In particular, after reports noted that the Dayton, Ohio shooter used a 100-round magazine drum to carry out his attack, Leftists blasted the fact that Americans can buy such components and called anew dramatic limitations on the number of bullets magazines should contain.
“Anti-gun activists, the kind of people who have probably never fired a gun and have never actually studied gunfights to any degree, have been railing all about how you don’t need 100 rounds for self-defense,” Bearing Arms noted in an assessment of the new rush of anti-gun criticism.
But one GOP lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, blew apart that argument in a tweet last week.
“Some have asked, ‘who needs 100 rounds?’ If 6 brave, trained, and alert police officers with professionally maintained weapons fired 58 rounds to subdue the Dayton shooter, I’d say my wife deserves at least that many chances to protect herself and my kids when I’m not home,” he wrote.
It’s hard to argue with that point. And while others have made other arguments on behalf of such magazines, the fact is no one knows how many rounds they’re going to need in a legitimate gunfight until it’s over.
While in Afghanistan on patrol, I routinely carried 80 rounds of ammunition with me. I would have carried more, but between my helmet, body armor, and other gear, that was about the maximum amount I could carry and still be nimble enough to react to a threat. I couldn’t ever imagine an order from on high that would have limited the amount of ammunition a soldier could carry; that just wouldn’t make any sense.
So why should anyone in the civilian world think they are qualified to make that determination? How do they know how many rounds someone is going to ‘need’ when a self-defense situation arises?
Yes, a stone killer having access to a lot of rounds of ammunition makes him much more lethal, potentially. But while the Dayton shooter had a 100-round magazine in his AR-15 rifle, he didn’t kill 100 people. Not even close.
And also, there are practical reasons why we should not be concerning ourselves with limiting the number of rounds magazines can contain. If a person is willing to violate laws against murder (and perhaps any number of gun control laws already on the books) to kill others, what sense does it make to limit the amount of ammunition a person who is trying to defend himself from such an attack could or should have? (Related: Study: Weapon magazine bans do NOTHING to decrease fatal shootings, which also proves that Democrats just want to disarm us, period.)
And what about Massie’s example — how many rounds does a family member “need” in order to protect himself or herself from a home invader? Or multiple home invaders, as was the case some months ago when Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s family was besieged by angry Leftists? What would have happened to them if these crazies were armed?
Also, what’s going to happen when gun- and bullet bans don’t stop mass killings? What then? Will some lawmaker propose legislation requiring everyone to remain in their homes and never venture out in public?
We’ve been chipping away at gun rights for decades now with various gun control measures including ammo and magazine bans, background checks, and firearms purchasing limits — and none of them have worked.
How about we switch strategies and get off of gun control and start focusing more on why these attacks are occurring in the first place?