tragic events to continue their decades-long assault on 2nd Amendment rights because they don’t like or are afraid of guns or are driven by emotions rather than logic, data, statistics and real world events showing the folly of their proposals. Some of these politicians and gun control advocates actually do want guns confiscated and banned, as shown here: http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/05/no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns-except.html Some think they’ll save lives through magazine capacity limits and eagerly point to Tucson and Newtown (magazine changes). They also ignore the realities of Columbine, Virginia Tech and Fort Hood where magazine changes didn’t interrupt the killing. But they’ll never be able to name the specific person who was definitively saved by such legislation because too many other factors will prevent that specific knowledge. Here’s my question for them. Will they take personal responsibility for the person who can be named, who dies with an empty 10-round magazine they were trying to defend themselves with? Will they lose sleep and openly embrace that person’s family survivors, fully accepting that that person’s innocent blood is on their hands? If they can attempt to claim credit for saving a life through legislation then they must accept that their legislation will cause loss of life. If they blame guns and magazines for killing people instead of the person behind the gun then they must equally blame their arbitrary magazine capacity limit for loss of life.

Emotions need to be taken out of the decision making process. What do psychologists tell patients about making major decisions after suffering a traumatic event? Don’t do it. What do friends and colleagues tell people about acting while in a state of emotional anxiety? Don’t do it. Don’t send the email, tell off the boss or co-worker, or “drunk-dial” the ex-lover. That’s what gun control advocating politicians are doing – drunk-legislating. That and exploiting victims to forward their anti-gun agenda. The testimony of victims and their families is little but emotional exploitation. I don’t blame them for their deep feelings of grief or anger. But for many of them it’s misplaced. These people should NOT have a ‘seat at the table’ when discussing 2nd Amendment rights – as was granted by Vice President Biden and the legislatures of Colorado, Illinois and others. Their loss is severe, but their grief does NOT give them expertise at anything – not lawmaking, crime, violence, firearms knowledge or functionality or use, training, tactics, psychology, the economics of supply and demand – in short, nothing pertinent. It’s shameful when they’re invited by gun control politicians to testify. There are plenty of people, including victims and family members of Columbine and other violent crime, who feel and believe exactly the opposite of gun control advocating victims. Where’s their equal consideration? Some of them have testified at various hearings. But are they given equal consideration? Not just equal time, but equal consideration? How many gun rights supporting victims were invited by politicians to attend the State of the Union, or aboard Air Force One and then given personal escorts through the halls of Congress to advocate for their positions or to stand behind President Obama and show their dissent when he signed 23 executive orders? How many gun rights victims did the Illinois legislature invite to testify in committee hearings? I’ve seen various estimates of 600,000 to 2.5 million uses of firearms annually for self-defense and to prevent crime. There are lots to choose from.

Incidentally, the statement in this article about this Illinois bill, “ "learned the brutal truth" of what happens when a killer chooses a high-capacity magazine to achieve the "best kill rate as possible." ” has evidence to the contrary. In the case of Newtown the shooter had multiple 30-round magazines, 6 I believe. In the physical evidence it was found that some of the magazines still had several rounds in them. The killer changed magazines without exhausting each one’s supply, suggesting he didn’t attempt or achieve the “best kill rate” because he chose to pause his shooting for those changes instead of getting the most from his supply. Also, in the Aurora shooting the killer used a high capacity drum that jammed. Those actual “high capacity” ammunition feeding devices, like drums, are notorious for jamming. The reality in Aurora is that injury and death were probably REDUCED because he chose to use a “high capacity” drum.

DK: Gentlemen, thanks for writing and expressing your point of view but I completely disagree with you. The reason criminals get access to high capacity ammunition magazines is because of the gun industry that makes and sells them. These high capacity magazines did not appear out of nowhere. Children are dying and we need to start worrying about their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Best, Dan


  • CR: Black market.
    RG: Senator, I strongly agree that we should be worrying about a child's right to life. On gun violence, did you do a study on the demographics of the shooters? Were they law abiding gun owners? Did you survey them to find out how they acquired the weapons and magazines? Was it by legal methods? If not, did you query them if they had any concerns about breaking the law before they made the decision to do it?
  • The City of Chicago does not have a gun problem...it has a criminal problem. The same goes for Illinois and the United States.
    The criminal act is criminal not the tool. Look at FBI stats and you will see that the one thing that people who kill others have in common is the will to kill, not the weapon. For example, one could argue that Kermit Gosnell used scissors to murder his victims en mass...Where is the outrage against the manufacturer of the devices that he used?
  • DK: RG, You are a good man and a friend but you are kidding, right? Comparing scissors to guns? Actually, what is common is that in acts of gun violence, the use of semi-automatic weapons with high capacity ammunition magazines prevails. It didn't use to be the case until the gun industry made the deliberate, unregulated decision to switch from six-shot revolvers to semi-automatic pistols with high capacity magazines. How is it that when we talk about guns, the often cited response is that it is only the criminals fault? That the people who make and sell the guns bear no responsibility whatsoever for getting the guns in criminals hands? Look, the gun industry is the last unregulated consumer industry in the entire US of A. The manufacturing of toys and teddy bears is more regulated than the manufacturing of guns and ammunition magazines. The AR-15 rifle that was used against those children and teachers in the massacre at Newtown is now available as a pistol that shoots high-powered, rifle-caliber ammunition. Regarding mental health, please review my record to see what I have done to try and keep our families safe from dangerous people from guns. Please know RG that I respect your opinion and will do my best to protect your rights but also know that I will not waver in my battle against an industry that faces few checks and balances, and thrives on continued lethality and destruction. Take care. Best, DK














ME: I'm not familiar with a pistol version of the AR-15 but it neither surprises nor alarms me. Firearms are not inherently evil. They are used for life-saving and providing safety and security and other lawful purposes exponentially more often than they're used to take lives.

"High-powered rifle-caliber ammunition" is more misleading propaganda. AR-15s in particular come in 2-3 different rifle calibers that I'm aware of. Other so-called "assault weapons" add a few more calibers. Sticking to the AR-15, the most talked about of them and the most popularly sold sporting and self defense rifle, the calibers are mostly .22 long rifle and .223 (a.k.a. 5.56 mm). These are among the LOWEST power rifle calibers.

("Assault weapon" is a politically invented term that does NOT equate to a military "assault rifle", a fully-automatic rifle or machine gun, or even a rifle in use by the military - more false propaganda.)

Gun control advocates commonly state that AR-15s are not used for hunting. That's both untrue and misleading. They are used for hunting - small game, like wolves, coyotes and smaller. The reason they're not used for big game, like deer and heavier, is that they're NOT POWERFUL enough and have been outlawed by many states for that use. They can certainly kill a deer but they're more likely to wound them. AR-15s are also used in self defense, contrary to what gun control advocates would have people believe. There have been 2 incidents just this year that I'm aware of and there's the well-known incident during the post-Rodney King Los Angeles riots.

While "scissors control" does sound silly, it's not as far from reality as one might think. The United Kingdom (England and Wales only) banned firearms and murder by use of guns did go down but overall violent crime dramatically increased (because citizens no longer had the means to defend themselves). Some of that crime is still by use of guns but knife crime is particularly high. Now the UK has "knife control". A British citizen is not allowed to walk the streets with a lock-blade Buck knife that we all take for granted and consider a tool more than a weapon. In England it's considered a dangerous and illegal weapon. Incidentally, when Australia banned and confiscated firearms their gun murders actually increased (because citizens no longer had the means to defend themselves).

You blame the gun industry for the creation and proliferation of semi-automatic firearms and their "standard capacity" magazines of more than 10 rounds? Let's put things in perspective. Semi-automatic firearms technology, including in pistols, has been around for 100 years. A popular handgun is the M1911 style. It's been around since ~1911. So the technology and basic design have been long established and sought after by military forces, law enforcement agencies and for consumer use. The larger magazine capacities were likely not driven by gun industry profiteering, as you imply, but by demand from military and police forces because they needed the additional capacity for their own defensive purposes. As I've already stated, citizens need the same capability that law enforcement does - we face the same threats.

Not everything needs to be regulated. Not even every death or means of death needs to be regulated. You cannot save or protect everyone and it's insane to even try. The answer to every problem cannot be more laws, more regulations and more money. Freedom is a pretty valuable thing but it comes with a tolerance and acceptance of risk. As for as overall regulation goes, I'm not sure the gun industry qualifies as the last consumer industry that's unregulated and it's certainly the case that some of the regulation that does exist regulates the wrong things or in the wrong way. There's plenty of low hanging fruit in other needed areas without infringing on our rights.

===
Just hours after posting the last message I checked back on Illinois Senator DK's Facebook page and found that all 3 of my posts (labeled "ME", above and now in italics) had been deleted and that I had been prohibited from making any more comments on his page. (The first, long post here was broken into 2 on his Facebook page because FB wouldn't accept it in a single post.) I guess, like all outspoken gun control advocates, he was uncomfortable with being faced with a strong dissenting opinion and with facts that don't support his "infringing" intent and legislation - and that he wasn't really being honest, above, when he wrote "thanks for writing and expressing your point of view". Perhaps more importantly, it appears he was uncomfortable with the idea that anyone else could read opposing ideas. It's so much easier to push illogical, ineffective, ideological legislation when it's only your (misleading, inaccurate, lying) propaganda that gets heard, isn't it? I think he was being completely honest when he wrote "I completely disagree with you".

So far my comment on his page for a previous post remains, although I asked 3 specific questions of how citizens' rights will be protected in the context of proposed gun control legislation that still remain unanswered and unacknowledged.

This Senator is someone I have a shared background with. We went to high school together.

===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs

No comments:

Post a Comment