Monday, July 23, 2012

The mass-murderer's best friend

The nation is mourning yet another mass murder from a crazed gunman. This tragedy has so far claimed the lives of 12 victims. Another 58 people were wounded. A mind-boggling 70 people felled in just a few minutes.

Like earlier gun tragedies in Blacksburg and Tuscon, the gunman had a high-capacity ammunition magazine. In this case, a 100-round drum magazine.

These types of magazines were outlawed from 1994 to 2004 but are now again available to mass murderers.

Two bills--H.R. 308 and S. 32--would put the common-sense restrictions on high-capacity magazines back in place.

High-capacity magazines serve no purpose other than to mow down large numbers of people. They are a mass-murder's best friend.


Collards said...

Thank you.

Jeri Johnson said...

Magazine laws?

There are much easier ways to kill a lot of people than with large magazines.

Muslim Extremists know this. They find bombs strapped on their bodies or otherwise left in populated areas far more efficient than large magazines. Such bombs are generally illegal yet the laws are ineffective.

Such laws do not stop individuals do to the fact that laws are directed not at individuals, but populations in general. Laws are, thus, ineffectual on the individual level.

What can stop an individual intent on mass murder? Only another individual because only an individual can affect change on the individual level.

Turning back to laws being ineffectual on the individual level: While law is undeniably ineffectual on the individual level it is quite effective in curbing the liberty of the law abiding. And that is the intent of the American liberal who prefers the cowards path to Marx, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism... well name your ism that elevates the state above the individual liberty.

Dave Ribar said...


Riiight, Muslim extremists would never, ever use high-capacity magazines in a terrorist attack.

Also, what legitimate liberty is curbed if high-capacity magazines are outlawed? Self-defense against zombie hoards?

Jeri Johnson said...

Liberty fights a two front war.

One with the brutishness of nature for there is no liberty without governance.

And the other being with the brutishness of tyranny for there is no liberty under a tyranny.

Under the Articles of Confederation we risked losing liberty to too little government. While today we risk losing liberty to too much governance.

Firearms serve to protect liberty in the event either of those extremes are met.

Unfortunately we are plagued with free riders of liberty. They are the free riders who are willing to trade liberty for the appearance of safety on the pretext that governance is moral. And they trade on the backs of those those who recognize there is no example of governmental morality, that morality is the sole province is the individual and as such liberty can ultimately be defended only by the individual.

Dave Ribar said...


Alex Sullivan, John Larimer, Jessica Ghawi, Micayla Medek, Jon Blunk, Alex Teves, Alexander Boik, Gordon Cowden, Rebecca Wingo, Matt McQuinn, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, and Jesse Childress won't be enjoying any liberty whatsoever today. Put another way, life is the necessary precursor for all other liberties.

The only liberty that you ask for is the liberty to mow down more victims.

Ray Rimmer said...

Small tactical NUCLEAR WEAPONS must remain protected for private possession and use, and may be easily purchased on eBay using free speech (aka money). If a theatre patron had a STNW in her purse, she could have used it to stop that nutcase before he emptied his machine guns. The floundering frothers meant for STNWs to be available to ALL, and used if George Washington's revenuers got near your still. Just sayin.'

mergatroyd said...

A different perspective.
On the issue of high capacity magazines, the round drum type are among the last reliable. Jamming is quite often the norm. One cannot depend on one of those to function reliably. Guns are not the only means of harming others available to the mentally unstable.

Dave Ribar said...


The Sowell column addresses restrictions on high-capacity magazines how?

Also, if drum-type magazines are prone to jamming doesn't that lessen the rationale for a defensive use? Essentially you are arguing that a rational person wouldn't rely on them, so only nut jobs like the Aurora shooter or rubes would purchase them.

It should be noted that H.R. 308 and S. 32 would have also restricted the high-capacity clips that the shooter used in his Glocks.

Jeri Johnson said...


I could list the names of citizens saved by firearms used by individual citizens against armed individuals intent on doing harm. Armed police intervene in a similar manner 20 minutes late on a regular basis. The list of those saved by firearms is far longer than those who wrongfully die from them.

The question of whether the 2nd is a deadly right is a good one.

I don't believe any right is deadly, neither do I believe firearms or magazines to be deadly. I do, however, believe citizens are capable of being dangerous as well as deadly. With that understanding it is obvious that removing the tools of dangerous citizens does not remove the danger, as the dangerous citizen is the source of danger.

The most rational course of action if one truly wished to remove the dangerous element is to remove dangerous citizens while allowing those who are at the receiving end of danger to protect their well being during that time that the authorities can not. Disarming the victim would be inhumane.

Ribar: "The only liberty that you ask for is the liberty to mow down more victims."

This says much of your opinion of your fellow citizen. On the whole I trust my fellow citizens more than I distrust them. I do not believe Americans desire to do harm to one another or to me, however I accept a small percentage do. Furthermore, I on the whole believe my fellow citizen to be rational (something I would think would come easy to an economist) and that of the small percentage who wish to do harm to another, a large percentage will not do so for fear of the consequences.

The result is that I trust my fellow American where you clearly do not. What empty creature must you be to trust a cold inhuman government over living, feeling human citizens? What emptiness drives you to disarm would be victims?Search your heart, your soul, and find the humanity within that will allow you to trust your fellow citizen rather than the soulless government you seem more inclined to not only entrust your well being to, but force others to entrust their well being to as well.

As for the liberty you claim I ask for, "the right to mow down victims", that is a liberty currently held by those who are "free to choose" and likely defended by you.

However, the rights I am endowed by my creator, I defend. It is my right to defend my being, my family's being, and my citizens' being (even the free loaders like yourself)from harm whether that harm stem from the natural, other citizens or tyranny.

This is a right that is preexisting; it is not a right I ask for.

Ray Rimmer said...

Reading this last post, I am simply reminded that violence takes many forms. And different folks seem to revel in different forms. "free loaders like yourself"? "What empty creature must you be..."? I hope Jeri finds a good handball partner. Good place to get out some aggression. Sure glad I grew up in the 1950s. We dealt with polio still, but this new disease of loving guns and demonizing fellow citizens wasn't so widespread. "I like Ike" still. And the civility that defined the GOP then. These 100-round drums -- extra-long clips for Glocks like the AZ boy used -- I wish Ike and Goldwater were alive to weigh in on this foolishness. Those two great men would likely laugh and say "Are you kidding me?"

Jeri Johnson said...

I do not believe it is aggressive to point out the unhealthy link between finding solace in trusting one's well being to inanimate governance over living individuals to the coldness of heart required of one who would disarm potential victims to human predators. In each case the liberal anti-gun argument is based on inhumanity.

The fact is that it is out of my mentally healthy trust in those real living beings that make up the citizenry that I trust my well being to them and it is out of my love for them that I defend their right to bear arms in self defense.

Neither do I believe it aggressive to ask if one is a free loader if they do not wish to defend their personal well being, the well being of others or the liberty of all when others do.

I do not consider any of these lines of thought aggressive. What I find not only aggressive but cold and inhuman is arguing for the disarming of potential victims to human predators as if they were no more than cats to be de-clawed and thrown to the wild.

Joe said...

Mr. Johnson, you are an idiot. No one here has argued anything to which you're objecting. The Second Amendment doesn't mean any of the things you've said. Please be quiet.

Jeri Johnson said...

Joe, I do no believe you understand how this game is played.

I not only responded to the arguments made by others, but I raised all commenters here one of my own -- that disarming the citizenry is fundamentally immoral, inhuman, and indicative of a form of mental illness that favors trust in the inanimate nature of governance over trust in the real individuals of the citizenry and that that mental illness has a parallel in the necessary dehumanization of potential victims that must occur before one can disarm them in the face of possible victimization.

Example: If one can not justify de-clawing a cat and casting it to the wild yet can justify doing the same to a human via questioning the right to bear arms, then that individual must first dehumanized those potential disarmed victims their argument creates.

You are free to reply to my argument or formulate one of your own if you are able, but you add little with your unsubstantiated declaratives and silly demands for quite.

Ray Rimmer said...

FORGET extra-long Glock ammo clips and 100-round assault rifle drums. "Not a problem!" EUREKA! ULTIMATE DETERRENT! That little plutonium device a gal can carry in her purse! IF anybody would have had one in that Tucson parking lot... Hey, the very THOUGHT that someone MIGHT have a S.T.N.D. would assure that boy would not have showed up with a weeny Glock, or a Thompson even! assured. darn. Lost my train of thought. Doncha hate it when that happens.