The New Magazine Ban Bill

Carolyn McCarthy unveils gun-control bill - Shira Toeplitz - POLITICO.com:

“The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” McCarthy wrote in a letter to her colleagues that accompanied the bill. “There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.”

Here Congresswoman McCarthy makes a fundamental mistake. The general public should have gun parity, more or less, with what the bad guys are using. We do not want the good people outgunned by the bad people. Oddly enough, the bad guys often manage to get whatever they want, no matter what the laws say.

The armed citizen should have normal capacity magazines of more than ten rounds for the same reason the cops have them. These magazines are good for stopping bad guys.

Let us suppose (for one possible example) that my home is invaded by multiple gang members, armed to the teeth and intent on doing me grave harm or killing me. Here I do indeed want to "shoot as many people as quickly as possible," and my cause is legally justified. Deadly assailants may take several shots apiece before they go down, and I, like anyone, am likely to miss some of my shots under deadly pressure, so, plenty of shots on hand is good. An empty gun in that situation is not good.

Plenty of ammo is also needed when shots are being traded from behind cover. Other scenarios could be raised in which more ammo is better than less and the context is justifiable self defense.

The proposed ban on normal capacity magazines of over ten rounds reaches once again into the laundry list of pending anti-gun proposals the left always brings out when there is a high profile shooting. This measure was tried before and did no good, but here it is again. Can anyone explain?

Remember: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.